Still in Jail
Lisa Pease
While we bandy words here, it would behoove us to remember that for two
people, this is not past history at all. Both James Earl Ray, now near
death, and Sirhan Bishara Sirhan remain in jail for crimes they proveably
did not commit.
We focus on the John Kennedy assassination, which IS important, and which
can frankly tell us a lot about these other two cases. But the same is
true in reverse as well.
There are some very interesting parallels between James Earl Ray and
Oswald, for example. At least one person and more likely several were
impersonating "Lee Oswald" in the 60's. James Earl Ray himself
impersonated four different real people during his short jail-free time.
This isn't just borrowing a name; this is about borrowing identities.
James Earl Ray, for example, not only used the name of Eric Galt, he bore
a remarkable resemblance to him, as he did the other three men whose
names he used.
In the Sirhan case, he was sighted at a shooting range, just as Oswald
was, prior to the assassination. All three left "diaries", we are to
believe. All three were violent, anti-social men, we were told, even
though people who knew them in all three cases deny this to be true. All
three were originally painted as Communists. Some still try to paint
Oswald with that brush today, a rather ludicrous effort in light of all
the evidence that he was instead a spook/informer on such. In Sirhan's
case, it was Mayor Yorty who proclaimed on day one that Sirhan was
affiliated with Communists, citing an anti-Castro Cuban exile Jose
Duarte. Early press accounts linked James Earl Ray to Soviet spies who
had come through Canada (since Ray had spent some time there).
None were given fair trials. Oswald was shot before he had his day in
court. Ray was conned into signing a guilty plea and giving only the
window dressings of a mock trial. And Sirhan's lawyer's sold him down the
river, not even contesting in court a notebook which Sirhan declared
contained writing that did not come from his hand, a notebook which was
illegally seized by the police. Day one stories mentioned that the
District Attorney feared Mayor Yorty's disclosure of this would open a
case for an appeal for Sirhan, whatever the verdict. But his lawyers just
let this one go, as they did so much of the exculpatory ballistic
evidence that Grant Cooper skillfully managed to keep out of the trial.
Is it just coincidence that Cooper had, just prior to representing
Sirhan, represented one of the kingpins of the CIA's Castro assassination
plots, Johnny Rosselli?
Sirhan pleaded guilty without having any memory of that which he pled
guilty of. Everyone told him he had shot RFK, so he just believed it. But
in fact the ballistics evidence shows he could not have. And wait... just
wait... til you hear what the LAPD did to keep this evidence from
scrutiny. That's a story for another time.
The parallels between these three cases are many. All three have been
written about by the same group of people - George and Priscilla Johnson
McMillan, Gerald Posner (moving from the JFK to the MLK case), Dan Moldea
(who thanks Walter Sheridan at the start of his Sirhan-did-it book),
Blakey and Billings (who recently weighed in with why Ray shouldn't be
given another trial) and so forth. These people have relationships with
intelligence (PMJ's CIA file lists her as a "witting collaborator") and
repeat each other's lies with alarming repetition.
If you look at what the CIA was doing in the years prior to and following
this part of our history, you will find that the CIA had a campaign to
wipe out all the prominent leftists in Guatemala on the heels of their
successful coup there. You will find that in Vietnam, the infamous
Phoenix program was used to systematically behead, one by one, prominent
and suspected leftist leaders in that country.
Is it so difficult to see that we lost the leaders of the left in this
country in a similar strategic effort? It is if you live in the media's
Disneyland version of America. But for those who comb the records of the
past with diligence (and fortitude, as this is not easy to stomach), the
truth is dark and haunting. And looming on the far reaches of our
consciousness is our pending decision about whether or not we will allow two
more people to be sacrificed at the altar of false god of National Security.
--
Lisa Pease
"It is as if the final price for winning the Cold War is our confinement
to a permanent childhood where reassuring fantasies and endless
diversions protect us from the hard truth of our own recent history."
--Robert Parry, THE CONSORTIUM, 2/17/97
Check out my Real History Archives @ www.webcom.com/lpease
Visit the site of Probe Magazine at www.webcom.com/ctka
Michael Beck
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:36:51 GMT, lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
wrote:
>While we bandy words here, it would behoove us to remember that for two
>people, this is not past history at all. Both James Earl Ray, now near
>death, and Sirhan Bishara Sirhan remain in jail for crimes they proveably
>did not commit.
>
Wrong. They were both guilty. We're lucky that these killers didn't
have a jury as ignorant as the OJ jury to let them get away with the
crime.
>We focus on the John Kennedy assassination, which IS important, and which
>can frankly tell us a lot about these other two cases. But the same is
>true in reverse as well.
No, this is your typical twisted logic. These cases don't have
anything to do with each other. Are you suggesting that the same
killers killed all three men? Ludicrous.
>
>There are some very interesting parallels between James Earl Ray and
>Oswald, for example. At least one person and more likely several were
>impersonating "Lee Oswald" in the 60's. James Earl Ray himself
>impersonated four different real people during his short jail-free time.
>This isn't just borrowing a name; this is about borrowing identities.
>James Earl Ray, for example, not only used the name of Eric Galt, he bore
>a remarkable resemblance to him, as he did the other three men whose
>names he used.
You throw out wacky theories like old ladies throw around bird seed at
the park.
>
>In the Sirhan case, he was sighted at a shooting range, just as Oswald
>was, prior to the assassination. All three left "diaries", we are to
>believe. All three were violent, anti-social men, we were told, even
>though people who knew them in all three cases deny this to be true. All
>three were originally painted as Communists. Some still try to paint
>Oswald with that brush today, a rather ludicrous effort in light of all
>the evidence that he was instead a spook/informer on such. In Sirhan's
>case, it was Mayor Yorty who proclaimed on day one that Sirhan was
>affiliated with Communists, citing an anti-Castro Cuban exile Jose
>Duarte. Early press accounts linked James Earl Ray to Soviet spies who
>had come through Canada (since Ray had spent some time there).
No we're getting somewhere. I maintain the reason that you, Pearl,
Dearon and the other radical leftists in this newsgroup are
*convinced* of a conspiracy is because a commie did it. You just
can't bear the thought that someone who likely agreed with you about
political issues killed JFK. By the way, by all accounts, JFK was a
committed anti-communist and would have ripped a symp like you a new
you-know-what in a debate if you tried to stick up for a tyrant like
Castro.
>
>None were given fair trials. Oswald was shot before he had his day in
>court. Ray was conned into signing a guilty plea and giving only the
>window dressings of a mock trial. And Sirhan's lawyer's sold him down the
>river, not even contesting in court a notebook which Sirhan declared
>contained writing that did not come from his hand, a notebook which was
>illegally seized by the police. Day one stories mentioned that the
>District Attorney feared Mayor Yorty's disclosure of this would open a
>case for an appeal for Sirhan, whatever the verdict. But his lawyers just
>let this one go, as they did so much of the exculpatory ballistic
>evidence that Grant Cooper skillfully managed to keep out of the trial.
Lisa, you are an apologist for three killers. Did you defend OJ too??
Any other famous killers get your support as well?
>
>Is it just coincidence that Cooper had, just prior to representing
>Sirhan, represented one of the kingpins of the CIA's Castro assassination
>plots, Johnny Rosselli?
CIA *and* Kennedy assassination plots Lisa. And don't forget that RFK
was a big proponent of Castro's disappearance also.
>
>Sirhan pleaded guilty without having any memory of that which he pled
>guilty of. Everyone told him he had shot RFK, so he just believed it. But
>in fact the ballistics evidence shows he could not have. And wait... just
>wait... til you hear what the LAPD did to keep this evidence from
>scrutiny. That's a story for another time.
Right. He was innocent. Most everyone else in prison is also (if you
listen to them).
>
>The parallels between these three cases are many. All three have been
>written about by the same group of people - George and Priscilla Johnson
>McMillan, Gerald Posner (moving from the JFK to the MLK case), Dan Moldea
>(who thanks Walter Sheridan at the start of his Sirhan-did-it book),
>Blakey and Billings (who recently weighed in with why Ray shouldn't be
>given another trial) and so forth. These people have relationships with
>intelligence (PMJ's CIA file lists her as a "witting collaborator") and
>repeat each other's lies with alarming repetition.
You repeat the same old lies in the Probe without shame.
>
>If you look at what the CIA was doing in the years prior to and following
>this part of our history, you will find that the CIA had a campaign to
>wipe out all the prominent leftists in Guatemala on the heels of their
>successful coup there. You will find that in Vietnam, the infamous
>Phoenix program was used to systematically behead, one by one, prominent
>and suspected leftist leaders in that country.
And in the US, prominent leftist leaders became.... President and
Mrs. Clinton.
>
>Is it so difficult to see that we lost the leaders of the left in this
>country in a similar strategic effort? It is if you live in the media's
>Disneyland version of America. But for those who comb the records of the
>past with diligence (and fortitude, as this is not easy to stomach), the
>truth is dark and haunting. And looming on the far reaches of our
>consciousness is our pending decision about whether or not we will allow two
>more people to be sacrificed at the altar of false god of National Security.
The only thing that you sacrifice in your posts is truth and reason.
You must really enjoy living in a world of fantasy, surrounded by
demons, and victimized at every opportunity.
You *really* should stop by a meeting of your local right-wing militia
group. You have way more in common with them that you can imagine.
The wacko's on the left and the wacko's on the right sound pretty much
alike to me.
Tracy Riddle
Brandon Alexander wrote:
>
> As you know after he left the Marines Lee Harvey Oswald defected to
> the Soviet Union.
In the year before Oswald's arrival, the Soviets had received four
American defectors, compared to none in the previous thirty years. (New
York Times 6/20/1959)
10/9/1959 Oswald arrived at Southampton, UK. The official story had him
flying from London to Helsinki but there were no commercial flights for
that route on that day. (H 26; CE 2676-32: R 211)
10/10/1959 By midnight of this day Oswald was checking into a hotel in
Helsinki, Finland. He actually stayed at two hotels (10/10-15/1959); the
record of the stay is in a CIA report of 9/18/1964 (CE 2676). But that
same report says that there was no flight leaving London 10/10/1959; the
WC decided that he left London 10/9 (WR 690), though his passport
contained a stamp of the London Airport immigration officer and the
words "Embarked 10 Oct 1959." (CE 946 7) Gerald Posner did not deal with
this problem in Case Closed.
The US Embassy in Moscow sent a dispatch to the O.N.I. and State Dept
reporting that Oswald had threatened to give the Soviets US military
information. (CE 917) The O.N.I. replied that it wanted to be kept
informed of "significant developments in view of continuing interest of
HQ, Marine Corps, and US intelligence agencies." (CE 918) Sylvia
Meagher: "on these and other cablegrams and dispatches which appear in
the Commission's exhibits, lines and parts of lines have been
obliterated by strips of what appears to be white paper superimposed
before the photocopy was made." (Accessories After the Fact p340)
> There he continued his Marxist career, and again
> quoting from the Mosby interview Oswald said that when he discovered
> "Das Capital" in the New Orleans library it was like "a very religious
> man opening the Bible for the first time."
Mosby recalled that when he talked about his plans for his stay in
Russia, it "sounded to me as if he had rehearsed these sentences...As he
spoke he held his mouth stiffly and nearly closed. His jaw was rigid.
Behind his brown eyes I felt a certain coldness. He displayed neither
the impassioned fever of a devout American Communist who at last had
reached the land of his dreams, nor the wise-cracking informality and
friendliness of the average American."
After his return to the US, Oswald was not kept under regular
surveillance, was not charged with breach of security, and was not even
confronted with the phony nature of his hardship discharge. Though he
had been to Minsk, which was of great interest to US intelligence,
Oswald was (officially) never questioned by the CIA or military
intelligence about what he saw or did there.
Oswald then lives in two cities known as hotbeds of anti-Communist
activities (Texas and New Orleans), but never appears to have been
threatened or harassed for his beliefs (told to get out of the city,
etc.) Supposedly, the local police knew nothing about him, though they
had files on people who were only remotely involved in left-wing
activities.
6/24/1963 in New Orleans, Oswald applied for a new passport, listing
possible destinations as England, France, Germany, Holland, Finland,
Poland, Italy and the USSR. (CE 781) Though he admitted on the
application that his previous passport had been cancelled, he received
his new passport the next day. Lone-nutters say this is not unusual.
In 1975 researchers found that the man who received his tourist card at
the Mexican consulate immediately before Oswald was a CIA operative
named William Gaudet (who later told researchers he thought Oswald was
just a patsy). Posner assures us that this is just another coincidence.
The day after Oswald was granted a new passport 6/1963, Dean Rusk
ordered Otto Otepka to be removed from his position as Chief Security
Officer at the State Department. He ordered Otepka to be locked out of
his office, and had his safe drilled open and the contents removed.
Included in the safe was a half-finished study on US "defectors,"
including Oswald. Otepka said he had ordered the study because of the
State Dept's inability to sort out the real defectors from agents
working for the CIA and military intelligence. When Bernard Fensterwald
asked him about Oswald, Otepka answered, "We had not made up our minds
when my safe was drilled and we were thrown out of the office."
(Coincidence or Conspiracy? p230-1)
Ann Egerter handled Oswald's CIA files for the period 1960-63; she
belonged to the mole-hunting CI/SIG section of the Agency. She was
located by HSCA investigator Dan Hardaway 3/1978, who found her
unresponsive. When Hardaway told her she would be subpoenaed, she
changed her mind and testified. The verbatim record of her testimony is
still classified. (Oswald and the CIA p48-9)
And there is a great deal more I don't have time to search for right
now. I don't know how anyone can accept such a chain of events as mere
coincidence. I can accept one or two strange coincidences, but at some
point your common sense has to kick in. The circumstantial evidence that
Oswald was not a genuine commie-defector is overwhelming.
Tracy
Brandon Alexander
>
>
>In the Sirhan case, he was sighted at a shooting range, just as Oswald
>was, prior to the assassination. All three left "diaries", we are to
>believe. All three were violent, anti-social men, we were told, even
>though people who knew them in all three cases deny this to be true. All
>three were originally painted as Communists. Some still try to paint
>Oswald with that brush today, a rather ludicrous effort in light of all
>the evidence that he was instead a spook/informer on such.
Lisa,
Your posts seem lucid and well researched. You are correct in pointing
out some of the failings of the CIA and the government in general. I
cannot comment academically about Sirhan or Ray because I have not
studied their cases. Oswald, though, has been a focus of mine. What I
cannot determine is exactly why you don't fully subscribe to the truth
of the Kennedy assassination. Do you have an axe to grind or are you
open to discovering what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63?
My offer to you is this: post any question or postulate any theory
about anything that relates directly to the immediate crime, and I
will answer and give you sources to back up whatever I say that will
lead you straight to the truth about the killing of Kennedy.
If my offer seems bold, don't let that stop you. This case has been a
study of mine for seven years now. There are very few areas that are
directly related to the case that I haven't researched fully, and
those I haven't I am willing to. What you will find if you will let me
answer some questions and point you to the sources is that LHO's guilt
in this matter is quite persuasive.
On the other hand, if you are like most buffs in this newsgroup, you'd
rather wallow in the deep, murky conspiracy waters, and you won't want
to and don't have to respond. Hope you will.
I'll start. With respect to your quote above "Some still try to paint
Oswald with that brush today, a rather ludicrous effort in light of
all the evidence that he was instead a spook/informer on such," is at
best an opinion. I will point you to a few matters that should, as I
say if you are as well informed as you seem, possibly change your mind
about that statement and cause you to be able to make a more informed
decision about Oswald's political beliefs.
The time and place from which to launch an understanding of Oswald's
ideology is New York City in 1953. According to Oswald himself, (WC
Vol. XXII, pg. 703) in an interview in Moscow with UPI's Aline Mosby,
in 1959;
"I'm a Marxist... I became interested about the age of 15. From an
ideological viewpoint. An old lady handed me a pamphlet about saving
the Rosenbergs...I looked at that paper and I still remember it for
some reason, I don't know why."
As you probably know Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted in
1951 of espionage conspiracy against the U.S. on behalf of the Soviet
Union. The Rosenberg case drew intense and widespread publicity
because of the general feeling amongst the public, particularly in New
York City, that they had been wrongfully accused. After their
execution at Sing Sing in June 1953 many still felt that they had died
in innocence. This was not the first time in American history that
this kind of thing had occurred; another example was the case of Sacco
and Vanzetti, immigrants accused of murder who were widely thought not
to be guilty. This triggered something deep in Oswald's psyche as it
did the psyche of many, perhaps not so profoundly as it did this
transplanted Texan. That fall, at school, he refused to salute the
American flag (WC Vol. XIX, pg 319, Carro Exhibit I).
Back in New Orleans, Oswald began to show favor for Marxism. William
Wulf, president of an astronomy club Oswald was interested in
remembered that LHO once
"....started expounding the Communist doctrine and saying that he was
highly interested in communism, that communism was the only way of
life for the worker, et cetera, and then came out with a statement
that he was looking for a Communist cell in town to join but he
couldn't find any....and my father came in the room, heard what we
were arguing on communism, and that this boy was loud-mouthed,
boisterous, and my father asked him to leave the house...." (WR Chap.
VII, pg. 360 NY Times ed.) After moving again to Fort Worth, Oswald
dropped out of school (10th grade) and wrote to the Socialist Party of
America on October 3, 1956;
"Dear Sirs;
I am sixteen years of age and would like more information about your
youth League. I would like to know if there is a branch in my area,
how to join, ect., I am a Marxist, and have been studying socialist
principles for well over fifteen months I am very interested in your
Y.P.S.L." (WR Appdx. VIII, pg. 607 NY Times ed.)
While in the Marines, Oswald was known to answer when called
"Oswaldskovitch." He apparently encouraged this and responded with
simple Russian phrases. (Hurt, "Reasonable Doubt," pg. 199) A Lt.
Donovan, one of the officers over Oswald, stated that he "(knew) that
Cuba interested (Oswald) more than most other situations. He was
fairly well informed about Mr. Batista." (WC Vol. VIII, pg. 293) Kerry
Thornley, who later penned a novel using Oswald as a central
protagonist, said that "I and Oswald were both....quite sure Castro
was a great hero." (WC Vol. XI, pg. 107) Nelson Delgado, another of
Oswald's Marine mates, said "We had quite many discussions regarding
Castro. At the time I was in favor of Castro...(Oswald) admired Castro
because of the social reforms Castro was introducing." (WC Vol. VIII,
pg. 240) These were all men who served on a day-to-day basis with LHO.
As you know after he left the Marines Lee Harvey Oswald defected to
the Soviet Union. There he continued his Marxist career, and again
quoting from the Mosby interview Oswald said that when he discovered
"Das Capital" in the New Orleans library it was like "a very religious
man opening the Bible for the first time." But soon this became
secondary when he discovered the realities of 1960's Russia. He found
that he was a lonely man as a Marxist in Communist Russia. Despite
marrying a Russian girl, he decided to leave Russia and return to the
U.S. In the testimony of his wife, Marina, we have further evidence of
Oswald's ideology. She stated that
"(Oswald) was sympathetic to Castro while in Russia, and I have also a
good opinion of Castro to the extent that I know." (WC Vol. I, pg. 24)
Marina's statements are about a man she knew well enough. She also
realized that he was just as alone, apparently to her, in his interest
in Cuba and Marxism here as he was in the U.S.S.R. In her
autobiography (WC XVIII, pg. 632) she said;
"To tell the truth, I sympathized with Cuba... But I did not support
Lee since I felt that he was too small a person to take on so much
himself. He became conceited about doing such an important job and
helping Cuba. But I saw that no one (in the U.S.) agreed with him. So
why do it?"
Note that his interest in the FPCC started somewhat earlier than many
believe, including the WC, as attested to by an envelope that contains
the return address of that organization most have overlooked. It is
#413, mentioned in CE 2003 Vol. XXIV, pg 41, which is a list of
Oswald's effects found after the assassination.
At Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall Oswald continued his Marxist leanings. He
had subscribed to "The Worker" and "The Militant" soon after returning
to America and continued to read them. In April 1963, there is
persuasive evidence that, using the same rifle that later killed the
President, Oswald took a pot shot at General Edwin Walker, a
right-wing activist in Dallas. Why? Because Walker was a virulent
opponent of Fidel Castro. Less than a month later Oswald left Dallas
for New Orleans, where he went on with his Marxist career. He started
a one-man FPCC chapter, staged demonstrations, tried to infiltrate an
anti-Castro group, got into a street fight with anti-Castroites,
boasted to the FBI about his involvement with the FPCC, tried to get
his wife to help him hijack a plane to Cuba (according to Marina's own
admission), went on two radio programs and claimed on a television
interview that "Yes, I am a Marxist, but that does not mean...I am a
Communist."
In September 1963 Oswald went to Mexico City to try to get a visa to
go to Cuba. Warren CE 2564, Vol. XXV, pg. 814 is a copy of Oswald's
application for a visa, complete with a photograph, date, place, and
signature, and these are all Oswald's. There are border crossing
stamps on Oswald's tourist card. There are the statements of Mexican
witnesses at the hotel, the consulate, and a nearby restaurant. There
is Silvia Duran's interrogation by the Mexican police (CE 2121, Vol.
XXIV, ppg. 570-659), and on the application forwarded to Havana (CE
2554, VOl. XXV, ppg. 815-816) she sounds quite convinced Oswald was a
Marxist-Communist in favor of Castro because of all the documentation
he showed her while in the consulate.
Returning again to Dallas, Oswald resumed his Marxist activities,
where he made a lasting impression on Ruth and Michael Paine that he
was a sincere Marxist. FBI agent James Hosty testified (WC Vol. IV,
pg. 453) that on November 5, 1963, "(Oswald) had told (Ruth Paine)
that weekend that he was a Trotskyite Communist." Less than three
weeks later, Kennedy lay mortally wounded in Parkland Memorial
Hospital.
If all this weren't enough, and it is by no means nearly all the
evidence presented by the WC, HSCA, and other researchers, there is
one glaring fact that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oswald
was a left-wing, Marxist sympathizer. When charged for the shooting of
Tippit and Kennedy, Oswald was told he had the right to call counsel.
When he did, he called none other than John J. Abt, the most
well-known American Communist lawyer at that time, the man who
represented the U.S. Communist Party against federal charges under the
Smith and McCarran Acts, the man who later appeared before the same
Warren Commission as counsel for Arnold Johnson, the Communist Party
official called to testify as to LHO's connections with that group.
Abt didn't know Oswald from Adam's house cat, and was on vacation
unable to be reached. Then, Oswald instructed Ruth Paine to try to
reach Abt. She could not. But the point is, Abt is who Oswald wanted
to come and give legal aid. The question is; why would Oswald want a
lawyer "who believes as I believe" (testimony of H.Louis Nichols,
Dallas Bar Assoc., WC Vol. VII, pg. 328-330) and then choose Abt
unless he were left-wing himself?
Lisa, Lee Harvey Oswald was a left-wing ideologue, and the evidence,
some of which I have pointed you to, proves it.
Al.
Fathom
In article <347d6908....@news.earthlink.net>,
compo...@earthlink.net (Brandon Alexander) wrote:
[lots of highly-controversial stuff about LHO's alleged Marxism snipped]
> When charged for the shooting of
> Tippit and Kennedy, Oswald was told he had the right to call counsel.
> When he did, he called none other than John J. Abt, the most
> well-known American Communist lawyer at that time, the man who
> represented the U.S. Communist Party against federal charges under the
> Smith and McCarran Acts, the man who later appeared before the same
> Warren Commission as counsel for Arnold Johnson, the Communist Party
> official called to testify as to LHO's connections with that group.
> Abt didn't know Oswald from Adam's house cat, and was on vacation
> unable to be reached. Then, Oswald instructed Ruth Paine to try to
> reach Abt. She could not. But the point is, Abt is who Oswald wanted
> to come and give legal aid. The question is; why would Oswald want a
> lawyer "who believes as I believe" (testimony of H.Louis Nichols,
> Dallas Bar Assoc., WC Vol. VII, pg. 328-330) and then choose Abt
> unless he were left-wing himself?
I was wondering about this, too. If LHO had one opportunity to reveal to
the world the conspiracy he had been framed for, it would have been by
talking to his lawyer while in jail. Why on earth would he ask for a
lawyer who was not only unavailable, but unknown to him personally (and
certainly being watched closely by the FBI)? Was he still playing the
"role" of a commie? If so, he couldn't have been an unwilling patsy.
--
To reply by e-mail, please address to fat...@sonic.net
** Custom-designed reality is a labor-intensive process. **
aw...@cynet.net
Brandon Alexander wrote:
>
> What I cannot determine is exactly why you don't fully
> subscribe to the truth of the Kennedy assassination.
The "truth" as you describe it is nothing more than the opinion
of one who, like some on the other side of the case, selectively
interprets evidence. Your arguments in this post, and on other threads,
show a bias that is based on a systematic disregard for contrary
evidence.
This is exactly what Mark Lane and others have been accused of doing.
> On the other hand, if you are like most buffs in this newsgroup, you'd
> rather wallow in the deep, murky conspiracy waters, and you won't want
> to and don't have to respond. Hope you will.
US authorities are directly responsible for the murkiness of the waters
because of the incompetent and narrow-focused nature of the
investigations.
The conspiracy theorists or "buffs" as you derisively refer to them
are not responsible for contrary, confusing and ambiguous "evidence."
If you judge me to be a conspiracy theorist, I would much rather that
there was *not* the liklihood of conspiracy and not be troubled by the
incompleteness, incompetence and deceptions which characterize the
governmental investigations of the crime. It is too late to solve
the case with in any great detail because, obviously the government,
as typified by J. Edgar Hoover (and others too numerous to mention),
were not interested in following up potentially productive leads
in the days immediately following the assassination. This makes
the endless bickering by advocates on both sides of the fence futile
on this assassination - and you and others that argue conspiracy are
both preaching to the converted on opposite sides of public opinion.
The fact that few members of the American public, and even fewer
abroad, believe Oswald to be a lone assassin does not deter you, and
those like you, who *exploit* the "murky" nature of the "evidence."
Youu go on and on with carefully crafted lone-assassin rhetoric as if
you will somehow persuade Lisa to see the light. It serves no purpose.
*You* wallow in the "deep, murky" *anti-conspiracy* "waters." (BTW, the
term
"buff" is insulting, despite the acceptance of the term by those who
have an open mind to conspiracy).
> Lisa, Lee Harvey Oswald was a left-wing ideologue, and the evidence,
> some of which I have pointed you to, proves it.
Your *evidence,* as you refer to it, has another point of view
based on things that you seem to avoid in presenting your lone nut
thesis. You prove nothing - by not acknowledging the inconclusive
nature of things you present as established fact - and the "truth",
(or your *version* of truth) is conjecture and speculation formulated
from a carefully selective and therefore, in my opinion, disingenuous
viewpoint.
I see you as no better than some of the least credible conspiracy
theorists. Perhaps you will assume this is because I am "wallow"ing
in "the deep, murky conspiracy waters."
e-mail - aw...@cynet.net
The Assassination Web - http://home.cynet.net/jfk/
Tom and Ellen Rossley
>> unless he were left-wing himself?
>
>the world the conspiracy he had been framed for, it would have been by
>talking to his lawyer while in jail. Why on earth would he ask for a
>lawyer who was not only unavailable, but unknown to him personally (and
>certainly being watched closely by the FBI)? Was he still playing the
>"role" of a commie? If so, he couldn't have been an unwilling patsy.
Need I REMIND YOU??
The ONLY statements "attributable to Oswald are what we ACTUALLY heard
him say in the hallway and at the Friday night Midnight press
conference!!! "SOMEBODY COME FOREWARD AND GIVE ME LEGAL
ASSISTANCE"
ALL other statements attributed to Oswald came from people in Law
Enforcement AND Ruth Paine!!!!!!!
BOTH of whom have been PROVEN to make UNTRUE statements!!!!
Why don't you read the WHOLE record(S) instead of ECHOEING you're
favorite sourcs..
Regards, tomnln
Michael Beck
>>> unless he were left-wing himself?
>>
How can you reject everything that Paine and law enforcement have
stated?
How can you blindly accept everything that Oswald said?
Is your own bias showing through?
Brandon Alexander
On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:42:51 -0500, aw...@cynet.net wrote:
It's fine for you to see me anyway you like, but aweb, as I have
suggested to you before, my evidence is well founded and based on
facts. What I want Lisa to do is look at facts and not supposition,
innuendo, accusation, speculation, and unfounded opinions. I don't
think you will find that in my posts. If you do, point it out.
Your entire post to me was a personal rebuttal, not a rebuttal of the
facts that I present. Can we stop being personal and discuss the facts
of this case?
It is too late to solve this case because it has already been solved.
You just don't seem to know it or care, and that's what I mean by
wallowing.
You can call me a lone-nutter. I don't mind a bit. I used the term
CT's as well. No offense intended.
Still, I want you and Lisa and everybody else to stick to what we
know, as reasonable students of the assassination. Of course, you will
probably say we don't know anything. I submit that is not true.
Al.
Joe Durnavich
Tracy Riddle writes:
>And there is a great deal more I don't have time to search for right
>now. I don't know how anyone can accept such a chain of events as mere
>coincidence. I can accept one or two strange coincidences, but at some
>point your common sense has to kick in. The circumstantial evidence that
>Oswald was not a genuine commie-defector is overwhelming.
One thing I always wonder about is if Oswald really was a spy, why
didn't he seem to make any money at it?
--
Joe Durnavich
jo...@mcs.net
Thpa2d
In article <34828ac6...@news.mcs.net>, jo...@mcs.net (Joe Durnavich)
writes:
>
>One thing I always wonder about is if Oswald really was a spy, why
>didn't he seem to make any money at it?
>
>
Not everyone is a slave to the dollar.......but it was strange that
Marina got over $70,000.00 after Lee's death from various sources.
JDT's widow got about $250.00 from FOP and whatever insurance
they had.....public did not rush to her aid.
jko
Robert C. Miller
[Patsies don't make a whole lot of money either.]
Martin Shackelford
Not true. The Tippit family also received a substantial amount of money from
the public. From Parade Magazine, July 26, 1992:"In the aftermath of the
assassination, a generous American public contributed $650,000 to a fund for
Tippit's widow, Marie, now 63." She purchased a home and established trust
funds for her three children.
Martin
Thpa2d
In article <3482446E...@concentric.net>, Martin Shackelford
<msh...@concentric.net> writes:
>Not true. The Tippit family also received a substantial amount of money
>from
the public. From Parade Magazine, July 26, 1992:"In the aftermath of
>the
assassination, a generous American public contributed $650,000 to a fund
>for
Tippit's widow, Marie, now 63." She purchased a home and established
>trust
funds for her three children.
Martin: I was not aware of the Parade Article....thanks for the update.
jko
Fathom
In article <347ddac2...@news.mindspring.com>, tom...@mindspring.com wrote:
[Fathom asked]
> >I was wondering about this, too. If LHO had one opportunity to reveal to
> >the world the conspiracy he had been framed for, it would have been by
> >talking to his lawyer while in jail. Why on earth would he ask for a
> >lawyer who was not only unavailable, but unknown to him personally (and
> >certainly being watched closely by the FBI)? Was he still playing the
> >"role" of a commie? If so, he couldn't have been an unwilling patsy.
>
> Need I REMIND YOU??
>
> The ONLY statements "attributable to Oswald are what we ACTUALLY heard
> him say in the hallway and at the Friday night Midnight press
> conference!!! "SOMEBODY COME FOREWARD AND GIVE ME LEGAL
> ASSISTANCE"
>
> ALL other statements attributed to Oswald came from people in Law
> Enforcement AND Ruth Paine!!!!!!!
>
> BOTH of whom have been PROVEN to make UNTRUE statements!!!!
My question was indeed prompted by having read Fritz's interrogation
notes. I took the mention of Abt at face value, because it didn't seem
like something Fritz would have made up.
Apparently, Fritz is not the sole source of this name-drop. In _The Texas
Connection_, Craig Zirbel writes,
"...while being shuttled back and forth from jail to interrogation room,
[Oswald] managed to shout things out to the press. For instance, when
Oswald was first arrested he made it known that he wanted the services of
a New York lawyer..." [no source cited for this incident]
Zirbel continues, "Journalists and legal scholars have now
concluded...that this was a clue....Oswald *wanted a lawyer 1500 miles
away* who was proficient in representing persons charrged with a
conspiracy crime against the government....Oswald at the time of his
arrest, by his request for a particular lawyer, disclosed to the world the
real criminal charges that he knew should have been issued against him."
[no source cited; emphasis in original].
I am pleased to find that there is a logical answer to my question...
No thanks, however, to "tomnln", who demands instead:
> Why don't you read the WHOLE record(S) instead of ECHOEING you're
> favorite sourcs..
>
> Regards, tomnln
Not everyone has time to read the "whole record", tom. If you have, why
didn't you know about the incident described by Zirbel? And BTW, maybe you
can help me find these legal scholars he mentioned.
Regards,
Fathom
Tracy Riddle
Joe Durnavich wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle writes:
>
> >And there is a great deal more I don't have time to search for right
> >now. I don't know how anyone can accept such a chain of events as mere
> >coincidence. I can accept one or two strange coincidences, but at some
> >point your common sense has to kick in. The circumstantial evidence that
> >Oswald was not a genuine commie-defector is overwhelming.
>
> didn't he seem to make any money at it?
>
> Joe Durnavich
> jo...@mcs.net
Low-level intelligence people don't make a lot of money; the
intelligence field is not a good place to work if you want to get rich.
Tracy
Lisa Pease
Brandon Alexander (compo...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Still, I want you and Lisa and everybody else to stick to what we
: know, as reasonable students of the assassination. Of course, you will
: probably say we don't know anything. I submit that is not true.
Can you prove that your bed will still exist tomorrow after you go to
sleep in it tonight?
You can't prove it, because it hasn't even happened yet. But you can
logically deduce, from many nights of personal experience and the laws of
nature as we know them that there is no reason to believe the bed will be
different tomorrow than it is today. But if you have to stick to what you
KNOW, you can't even talk about tomorrow.
I have no problem with people who make reasoned hypotheses, speculations
based upon known evidence, even (Gasp) an inference. Inferences are what
allow us to extend our knowledge past what we DO "know". Those who are
afraid to make even the smallest logical connections remind me of nothing
so much as those who opposed Gallileo.
The test of any theory is its ability to predict future outcomes. On that
standard, the conspiracists have the advantage. Many of the early
critics (but not Sylvia Meagher) predicted that Edward Epstein would turn
out to be an intelligence asset. He was. Why did they know that? From the
way he was trying to shape the evidence. Without the understanding of the
forces behind the assassination, such a postulation would have been
impossible to make. But with understanding? It was an easy leap, which
proved true. Many such leaps have been made by those who understand the
case and its ramifications. Would you deny the most basic tenet of
scientific inquiry? The ability to infer a connection, and then test it?
:
: Al.
Michael Beck
On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 03:11:20 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
wrote:
>Joe Durnavich wrote:
>>
>> Tracy Riddle writes:
>>
>> >And there is a great deal more I don't have time to search for right
>> >now. I don't know how anyone can accept such a chain of events as mere
>> >coincidence. I can accept one or two strange coincidences, but at some
>> >point your common sense has to kick in. The circumstantial evidence that
>> >Oswald was not a genuine commie-defector is overwhelming.
>>
>> One thing I always wonder about is if Oswald really was a spy, why
>> didn't he seem to make any money at it?
>>
>> --
>> Joe Durnavich
>> jo...@mcs.net
>
>Low-level intelligence people don't make a lot of money; the
>intelligence field is not a good place to work if you want to get rich.
>
>Tracy
Why do you guys think that the evidence was "overwhelming" that Oswald
was not a genuine Marxist and a real defector? Are you confusing
conjecture with evidence?
jerr...@mci2000.com
In article <34828ac6...@news.mcs.net>,
jo...@mcs.net (Joe Durnavich) wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle writes:
>
> >And there is a great deal more I don't have time to search for right
> >now. I don't know how anyone can accept such a chain of events as mere
> >coincidence. I can accept one or two strange coincidences, but at some
> >point your common sense has to kick in. The circumstantial evidence that
> >Oswald was not a genuine commie-defector is overwhelming.
>
> didn't he seem to make any money at it?
>
> --
> Joe Durnavich
> jo...@mcs.net
Hi Joe,
Assuming that LHO was some sort of agent on assignment, and his cover was
that of an marginally employed malcontent spreading Marxist propoganda,
his employers couldn't give him money without blowing that cover. It's
not like it was a 9 - 5 job, and after work LHO could hop in his new
T-Bird and drive home to the suburbs. He had to live that cover
7/24/365.
jerrymac
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tracy Riddle
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 03:11:20 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Joe Durnavich wrote:
> >>
> >> Tracy Riddle writes:
> >>
> >> >now. I don't know how anyone can accept such a chain of events as mere
> >> >coincidence. I can accept one or two strange coincidences, but at some
> >> >point your common sense has to kick in. The circumstantial evidence that
> >> >Oswald was not a genuine commie-defector is overwhelming.
> >>
> >> didn't he seem to make any money at it?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joe Durnavich
> >> jo...@mcs.net
> >
> >intelligence field is not a good place to work if you want to get rich.
> >
> >Tracy
>
> Why do you guys think that the evidence was "overwhelming" that Oswald
> was not a genuine Marxist and a real defector? Are you confusing
> conjecture with evidence?
Did you read the entire two-part post I made on this subject? Joe
snipped most of it. Go back and read it and then tell me that it's all
just conjecture.
Tracy
Lisa Pease
: > >And there is a great deal more I don't have time to search for right
: > >now. I don't know how anyone can accept such a chain of events as mere
: > >coincidence. I can accept one or two strange coincidences, but at some
: > >point your common sense has to kick in. The circumstantial evidence that
: > >Oswald was not a genuine commie-defector is overwhelming.
: > One thing I always wonder about is if Oswald really was a spy, why
: Low-level intelligence people don't make a lot of money; the
: intelligence field is not a good place to work if you want to get rich.
: Tracy
That's why so many of them work for larger, richer firms - but they keep
their hand in for the fun of it.
--
Lisa Pease
"It is as if the final price for winning the Cold War is our confinement
to a permanent childhood where reassuring fantasies and endless
diversions protect us from the hard truth of our own recent history."
--Robert Parry, THE CONSORTIUM, 2/17/97
Check out my Real History Archives @ http://www.webcom.com/lpease
Visit the site of Probe Magazine at http://www.webcom.com/ctka
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Abt the lawyer (Re: Still in Jail)
>From: no-...@sonic.net (Fathom)
>Date: Mon, Dec 1, 1997 23:38 EST
>Message-id: <no-spam-0112...@d99.pm10.sonic.net>
>
>
>Why on earth would he ( LHO ) ask for a lawyer who was not only unavailable,
but unknown to him personally .............??
LHO requested Abt on Saturday when it became clear to him that he was being
railroaded. I suspect that Lee had been told by his agency that if he ever
got in a tight legal bind that he should request Abt , because Abt was a lawyer
who also worked for the agency, and he would know how to handle the situation
without blowing his ( Oswald's ) cover.
Walt Cakebread
Dave Dix
WCAKE wrote:
Lee asked for Abt as an ACLU attorney according to the Fritz notes. However when
the local ACLU attorney did show up, the police refused to let him see Oswald.
Why?
Dix