help needed with research
Jay
I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
wrong. I am having a hard time in writing my paper with all of the
different accounts that I have read and the many conspiracies. So far, I
have written the introduction. My outline so far is this:
Introduction
I. The facts
II. The theories
III. ???
Conclusion
I think so far the outline general and I am still thinking about the 3rd
point. Can someone please help me with my outline? Remember, I am just
trying to convince the reader that it was not a conspiracy. Also, can
anyone recommend any good sources (preferably online) that will help prove
my position? If you have any questions/suggestions, please feel free to
contact me by e-mail at jedi...@yahoo.com Thanks in advance.
--
Faye Musselman
III. Cottage Industry
1. Websites, Newsletters, Associations & Conventions
You've taken on quite a project. What books are you using as your primary
research? The ratio of Lone Assassin to the various conspiracy books is
as unbalanced as was the mind of LHO. In fact, you'll be hardpressed to
find even a dozen good books on the LN (Lone Nut point of view), but be
sure to include Posner's CASE CLOSED.
As to trying to convince the LN view vs. the CT's, that battle has been
going on for 36 years! Anyway, good luck to you, and hopefully you will
share your paper with us when you're done. :)
Jay wrote in message <7t3f4f$na$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Martin Shackelford
quite sure that it was. See below.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Conspiracy Evidence:
Five Minutes' Worth
by Martin Shackelford
FOLLOW THE MONEY:
1.November 1963 statements by Jack Ruby and Oswald or a "second Oswald"
that they expected to come into a large amount of money soon.
2.A deposit of over $200,000 by an offshore bank into the account of
George DeMohrenschildt in December 1963.
MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE BEFORE NOVEMBER 22
1.The Mexico City false evidence trail.
2. The possibly fraudulent/substituted "backyard photos" of Oswald.
3. The "second Oswald" appearances.
PREDICTIONS OF ASSASSINATION
1. Carlos Marcello (reported by Ed Becker).
2. Santos Trafficante (reported by Jose Aleman)
3. Jimmy Hoffa/Marcello/Trafficante (reported by Frank Ragano)
4. Rose Cheramie (reported by Lt. Francis Fruge, LA State Police, and
others)
5. Joseph Milteer (documented by Willie Somersett via tape recordings)
6. Lyndon Johnson (reported by Madeleine Brown).
SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
2. The presence of several men in the east end 6th floor windows before
the shots; the descriptions not matching Oswald.
3. The presence of an unidentified man in the west end 6th floor window
of the Depository immediately after the shots.
4. Phony Secret Service agents on the Grassy Knoll and behind the
Depository.
5. Evidence of activity on the knoll at the time of the assassination.
6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
identified.
7. The unusual makeup of the group that went to the Texas Theater to
arrest him (FBI, Assistant D.A., downtown rather than sub-station
police).
THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
1. A rifle found with the same serial number as that ordered by Oswald,
but a different model, four inches longer.
2. The absence of the paper bag and ammunition clip from police and
press photos of the area in which they were allegedly found, though
other evidence appears in the photos (e.g., bullet casings, etc.). No
evidence the paper bag ever contained the rifle.
3. The presence on one of the "sniper's nest" boxes of a fingerprint not
that of Oswald or any other Depository employee.
4. The location of bullet CE 399 on a stretcher at Parkland unrelated to
the assassination.
AFTER THE ASSASSINATION
1. FBI surveillance tape made after the death of Sam Giancana, which
recorded Santos Trafficante's statement:"Now only two people are alive
who know who killed Kennedy."
2. Trafficante's deathbed confession confession to Frank Ragano.
3. Marcello's tape-recorded and other statements to FBI informant Joseph
Hauser.
Dave Reitzes
>From: "Jay" jedi...@yahoo.com
>Date: Fri, 01 October 1999 07:08 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7t3f4f$na$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
>
>I am writing a research paper on the assassination of JFK and in my paper
>I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
>From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
>conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
>show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
>wrong. I am having a hard time in writing my paper with all of the
>different accounts that I have read and the many conspiracies. So far, I
>have written the introduction. My outline so far is this:
>
>Introduction
>I. The facts
>II. The theories
>III. ???
>Conclusion
>
>I think so far the outline general and I am still thinking about the 3rd
>point. Can someone please help me with my outline? Remember, I am just
>trying to convince the reader that it was not a conspiracy. Also, can
>anyone recommend any good sources (preferably online) that will help prove
>my position? If you have any questions/suggestions, please feel free to
>contact me by e-mail at jedi...@yahoo.com Thanks in advance.
Jay, you've chosen a difficult task for yourself, as it's not really possible
to prove there *wasn't* a conspiracy -- what you want to do is pick the most
important criticisms people have made of the Warren Report, and show where
those criticisms might not be as valid as the critics thought.
Here are some topics I would suggest you look at:
1. The single bullet theory (SBT) -- the SBT is crucial to the finding of one
lone assassin. Warren Commission critics say that the SBT is impossible, and
I'm not going to say that it isn't. But if you go to John McAdams' Kennedy
Assassination Home Page, you'll find many well-written articles defending the
Warren Report, including some articles specifically on the SBT:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Also, you might try Dale Myers' Web site:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/~dmyers/jfk/
This is mainly an advertisement for a video Dale has created defending the SBT,
but I believe there is also some basic information on the theory.
2. Could one man alone have fired the shots?
John McAdams' Web site has some articles on this topic as well.
Some people will probably recommend you read Gerald Posner's *Case Closed.* I'm
not so sure about that, because I think Posner argues too much like a lawyer --
he hides facts that he doesn't want "the other side" to know. Instead, I
recommend you check out a book that isn't as well known, *Conspiracy of One,*
by Jim Moore. It is easier to read than Posner's book, and I also think it is
more honest. I've caught Moore in some mistakes, but overall I think his
approach is honest and reasonable.
On the other hand, Moore and Posner each have their own explanation for how the
single bullet theory actually occurred, and I find Posner's version more likely
than Moore's.
Confusing, isn't it? The John F. Kennedy assassination is very confusing, no
matter what side of the debate you're on. But if you hit the books and really
think the issues through, it's not as confusing as it seems.
3. Practically everyone -- even on the Warren Commission side -- admits that
the government covered up evidence in the Kennedy assassination. The question
is, Why? Was it because the government was guilty of involvement? Was it
because the government knew who *was* guilty and covered up for them? Or were
there other reasons? Gus Russo's *Live by the Sword* is a recent book you'll
probably be able to find at the library. Russo believes that the government
covered up information because a full investigation would have brought out
illegal government assassination plots against Fidel Castro. He also is one of
many people who believe that President Kennedy's medical evidence was covered
up by the Kennedy family, because the family didn't want the public to know
that JFK had Addison's Disease. I'm not endorsing Russo's opinions, but he
demonstrates that there are many reasons the government could have covered up
evidence that *don't* necessarily mean they were part of an assassination plot.
One of the greatest weapons conspiracy theorists have had is the obvious fact
that the government covered up evidence. The critics always asked, "Why would
they cover it up if they have nothing to hide?"
(If you've seen the movie *JFK* you know that this was a big question for
Oliver Stone.)
Well, obviously the government had many things to hide, but as that evidence
has been released over the years, it's also become obvious that many of these
things have nothing to do with any kind of JFK assassination conspiracy. The
critics were only fair in pointing out cover-ups -- do not think that I'm
condoning such cover-ups, because cover-ups only breed suspicion and fear among
the public -- but in my opinion, sometimes the critics went overboard in
accusing the government of being part of the conspiracy.
Two more books I recommend you look for at the library are:
*First Day Evidence* by Gary Savage -- the book that broke the story that Lee
Harvey Oswald's fingerprints WERE on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after all --
but it took modern computer technology to read these partial prints and
discover whose they are.
*No More Silence* by Larry Sneed -- if you can find it, and if you have time to
read it, this contains many, many valuable interviews with witnesses, Dallas
police, FBI agents on the scene, etc., and gives an illuminating peek into the
events of the assassination weekend. I highly recommend it to you personally
for the interview with assassination eyewitness Charles Brehm, because Brehm
was not called before the Warren Commission, and he was an experienced combat
veteran who was one of the closest witnesses of all to JFK at the time of the
fatal shot -- and Brehm believed THAT VERY DAY that the shooter had hit JFK and
Connally with a single bullet -- the theory it would take the Warren Commission
many months to come up with. Brehm was also living proof that bullets can act
very strangely -- he himself had sustained a most unusual bullet wound while in
combat, and he was not the least bit reluctant to tell conspiracy theorists all
about it! There might be interviews with Charles Brehm in other books, but *No
More Silence* certainly has a great one.
Two more on-line resources you might want to check out:
Deanie Richards' JFK Place:
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK
Has a great deal of information on all sides of the case.
Ralph Schuster's Kennedy Assassination Home Page:
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/
Has a great deal of original Warren Commission testimony.
Don't let all this information overwhelm you -- pick out the areas you think
are most important (SBT, etc.), and research the daylights out of them.
Let me know if I can provide any more assistance.
Good luck,
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
>Afraid I can't help you convince people it WASN'T a conspiracy. I'm
>quite sure that it was. See below.
>
>Martin
Let it be known that the LAST thing I need is to try to square off against
Martin Shackelford over whether there was a conspiracy or not. (I'm not even
convinced myself that there wasn't.) I'm going to take a crack at this
particular post, though, for the sake of the original poster's question.
>Conspiracy Evidence:
>Five Minutes' Worth
>by Martin Shackelford
>
>FOLLOW THE MONEY:
>1.November 1963 statements by Jack Ruby and Oswald or a "second Oswald"
>that they expected to come into a large amount of money soon.
According to salesman Albert Guy Bogard, someone he identified as Lee Harvey
Oswald came into the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership (near the Texas School
Book Depository), test-drove a car, and made a comment that he expected to come
into money soon. Bogard took a polygraph test and passed, for whatever that's
worth. I have no doubt myself that Bogard well telling the truth as he knew it.
I think it's even possible that this really was Oswald, though it's not
terribly likely. I would point out that after the assassination, hundreds of
people reported "sightings" of Oswald or Ruby -- sometimes both together -- in
places and at times that don't fit their known whereabouts. A researcher named
John Armstrong has even woven these "sightings" into a theory about a man
impersonating Oswald for literally the entire decade prior to the assassination
-- and I myself once found Armstrong's theory very compelling.
When I actually read some of the statements by these witnesses, however, it was
obvious that many of them simply were talking about somebody that didn't fit
Oswald's (or Ruby's) description at all. Some of these reports were intentional
-- a few people without a lot of ethical baggage were trying to "link" the
alleged assassin to someone they knew. Most were just people with lousy
memories, many of whom only wanted to be helpful to the authorities. Albert Guy
Bogard *could* be one of these people. Don't misunderstand, though -- I'm not
saying he *was* -- only that he could have been.
> 2.A deposit of over $200,000 by an offshore bank into the account of
>George DeMohrenschildt in December 1963.
I have to take issue with Martin's bringing this up. Oswald's friend George De
Mohrenschildt left the USA for Haiti half a year before the assassination. To
try to link him to the crime seems a little unreasonable without some solid
evidence.
>MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE BEFORE NOVEMBER 22
>1.The Mexico City false evidence trail.
Oswald's visit (or alleged visit, as some would have it) to Mexico City is one
of the most puzzling episodes in the assassination investigation. I would only
point out one thing: Oswald's (alleged) trip to Mexico City began a few days
before the White House announced that President Kennedy would be coming to
Dallas. I think that's reason enough to ask ourselves if there could be any
relevance between the Mexico trip and an assassination conspiracy.
>2. The possibly fraudulent/substituted "backyard photos" of Oswald.
Martin himself quite rightfully gets angry when people bring up discredited
issues like the old theory that a photograph by James Altgens shows Oswald
standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the shots were
being fired. This theory never made any sense to begin with, as Oswald admitted
to a roomful of reporters that he'd been INSIDE the building during the
assassination, and thus had no alibi. The House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) proved that the Altgens photo showed TSBD employee Billy
Nolan Lovelady -- who did indeed resemble Oswald -- not Oswald himself.
Martin is aware that the HSCA also proved that there was no evidence of forgery
in the "backyard" photographs of Oswald with a rifle and revolver. Furthermore,
Marina Oswald says point blank that she took those pictures, and at least three
people (Michael Paine and two employees of a Communist newspaper to whom Oswald
mailed a photo) say they saw one of these photos months *before* the
assassination.
This really should be a dead issue as well, unless someone can demonstrate that
the HSCA's tests were invalid. The grain analysis test is persuasive evidence
that the photos are almost certainly not composites.
>3. The "second Oswald" appearances.
It would only be fair to go over these one by one. No one knows better than I
how many there are and how valid some of these "sightings" could be -- I wrote
several hundred pages on such "sightings" that I posted on-line last year, when
I believed them to be extremely important evidence. But no one knows better
than I how phony some of these "sightings" turned out to be, and how
potentially phony the others could be. They are worthy of debate, but they
should not be used as positive evidence of conspiracy.
>PREDICTIONS OF ASSASSINATION
>1. Carlos Marcello (reported by Ed Becker).
>2. Santos Trafficante (reported by Jose Aleman)
>3. Jimmy Hoffa/Marcello/Trafficante (reported by Frank Ragano)
These are all hearsay, and from extremely dubious sources. Personally, I'd be
surprised if a lot of mobsters *didn't* make up boasts about having killed
Kennedy.
>4. Rose Cheramie (reported by Lt. Francis Fruge, LA State Police, and
>others)
As I've noted on this newsgroup -- and posted sources to prove -- the HSCA's
main witnesses, Victor Weiss and Lt. Francis Fruge, gave demonstrably false
testimony about Rose Cheramie -- testimony that flatly contradicted statements
they gave in 1967 to the New Orleans District Attorneys office. There is no
doubt in my mind that Cheramie said *something* provocative about the
assassination, but in 1967, Garrison's office could not find a single witness
who heard her say anything about it until *afterwards.*
Meanwhile, Cheramie herself never said she had any *first-hand* knowledge of
the assassination -- she said that "word in the underground" had it that
Kennedy would be killed. It was only in 1978 that Francis Fruge claimed she had
spoken about a conspiracy plot to him personally *before* the assassination --
he NEVER said this during Jim Garrisons' 1967 investigation, and Fruge WORKED
for Garrison for a short time. Dr. Victor Weiss claimed in 1978 that a "Dr.
Bowers" had heard Cheramie predict the assassination, but in 1967, Weiss
couldn't remember whether Bowers heard this *before or after* the
assassination. I've posted exact quotes from Garrison's Cheramie file on these
matters.
Rose Cheramie was a lifelong heroin addict with a rap sheet a mile long and a
history of mental illness. She'd used literally dozens of different aliases.
She'd been institutionalized at least twice. She'd tried on several occasions
to become an FBI informant, but had been rejected because her information
always turned out to be false. After the assassination, she claimed to have
known Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald, and she claimed they were homosexual lovers.
This should have discredited her fairly quickly, but it happened to fit one of
Jim Garrison's pet theories, so he gave it some credence. (By that time,
Cheramie was dead, the victim of a hit-and-run accident. A well-known
researcher, J. Gary Shaw, claims her death certificate shows she may have been
shot in the head; I have copies of her death certificate and there is no such
wound present.)
Bottom line: Whatever value Rose Cheramie might have ever had as a witness has
been forever compromised by the House Committee's biased investigation of her,
because HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey wanted Cheramie to bolster his
theory that the Mafia killed Kennedy. I saw Blakey himself on television
several months ago citing Cheramie as a credible witness of a Mafia plot.
That's an awfully subjective opinion, and the HSCA's report on Cheramie makes
some really dubious claims on the basis of nothing but Lt. Francis Fruge's word
alone.
>5. Joseph Milteer (documented by Willie Somersett via tape recordings)
Milteer's statement is indeed very suggestive, no argument there. I wouldn't
dismiss him as quickly as John McAdams and others do. His statement suggests,
however, that Kennedy was shot from a tall office building, which is what the
conspiracy theorists are arguing *against.*
>6. Lyndon Johnson (reported by Madeleine Brown).
Brown said that Johnson told her on the night before the assassination that
'after tomorrow,' those Kennedys would never embarrass him again. I do not
dismiss Brown's statements; I think they deserve serious investigation. I would
find them more convincing if it could be more substantially documented that LBJ
was at the Murchison's mansion on the evening of 11-21-63, and that, just as
importantly, so was J. Edgar Hoover, as Madeleine Brown and others have
claimed. Hoover we know was at his desk in Washington the following morning,
and he was not enamored of airplane flight. If it could be shown that Hoover
indeed made a surreptitious jaunt to Texas that evening, Brown would have an
enormous boost in credibility.
>SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
>1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
Possible, but unverified. (The photo in Groden's books is intriguing, even if
the HSCA decided it wasn't Milteer.)
>2. The presence of several men in the east end 6th floor windows before
>the shots; the descriptions not matching Oswald.
Depending entirely on eyewitness testimony, and -- I say this as someone who
has written several articles *emphasizing* such witnesses' possible importance
-- the witnesses *do not* corroborate one another on this aspect of their
stories. Even those who describe two people on the sixth floor describe very
different-looking people in widely varying locations. One witness -- Richard
Randolph Carr -- changed his story greatly before testifying about it at the
trial of Clay Shaw in 1969.
Again, don't get me wrong -- I don't dismiss these witnesses. But they don't
*prove* conspiracy.
>3. The presence of an unidentified man in the west end 6th floor window
>of the Depository immediately after the shots.
*After* the shots? In that case, you must be talking about the alleged man in
Groden's photo analysis. There are different ways to read that photo -- I'll
leave it at that.
>4. Phony Secret Service agents on the Grassy Knoll and behind the
>Depository.
Again, very controversial. There were only a few contemporary reports of such
people, and I don't think they're by any means conclusive. I don't dismiss
these reports, but I've become skeptical of them; they're never consistent with
one another. For example, Lee Bowers had as good a view as anyone of the area
behind the knoll stockade fence, and he didn't describe anyone in a suit, the
way a Secret Service agent would be expected to dress.
>5. Evidence of activity on the knoll at the time of the assassination.
I can't agree with that at all. Activity according to whom? Lee Bowers saw a
car driving around minutes before the shots; he described two men standing a
distance apart from each other behind the fence, but he didn't see them
actually doing anything, and he didn't even see fit to mention them in his
earliest statement to the authorities. Jean Hill claimed to see a man running
behind the fence, but her earliest statements contradict this, and she was not
in a position to see much behind the fence anyway. Maybe you're thinking of Ed
Hoffman, but I don't think you'd cite him without at least some qualification.
Who does that leave? Gordon Arnold -- the man who doesn't appear on film? J. C.
Price -- the guy who thought the last two shots came five *minutes* apart?
>6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
>officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
>identified.
This, I have to say, is silly. Martin, do you really think that mob at the
front of the Texas Theatre was calling for Oswald's blood because he'd killed a
police officer? Come on, Martin -- the Warren Commission, IMO, stuck to the
silly story about Oswald only being a Tippit suspect because they didn't want
to accuse the DPD of concluding Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination before
the evidence was in. But it's pretty obvious, again IMO, that the fifteen
patrols cars and the dozens of spectators were not drawn to the Texas Theatre
because of a suspected cop-killer. There are plenty of policemen who now freely
admit -- now that the spotlight has long since gone off -- that they proceeded
to the Texas Theatre because they assumed there was a link between the Tippit
killing and the assassination. Even HUGH AYNESWORTH believed there was a
conspiracy when he heard the news of the Tippit slaying over the police radio
-- he assumed, like everyone else, that the two events were connected, and he
never thought at THAT time that a lone assassin could have escaped to kill a
policeman in Oak Cliff so quickly. See Larry Sneed's *No More Silence* for
interviews with Aynesworth and a number of Dallas police and Sheriff's deputies
on these subjects.
>7. The unusual makeup of the group that went to the Texas Theater to
>arrest him (FBI, Assistant D.A., downtown rather than sub-station
>police).
Same thing -- this wasn't your typical arrest, and no one thought it was. The
*Warren Commission* claimed it was, but are you going to take their word for
it? Really?
>THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
>1. A rifle found with the same serial number as that ordered by Oswald,
>but a different model, four inches longer.
People make mistakes.
>2. The absence of the paper bag and ammunition clip from police and
>press photos of the area in which they were allegedly found, though
>other evidence appears in the photos (e.g., bullet casings, etc.). No
>evidence the paper bag ever contained the rifle.
The clip appears in photographs of the rifle being carried out in the building.
IMO, statements by Tom Alyea and several witnesses interviewed in Sneed's *No
More Silence* provide an adequate explanation for all this. One officer -- I
believe it was L. D. Montgomery -- picked up the bag like a dope and moved it
before it was photographed. No one identified Montgomery to the Warren
Commission because they didn't want him to be blamed for that obvious blunder.
>3. The presence on one of the "sniper's nest" boxes of a fingerprint not
>that of Oswald or any other Depository employee.
This deserved more investigation than it got, absolutely.
>4. The location of bullet CE 399 on a stretcher at Parkland unrelated to
>the assassination.
This is very possibly true -- not definitely, but very possibly. It's also very
possible that some idiot -- like Montgomery with the paper bag -- picked it up
before realizing what they'd done, then stashed it back somewhere as quickly as
they could. Do I endorse this theory? No, I don't think I do. But stranger
things happened that day, and I don't think all of them are sinister.
>AFTER THE ASSASSINATION
>1. FBI surveillance tape made after the death of Sam Giancana, which
>recorded Santos Trafficante's statement:"Now only two people are alive
>who know who killed Kennedy."
Consider the source.
>2. Trafficante's deathbed confession confession to Frank Ragano.
Ditto.
>3. Marcello's tape-recorded and other statements to FBI informant Joseph
>Hauser.
Ditto.
Hearsay is only hearsay, and hearsay from criminals is only hearsay from
criminals. Maybe valuable and accurate, maybe neither.
I'm biased in this sense because I never credited the theories of Mob
involvement -- I confess to simply thinking that they're silly. If the Mob were
involved, they'd need some high-level help to pull it off, and none of these
alleged threats and confessions give any sign of government complicity. I can't
take any of them seriously without some solid corroboration.
Just my two cents' worth -- I'm sure others will have a few things to say in
return, and that's how it should be.
Dave
sara...@my-deja.com
THERE ARE ONLY TOO FACTORS THAT ARE KEEPING THE TRUTH BURIED
AND THEY ARE CALLED AGGRESSIVE ADVOCACY AND STUPIDITY.
http://overkill.tvheaven.com//tribute.htm
DON'T NEED LUCK, JUST A BRAIN
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ritchie linton
>
> I am writing a research paper on the assassination of JFK and in my paper
> I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
> From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
> conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
> show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
########
Start with the books of Harold Weisberg.He documents the use made of all
the evidence by the WC=and when you are done, you will likely see what he
sees=thats is, that Oswald could not have done it.You might also try
Sylvia Meagher's book, "Accessories After The Fact".
You can get Harold's books by writing to him at:
7627 Old Receiver Road,
Frederick, Maryland.
21702
I might add that once you have undertsood that Oswald did not do
it...well, thats your proof of a conspiracy, since someone else made it
LOOK like it had been him.Somebody left that rifle under the boxes on the
6th floor of the TSBD, and it wasn't him.
Good luck. By the way, its not likely that you will enjoy reading Harold's
books. First of all, they are ugly in appearance, by virtue of the fact
that they are self-published. Secondly, he writes with force and passion,
slamming all the time the WCR.But if you can get over that, his
scholarship on the subject is unsurpassed....once you get used to his tone
of voice.On the plus side, he sells them very inexpensively by todays
standards.
Good books, all of them=if you have a limited time or budget, ask for his
first, "Whitewash" and his later, "Post-Mortem".In spite of his failing
health(for he is now very old) he is likely to be gracious enough to type
you a covering letter in response.
You may gather from this that I am a friend of his= and if you are really,
really interested in the subject, I can tell you that you may even visit
his home in Maryland and review for yourself his extensive collection of
original FBI Reports on the murder case-he lets anybody do that;even
providing his own photocopier for your use.He sued the Government for
stuff 13 times= and the results are all in his basement.When he passes
away, he has deeded it all to Hood College(also in Frederick, Maryland),
where it will join the materials left there as well by Sylvia Meagher.
For what its worth, I have compared that collection to that maintained by
the National Archives, and I can tell you this- Harold has stuff that even
the Archives do not have.
So, if you are really interested in the subject matter, write to him as
above.I hope this helps.
Ritchie
Martin Shackelford
The points you raise are worth commenting on.
Money: Oswald may well have been the man at Downtown Lincoln
Mercury. He did know how to drive. The source on Ruby's claim to be
coming into money knew him very well, so there's no mistaken identity.
DeMohrenschildt: I wish I could discuss this in more detail at
present, but I am not presently at liberty to discuss all of the
evidence on this point. Suffice it to say that the $200,000 sent to
DeMohrenschildt was not intended for DeMohrenschildt.
Mexico City: Whether the trip had anything to do with an
assassination conspiracy, there was something going on involving
intelligence, and an attempt to build on Oswald's presence by pretending
to be him. At the same time, the fact that the Dallas trip hadn't yet
been announced either means someone had knowledge BEFORE the public
announcement, or that the assassination conspiracy was a flexible one,
and didn't depend on whether JFK went to Dallas.
Backyard Photos: Marina has said she took them, she has said
she had her back to the stairs when she took them, and apparently she
told Walt Brown that she took the ones presently in the record. Maybe
she did. I'm not ready to take that to the bank. The Militant staffers
only recalled seeing a photo with a man and a rifle, but couldn't
identify the photos in evidence. Forgery in the photos, including the
grain, would require only enlarged fine-grain composites re-photographed
with Oswald's camera. The HSCA test wasn't definitive.
Predictions: People who plan assassinations are often
"dubious sources." Most Mobsters are sent to prison on the testimony of
"dubious sources," so I'm not sure why you bothered to state this. Ed
Becker was a private detective, and considered a reliable source on
other matters. Jose Aleman was also considered a reliable source--later,
he had a breakdown, but that is hardly relevant to 1962. Frank Ragano,
as Trafficante's attorney, was well-placed to know what he reported.
It's true that a lot of Mobsters made boasts about the Kennedys--there
was another in Bonnanno's recent book. Marcello and Trafficante,
however, were speaking privately to confidantes, not boasting.
Rose Cheramie: However accurate or inaccurate Fruge and Weiss
were, the other attending doctor heard Cheramie's prediction before the
assassination--and that's also in the HSCA report on Cheramie. Cheramie
was a Marcello Mob prostitute, and in a position perhaps to have heard
something, but not know much. That she had a long rap sheet, no one
disputes.
Milteer: SOME of the shots obviously came from the TSBD. This
is not something "conspiracy theorists" dispute, except perhaps for
David Lifton. Milteer probably knew part of the plan, not all of it. The
photo doesn't show Milteer. The evidence of his presence is his phone
call from Dallas to Willie Sommersett on the day of the assassination.
Others on the Sixth Floor: That there was more than one person
up there seems quite clear. That there is no way to fit more than Oswald
into the official version is also clear. The descriptions vary, clearly,
but that isn't evidence of only one person up there, just makes it
difficult to determine who WAS up there.
Texas Theater: You've explained why people might have thought
there was a link between the assassination and the shooting of Tippit,
but not why it was assumed the same man did both shootings, as many
assumed a conspiracy until later. No one is taking the Warren
Commission's word for anything, much less that this was a typical
arrest. I never said it was a typical arrest. Why would you assume I
believed that?
Paper Bag: No one photographed the paper bag ANYWHERE in the
Depository, not just where it was found. Other evidence was put back
where it was picked up from, then photographed (the cartridge cases are
an example)--why not the paper bag?
Stretcher Bullet: Those who found the bullet said it rolled
off of the stretcher with the bloody sheets. That was Ronald Fuller's
stretcher. The other odd thing is that descriptions of the bullet don't
match CE 399.
Mob: Oswald grew up among the Mob in New Orleans. Ruby was
Mob-connected, and got his girls through Mob sources in New Orleans. How
silly is Mob involvement?
Jean Davison
>Dave:
>
> The points you raise are worth commenting on.
>
> Milteer: SOME of the shots obviously came from the TSBD. This
>is not something "conspiracy theorists" dispute, except perhaps for
>David Lifton. Milteer probably knew part of the plan, not all of it. The
>photo doesn't show Milteer. The evidence of his presence is his phone
>call from Dallas to Willie Sommersett on the day of the assassination.
Repost for Martin:
>Subject: Did Milteer Call from Dallas?
>From: "Jean Davison" <dav...@together.net>
>Date: 1999/04/05
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
>
> It is often said that Joseph Milteer
>phoned Willie Somersett, a police informant,
>from Dallas on the morning of 11/22 and
>told him that JFK would not leave Dallas alive.
>But did he?
>
> The transcript posted here recently by John
>McLoughlin, tells a different story. Somersett met with
>Milteer on the weekend after the assassination,
>and this is part of his subsequent interview by
>the Miami police....
>
>
>> MIAMI POLICE INFORMANT
>> INFORMATION ON MILTEER
>> November 26, 1963
>> PAGE 4
>>
>
>[....]
>> Q: Do you know whether this Milteer has ever spent any time in New
>> Orleans?
>> A: He said that he had been to New Orleans and that he had been to
>> Dallas Texas. This probably would have been 5-6 months ago, he
>> didn't specify a certain time, but he was in New Orleans, Dallas,
>> and Gulfport Mississippi, and in Biloxi, Mississippi and in Jackson,
>> and he spent quite a time in Alabama.
>
>[....]
>
>
>
>> Q: Do you have any idea of your own thought, what is your thought,
>> do you think maybe Milteer could have been in Dallas, Texas in the
>> last two weeks?
>> A: Yes, he could have been there, I am satisfied that he could have
>> been most anywhere he wanted; he has two cars ready to move at
>> anytime.
>> Q: You have seen no evidence that he was there?
>> A: No. He didn't say that he was, the only thing he said that he
>> had been in Texas.
>> -------------------------
>> PAGE 7
>>
>> Q: He didn't say when he had been in Texas?
>> A. No, he didn't say. He had been in New Orleans, Houston,
>> different places in Louisiana and in Texas.
>[....]
>> -------------------------
>
> Apparently this phone call is a "factoid."
If you disagree please tell me why. Jean
Dave Reitzes
>Dave:
>
> The points you raise are worth commenting on.
>
>Mercury.
I agree. I said that in my post.
>He did know how to drive.
Yes, he did, though he is not known to have been able to drive with any skill.
The source on Ruby's claim to be
>coming into money knew him very well, so there's no mistaken identity.
Ruby was always talking about coming into money. He was almost invariably
wrong.
> DeMohrenschildt: I wish I could discuss this in more detail at
>present, but I am not presently at liberty to discuss all of the
>evidence on this point. Suffice it to say that the $200,000 sent to
>DeMohrenschildt was not intended for DeMohrenschildt.
> Mexico City: Whether the trip had anything to do with an
>assassination conspiracy, there was something going on involving
>intelligence, and an attempt to build on Oswald's presence by pretending
>to be him. At the same time, the fact that the Dallas trip hadn't yet
>been announced either means someone had knowledge BEFORE the public
>announcement, or that the assassination conspiracy was a flexible one,
>and didn't depend on whether JFK went to Dallas.
The Mexico City episode raised many questions. The answers need not involve a
JFK assassination conspiracy, though I would certainly not rule the possibility
out. More importantly, it isn't clear what function the Mexico City episode
could have served in an assassination conspiracy; if the intent had been to
reaffirm motive on Oswald's part, many chances to do so would seem to have been
overlooked.
> Backyard Photos: Marina has said she took them, she has said
>she had her back to the stairs when she took them, and apparently she
>told Walt Brown that she took the ones presently in the record. Maybe
>she did. I'm not ready to take that to the bank. The Militant staffers
>only recalled seeing a photo with a man and a rifle, but couldn't
>identify the photos in evidence. Forgery in the photos, including the
>grain, would require only enlarged fine-grain composites re-photographed
>with Oswald's camera. The HSCA test wasn't definitive.
No, I said they were not definitive. But I think it's time to acknowledge that
forging these photos would have been more risky than the result could have even
conceivably been worth. If Oswald was telling the truth -- if the photos of the
faces and nothing else were his -- where did the conspirators get these photos
of his face? Not while Oswald was in custody -- that's pretty clear just from
eyeballing the photos.
> Predictions: People who plan assassinations are often
>"dubious sources." Most Mobsters are sent to prison on the testimony of
>"dubious sources," so I'm not sure why you bothered to state this. Ed
>Becker was a private detective, and considered a reliable source on
>other matters. Jose Aleman was also considered a reliable source--later,
>he had a breakdown, but that is hardly relevant to 1962. Frank Ragano,
>as Trafficante's attorney, was well-placed to know what he reported.
>It's true that a lot of Mobsters made boasts about the Kennedys--there
>was another in Bonnanno's recent book. Marcello and Trafficante,
>however, were speaking privately to confidantes, not boasting.
There must be two dozen people who have claimed inside knowledge of an
assassination plot. In addition to the mobsters, we have Billie Sol Estes,
Richard Case Nagell, Madeleine Brown, Robert Easterling, Eugene Dinkin, Gary
Underhill (pending corroboration), Harry Dean, Chauncey Holt, Loy Factor,
Charles Harrelson, James Files, William Bishop, and God knows how many others.
Meanwhile, are all the mobsters' tales consistent with one another? It doesn't
seem so to me. Therefore, even if we rule out all alleged threats and
confessions from outside the Mob, we have to establish some criteria for
judging which Mob-related claims are credible. Stacking a bunch of dubious
claims up side by side doesn't make any one of them more credible than it would
be on its own.
> Rose Cheramie: However accurate or inaccurate Fruge and Weiss
>were, the other attending doctor heard Cheramie's prediction before the
>assassination--and that's also in the HSCA report on Cheramie.
I mentioned him in my post, Martin. What did he say to the HSCA? Can you tell
me his first name?
Cheramie
>was a Marcello Mob prostitute,
Source, please.
and in a position perhaps to have heard
>something, but not know much.
How accurate was the information she is documented to have advanced, Martin?
Were Oswald and Ruby lovers? Did anyone else ever verify that Ruby was known to
some as "Pinky"? Can you show me the documentation that she worked for Ruby
and/or Marcello?
That she had a long rap sheet, no one
>disputes.
Have you seen it? It's quite interesting.
> Milteer: SOME of the shots obviously came from the TSBD. This
>is not something "conspiracy theorists" dispute, except perhaps for
>David Lifton. Milteer probably knew part of the plan, not all of it. The
>photo doesn't show Milteer. The evidence of his presence is his phone
>call from Dallas to Willie Sommersett on the day of the assassination.
So he claimed. Again, Martin, I take Milteer's statement quite seriously, but I
will not take him or anyone else solely at their word. How come in over three
decades no one has even remotely connected Milteer to an assassination plot?
How do we know he wasn't just a blowhard, one among many?
> Others on the Sixth Floor: That there was more than one person
>up there seems quite clear.
As opinions go, this is perfectly valid. As a statement of fact, it requires
some evidence. Some witnesses, such as Arnold Rowland and Richard Randolph
Carr, seem to have changed their stories later. Which witnesses and/or
documentary evidence do you find conclusive?
That there is no way to fit more than Oswald
>into the official version is also clear. The descriptions vary, clearly,
>but that isn't evidence of only one person up there, just makes it
>difficult to determine who WAS up there.
I can't go along with that. Descriptions of a possible second person vary from
a white male with horn-rimmed glasses in a sports jacket to an elderly black
male, while others would have a Native American and a woman on the sixth floor
at that time. Whom do we believe?
> Texas Theater: You've explained why people might have thought
>there was a link between the assassination and the shooting of Tippit,
>but not why it was assumed the same man did both shootings, as many
>assumed a conspiracy until later. No one is taking the Warren
>Commission's word for anything, much less that this was a typical
>arrest. I never said it was a typical arrest. Why would you assume I
>believed that?
Oswald was not presumed to have been behind both crimes; the DPD had something
like five witnesses who placed him at the Tippit crime scene and by Oswald's
own admission he was in the TSBD at the time of the shooting, he had no alibi,
and he had no good reason to have left Dealey Plaza. Within about 24 hours, a
rifle at the crime was linked to him and his political background provided him
with a reasonably obvious motive, even if he himself denied any such motive.
To sum up, there is no reason I know that Oswald should have been assumed to
have been the only participant in the JFK assassination, but credible evidence
linked him to that crime and the Tippit shooting. I don't see any reason to
question why the DPD would have considered him a prime suspect for both crimes.
> Paper Bag: No one photographed the paper bag ANYWHERE in the
>Depository, not just where it was found. Other evidence was put back
>where it was picked up from, then photographed (the cartridge cases are
>an example)--why not the paper bag?
Isn't this a lawyer's argument? Wouldn't a better question be why any TSBD
photographs were staged and passed off as authentic?
> Stretcher Bullet: Those who found the bullet said it rolled
>off of the stretcher with the bloody sheets. That was Ronald Fuller's
>stretcher. The other odd thing is that descriptions of the bullet don't
>match CE 399.
Some do, some don't. If someone was going to plant a bullet, though, why would
they not plant one they intended to stick with? Why complicate things with an
extra bullet?
> Mob: Oswald grew up among the Mob in New Orleans.
I have to hold you to a higher standard than this, Martin. What does "grew up
among the Mob" mean? He lived with his Uncle "Dutz" for about a year when he
was three, then rarely saw him again. What else would you advance as evidence
of Oswald's "Mob background"?
Ruby was
>Mob-connected, and got his girls through Mob sources in New Orleans. How
>silly is Mob involvement?
Again, Martin, a researcher of your standing in the community should not have
to resort to "connections" to bolster your convictions. Please detail your
evidence of Marcello-Ruby business relations. Was Ruby any more "Mob-connected"
than his competitors in the nightclub business? Have even a fraction of the
seamier rumors about Ruby ever been substantiated? Didn't the HSCA go to great
lengths to try to verify some of these rumors and "connections"?
Dave
>Martin
Jfkcia
>>Depository.
>
>
>Again, very controversial.
From Dallas police officer, Joe Marshall Smith who was stationed at Elm and
Houston streets. "And this woman came up to me and she was just in hysterics.
She told me, 'They are shooting the President from the bushes.' So i
immediately proceeded up here." Officer Smith ran down Elm street, up the
grassy hill and hopped the fence, proceeding to check the bushes and cars.
..."I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly but after the shot
and the woman, i pulled my pistol from my holster, and i thought, this is
silly, I don't know who i am looking for, and I put it back. Just as i did he
showed me he was a Secret Service Agent. . (Behind the wooden fence atop the
grassy knoll) jfkcia.com
Warrior
Dave Reitzes wrote in message
<19991002061518...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
states that he knew most of the railroad men but there were 2 along the
fence he didnt recognize. One was an older man light shirt dark pants the
other a man in his 20 s with a plaid shirt or palid jacket. Well we know
James Files story of what he was wearing. Now were going to say Bowers didnt
see it arent we. No wonder thing has gone nowhere. Barbara
Lurker
Martin Shackelford
to exist no longer, there might have been a temptation to reconstruct
them.
Foreknowledge: Thanks for mentioning Nagell, another who expressed
knowledge prior to the assassination, and acted on it. The others you
mention reported it AFTER the assassination.
Cheramie: Worked as a prostititute in New Orleans. You didn't do
that without the Marcello organization. I never said she worked for
Marcello, but whoever she worked for had to be connected to the New
Orleans Mob. I've never said that ALL of the claims she made were
accurate--or maybe she thought they all were.
Stretcher bullet: "some do, some don't"? What does this mean, Dave.
The only two people present at its discovery were Darrell Tomlinson and
Nathan Poole. Neither fits the description of "some don't."
Oswald/Mob: "grew up among the Mob" means that he lived in a Mob
neighborhood, Exchange Alley, with his mother; that his mother dated
Mob-connected men; that his uncle worked for the Marcello organization.
It is not exactly true that he "rarely saw" Dutz after he was three.
They were in contact when he lived in New Orleans, and when he moved
back there in 1963, he initially lived with Dutz and his family.
Ruby/Mob: I refer you to the HSCA volumes, and to Seth Kantor's
book for more details.
Martin Shackelford
You are repeating questions that you've asked and I've answered
in the past.
The source on the DeMohrenschildt $200,000 is a document cited by
Edward Epstein in the DeMohrenschildt chapter of The Assassination
Chronicles.
Red Herring: I didn't say Oswald wasn't in Mexico City. He was. I
said there was a false evidence trail as well, including the phony phone
call claiming to be Oswald.
Milteer in Dallas: Jean Davison debunked this one effectively.
You just threw another red herring into the discussion. Why would I trust
your website for all the "right answers" on other issues?
Grassy knoll: Both Bowers and Hoffman said they saw a gun.
Texas Theater: Another red herring. I never said the police at
the Theater "knew Oswald was the designated patsy."
CE 399: Tomlinson, Poole, Wright. All mistaken?
Mafia types like to bullshit people? Apparently academic types
do, too, John.
Martin Shackelford
which I saw a photocopy.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Afraid I can't help you convince people it WASN'T a conspiracy. I'm
>quite sure that it was. See below.
>
>Martin
>
>--
>
>Conspiracy Evidence:
>Five Minutes' Worth
>by Martin Shackelford
>
>FOLLOW THE MONEY:
>1.November 1963 statements by Jack Ruby and Oswald or a "second Oswald"
>that they expected to come into a large amount of money soon.
Oswald never said any such thing. You are invoking an "Oswald
sighting." Lurkers will want to see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sightings.txt
> 2.A deposit of over $200,000 by an offshore bank into the account of
>George DeMohrenschildt in December 1963.
But DeM hadn't been in Dallas for six months in November 1963. He was
in Haiti. How was he supposed to have mastermined the assassination
from Haiti?
And how is it sinister when somebody engaged in international business
gets $200,000?
BTW, what is your source on the $200,000? Did this in fact happen?
>MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE BEFORE NOVEMBER 22
>1.The Mexico City false evidence trail.
Martin, Oswald was in Mexico City. There is a *massive* amount of
evidence on this. It includes a Visa Application in his own
handwriting, and a letter in his handwriting bitching to the Soviet
Embassy in Washington how badly he was treated in the Soviet Embassy
in Mexico City.
>2. The possibly fraudulent/substituted "backyard photos" of Oswald.
I'm really surprised, Martin, that somebody who rejects the wacko
"Zapruder film alteration" theory embraces this. The photos were
authenticated 15 ways from Sunday by the HSCA. Why don't you see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
. . . and come back and tell us what you think the HSCA overlooked?
>3. The "second Oswald" appearances.
Absolutely normal in any kind of celebrated case. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sightings.txt
>PREDICTIONS OF ASSASSINATION
>1. Carlos Marcello (reported by Ed Becker).
>2. Santos Trafficante (reported by Jose Aleman)
>3. Jimmy Hoffa/Marcello/Trafficante (reported by Frank Ragano)
And you believe these guys, right?
If so, *which* account do you believe?
>4. Rose Cheramie (reported by Lt. Francis Fruge, LA State Police, and
>others)
She was the woman who claimed to work at the Carousel, but didn't.
She was the woman who said that Ruby and Oswald were homosexual
lovers, and had been "shacking up for years."
She said Ruby's nickname was "Pinky."
She was dropped as in informant for supplying unreliable information.
How much nonsense can she spout and *still* have you take her
seriously?
>5. Joseph Milteer (documented by Willie Somersett via tape recordings)
Martin, *please* read the following and see whether you can still view
Milteer as reliable:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.txt
Do you really believe that JFK has 15 "look-alikes" travelling with
him?
Do you think he was shot from a tall building with a high-powered
rifle, as opposed to a "triangulation of crossfire?" IOW, do you
accept Milteer's scenario, and *reject* buff scenarios with three or
more shooters?
>6. Lyndon Johnson (reported by Madeleine Brown).
This has been debunked right here. She has Lyndon Johnson, Richard
Nixon, and J. Edgar Hoover at a late night Nov. 21 "assassination
party."
But Nixon and Johnson are known to be elsewhere, and Hoover is known
to have been in his office in DC at 9:00 am. the next morning. Want
to post a private "red-eye" jet trip?
And she reported the "changed parade route."
It didn't happen, Martin, and people who claim personal knowledge of
it are clearly lying. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
>SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
>1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
You have no evidence he *was* in Dallas. The Groden picture has been
definitively debunked by the HSCA.
>2. The presence of several men in the east end 6th floor windows before
>the shots; the descriptions not matching Oswald.
The witness testimony is all over the place on who was in what
Depository window.
>3. The presence of an unidentified man in the west end 6th floor window
>of the Depository immediately after the shots.
See?
>4. Phony Secret Service agents on the Grassy Knoll and behind the
>Depository.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#ljohns
>5. Evidence of activity on the knoll at the time of the assassination.
All from witnesses who saw *no* shooter, and no gun. This is actually
evidence *against* a GK shooter.
>6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
>officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
>identified.
Listen to the radio transmissions, Martin. The cops had noticed that
the descriptions of the JFK shooter and the Tippit shooter were
similiar.
Besides, if the cops at the Texas Theatre knew that Oswald was the
"designated patsy" why didn't they shoot him when he drew his gun?
>7. The unusual makeup of the group that went to the Texas Theater to
>arrest him (FBI, Assistant D.A., downtown rather than sub-station
>police).
Again, *everybody* was on edge, and wanting to catch the assassin, and
wanting to catch Tippit's killer.
You really have no evidence this was "unusual" -- given that nothing
like this had happened before. You have no basis for comparison.
>THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
>1. A rifle found with the same serial number as that ordered by Oswald,
>but a different model, four inches longer.
But it was ordered by Oswald. Why would Kleins shipping a slightly
different model be sinister?
>2. The absence of the paper bag and ammunition clip from police and
>press photos of the area in which they were allegedly found, though
>other evidence appears in the photos (e.g., bullet casings, etc.). No
>evidence the paper bag ever contained the rifle.
Do you deny that the paper bag was indeed found in the Depository,
just as all the police testimony shows?
>3. The presence on one of the "sniper's nest" boxes of a fingerprint not
>that of Oswald or any other Depository employee.
You mean not *identified* as such.
>4. The location of bullet CE 399 on a stretcher at Parkland unrelated to
>the assassination.
Unless Tomlinson was merely mistaken.
>AFTER THE ASSASSINATION
>1. FBI surveillance tape made after the death of Sam Giancana, which
>recorded Santos Trafficante's statement:"Now only two people are alive
>who know who killed Kennedy."
>2. Trafficante's deathbed confession confession to Frank Ragano.
>3. Marcello's tape-recorded and other statements to FBI informant Joseph
>Hauser.
>
You really don't understand that Mafia types like to bullshit people,
do you Martin?
Let me repeat my advice to the original poster: go with the
*reliable* evidence. That's the hard ballistic, handwriting, and
photographic evidence.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
> John:
>
> You are repeating questions that you've asked and I've answered
> in the past.
> The source on the DeMohrenschildt $200,000 is a document cited by
> Edward Epstein in the DeMohrenschildt chapter of The Assassination
> Chronicles.
I'll check that out, Martin, but in the meantime you might explain how
it's sinister.
> Red Herring: I didn't say Oswald wasn't in Mexico City. He was. I
> said there was a false evidence trail as well, including the phony phone
> call claiming to be Oswald.
I don't think you know that this was a "phony phone call." That's what
John Newman thinks, and he doesn't see it as evidence of any conspiracy
to kill JFK.
> Milteer in Dallas: Jean Davison debunked this one effectively.
> You just threw another red herring into the discussion. Why would I trust
> your website for all the "right answers" on other issues?
Here is what you posted, Martin:
<Quote on>
SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
<Quote off>
You are now admitting that this is a factoid? If so, good for you.
> Grassy knoll: Both Bowers and Hoffman said they saw a gun.
When did Bowers say he saw a gun?
Do you really believe that Hoffman saw a shooter? If so, you have some
fancy footwork to do to explain how Sam Holland and his buddies didn't
see the retreating shooter nor the "railroad man" who was supposedly
breaking down the gun.
> Texas Theater: Another red herring. I never said the police at
> the Theater "knew Oswald was the designated patsy."
Then what did you mean by the following, Martin?
<Quote on>
6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
identified.
<Quote off>
Remember, this was "Conspiracy Evidence: Five Minutes Worth."
So how was this "conspiracy evidence?"
> CE 399: Tomlinson, Poole, Wright. All mistaken?
How were Poole and Wright supposed to be mistaken?
You're not using Tink Thompson's claim that Tomlinson and Write thought
the bullet looked different from CE 399, are you? If so, you need to
see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.gif
I haven't looked at Poole's testimony for a long while, but I thought it
pretty much supported the SBT.
Please explain what your point is about him.
> Mafia types like to bullshit people? Apparently academic types
> do, too, John.
>
Sashay(tm)!
And ad hominem too.
Do you really believe all the Mafia types, Martin? If not, you have no
business listing their statements as "conspiracy evidence."
.John
--
Dave Reitzes
> Backyard photos: If they were known to have existed, but believed
>to exist no longer, there might have been a temptation to reconstruct
>them.
Sure, but this is speculation. Would it have been worth the risk?
> Foreknowledge: Thanks for mentioning Nagell, another who expressed
>knowledge prior to the assassination, and acted on it. The others you
>mention reported it AFTER the assassination.
I'm afraid there's no proof that Nagell said a thing about the assassination
until after it occurred. By his own admission, he was not aware of a plot
scheduled for November or in Dallas, regardless of what he might or might not
have said to Jim Bundren about Dallas. You can wait for me to get around to a
Nagell article in four to six months or so, or you can order some of the files
on Nagell for yourself. The more I learn about him, the clearer it becomes he
was just another Garrison witness.
> Cheramie: Worked as a prostititute in New Orleans. You didn't do
>that without the Marcello organization.
You'll have to do better than this, Martin. This sounds like pure speculation.
I've been trying to warn you about the Cheramie story for months now. "You must
unlearn what you have learned." She was just another Garrison witness -- and a
dead one at that.
I never said she worked for
>Marcello, but whoever she worked for had to be connected to the New
>Orleans Mob.
Speculation.
I've never said that ALL of the claims she made were
>accurate--or maybe she thought they all were.
If you're going to cite Cheramie as evidence of conspiracy, I would urge you to
study the primary sources, or at the very least, read the HSCA Cheramie report
with a more critical eye.
> Stretcher bullet: "some do, some don't"? What does this mean, Dave.
>The only two people present at its discovery were Darrell Tomlinson and
>Nathan Poole. Neither fits the description of "some don't."
There are a handful of people who saw and handled the bullet that day. Their
testimonies disagree on whether or not it was CE 399 they handled. Given the
unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony, I hardly find this conclusive
evidence of substitution.
> Oswald/Mob: "grew up among the Mob" means that he lived in a Mob
>neighborhood, Exchange Alley, with his mother; that his mother dated
>Mob-connected men; that his uncle worked for the Marcello organization.
>It is not exactly true that he "rarely saw" Dutz after he was three.
>They were in contact when he lived in New Orleans, and when he moved
>back there in 1963, he initially lived with Dutz and his family.
I stand by what I said. Propinquity theories are not to be taken seriously. If
you can demonstrate that he had any significant contact with the Mob either in
1963 or before, the burden of proof is indeed yours.
Was Dutz Murret a major player himself? Or was he a small-time bookmaker?
> Ruby/Mob: I refer you to the HSCA volumes, and to Seth Kantor's
>book for more details.
>
>Martin
Seth Kantor doesn't theorize any involvement on Ruby's part in an assassination
conspiracy, does he? Frankly, I was disappointed with his book; even his case
for after-the-fact involvement is flimsy.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>John:
>
> You are repeating questions that you've asked and I've answered
>in the past.
> The source on the DeMohrenschildt $200,000 is a document cited by
>Edward Epstein in the DeMohrenschildt chapter of The Assassination
>Chronicles.
>said there was a false evidence trail as well, including the phony phone
>call claiming to be Oswald.
But there are numerous ways of interpreting such things, some of them not at
all sinister. I would guess that even spooks make mistakes, Martin.
> Milteer in Dallas: Jean Davison debunked this one effectively.
>You just threw another red herring into the discussion. Why would I trust
>your website for all the "right answers" on other issues?
I don't see what "trust" has to do with it. In my experience, the articles on
John's Web site tend to contain source citations and other references to help
readers, including links to Web sites with opposing views. Only people without
evidence have to ask anyone to take their word for anything. Speaking of which
. . .
> Grassy knoll: Both Bowers and Hoffman said they saw a gun.
Al Navis never produced the letter that allegedly had Bowers claiming to have
seen a gun. Walt Brown wrote him a very detailed, polite open letter, published
in JFK/DPQ several years ago -- and posted on his Web site now -- about this
issue, and urging Navis to produce the letter. It never happened. Navis doesn't
have the letter. That's consistent with everything Bowers ever said, including
an 11-22-63 statement that doesn't mention anyone behind the fence at all, and
an interview with Mark Lane in which he and Bowers joke about the Warren
Commission -- not exactly supportive of the theory that Bowers was
"frightened."
If you want to cite Ed Hoffman, you're on your own.
> Texas Theater: Another red herring. I never said the police at
>the Theater "knew Oswald was the designated patsy."
But John challenged your article and you seem to have chosen not to respond.
Who's the one throwing around red herrings?
> CE 399: Tomlinson, Poole, Wright. All mistaken?
So are you saying that CE 399's condition itself cannot be used as an argument
against the SBT, because it's not, in your opinion, the genuine bullet?
> Mafia types like to bullshit people? Apparently academic types
>do, too, John.
>
>Martin
Do you sink to Bob Harris level so easily, Martin? Pity.
Dave Reitzes
>The Bowers reference to a rifle was in a 1966 to a young researcher, of
>which I saw a photocopy.
>
>Martin
But that letter doesn't seem to exist anymore, does it? Since I'd hate to think
of Lee Bowers as either a liar or a coward, perhaps it's for the best.
Dave
P.S. Folks unfamiliar with this story can go look up Walt Brown's "Open Letter
to Al Navis" at:
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/jfkdpq.htm
Martin Shackelford
Calling Cheramie's ties to the Marcello organization
"Speculation" indicates you aren't familiar with how prostitution worked
in New Orleans in those days. You didn't work in that field without
Marcello sanction.
"Al Navis never produced the letter"? I saw a photocopy of the
letter at the Dallas conference where he made his presentation about it.
The original was in storage with the rest of his correspondence from
that period, awaiting transfer to an archive. Producing the original
wasn't feasible, but that fact has been a useful stick to beat him with,
though not a very honest one. By the time Walt Brown made his demand, I
don't think the correspondence was still in Navis' possession. That
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist anymore, Dave. Walt demanded that
Navis produce it; at the time, the demand was unreasonable.
Stretcher bullet: I'm saying it wasn't found on Connally's
stretcher, and it didn't resemble CE 399, according to those who found
it (Tomlinson and Poole) and the Parkland Security Chief (Wright). One
of those in the "chain of possession," Secret Service agent Richard
Johnson, didn't even recall possessing it, so he wasn't much help.
Saying that academic types like to bullshit people isn't
"sinking to Bob Harris' level," Dave. I've known a lot of academic
types. They like to bullshit people. Some do it for a living. Some do it
to sound knowledgeable about something on which they aren't
well-informed (I listened to an English professor insist, arguing with a
lawyer no less, that no royalty payment is necessary when showing a
film to an independent campus-affiliated organization in a campus
auditorium; the following year he had to eat his words). When McAdams
tried to discredit the Mafia types for the same thing, he was doing so
from a glass house.
Martin
Dave Reitzes
>Dave:
>
> Calling Cheramie's ties to the Marcello organization
>"Speculation" indicates you aren't familiar with how prostitution worked
>in New Orleans in those days. You didn't work in that field without
>Marcello sanction.
You know the rules, Martin: Citation, please.
> "Al Navis never produced the letter"? I saw a photocopy of the
>letter at the Dallas conference where he made his presentation about it.
>The original was in storage with the rest of his correspondence from
>that period, awaiting transfer to an archive. Producing the original
>wasn't feasible, but that fact has been a useful stick to beat him with,
>though not a very honest one. By the time Walt Brown made his demand, I
>don't think the correspondence was still in Navis' possession. That
>doesn't mean that it doesn't exist anymore, Dave. Walt demanded that
>Navis produce it; at the time, the demand was unreasonable.
Okay, that was three years ago. What's the excuse now?
Meanwhile, you'd actual credit such a statement from Mr. Bowers? After he
didn't say a word about any such thing prior to that? When he didn't mention
seeing *anything* behind the fence in his 11-22-63 affidavit? After he and Mark
Lane sat around *laughing* about the Warren Commission?
Do you believe Howard Brennan's testimony about being able to ID Oswald,
Martin? If not, do you acknowledge the double standard?
> Stretcher bullet: I'm saying it wasn't found on Connally's
>stretcher,
I'm not arguing with you.
and it didn't resemble CE 399, according to those who found
>it (Tomlinson and Poole) and the Parkland Security Chief (Wright).
The testimony I've read is not consistent with that. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but
some source citations would help. Given the unreliability of eyewitness
testimony, how much value do you think should be placed on their statements? Do
you also support Seymour Weitzman's initial identification of the TSBD rifle as
a Mauser? If not, do you acknowledge the double standard?
One
>of those in the "chain of possession," Secret Service agent Richard
>Johnson, didn't even recall possessing it, so he wasn't much help.
> Saying that academic types like to bullshit people isn't
>"sinking to Bob Harris' level," Dave. I've known a lot of academic
>types. They like to bullshit people. Some do it for a living.
I was referring to your specific statement, not offering a truism for mankind.
Some do it
>to sound knowledgeable about something on which they aren't
>well-informed (I listened to an English professor insist, arguing with a
>lawyer no less, that no royalty payment is necessary when showing a
>film to an independent campus-affiliated organization in a campus
>auditorium; the following year he had to eat his words). When McAdams
>tried to discredit the Mafia types for the same thing, he was doing so
>from a glass house.
>
>Martin
I believe you accused John in particular of "bullshitting" people in this case;
why don't you support that specific argument instead of relying on generalities
and irrelevant examples?
Dave
Jerry
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> The Bowers reference to a rifle was in a 1966 to a young researcher, of
> which I saw a photocopy.
>
>
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Martin,
You actually credit Al Navis claim that Bowers said he saw two DPD
policemen in uniform fire from behind the fence??
Of course, he never testified to anything like this.
Why is it you credit Bower's supposed change of testimony and find it
credible while you dismiss Howard Brennan because he changed his
testimony?
Jerry
Martin Shackelford
I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
exists.
I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
and Oswald was charged with the crime.
Martin
Ms X
the same direction, I would recommend Norman Mailers book on Oswald.
It is very convincing. One has to walk away from that book going, "Wow,
Oswald really did it." Good luck, hope you ace your project!
art guerrilla
>>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>>
>>Dave:
>>
>> Calling Cheramie's ties to the Marcello organization
>>"Speculation" indicates you aren't familiar with how prostitution worked
>>in New Orleans in those days. You didn't work in that field without
>>Marcello sanction.
>
dave palavered-
>You know the rules, Martin: Citation, please.
oh yeah, i think that was in the third file cabinet
from the left outside jay edgar's office...
*snort*
as usual, the Great Reitzes stock leveler :
no 'documentation', therefore didn't exist...
ann undocumented archy
eof
Tony Pitman
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>
>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>exists.
>
>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
>was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
>
>Martin
So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
That is great news, to me anyway.
That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
Assuming it's in longhand of course.
Is it?
I guess the signature would help.
I've allways felt that Bowers probably saw more than he was ready to
admit because of fear of his life. I mean that if these people were
prepared to knock off the president of the U.S. of A. then who the
hell was Bowers to worry about.
Tony
Martin Shackelford
Navis lost the letter. I said the original was boxed up for donation to a
university, thus Navis didn't have ready access to it by the time (rather
later than the conference) the controversy about it arose.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
> >
> >I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
> >exists.
> >
>
> But this contradicts what his family told Gary Mack and Dave Perry.
> They said he told them that there was really nothing beyond what he
> had told the WC and Mark Lane.
>
> Just how could Navis lose a letter like that?
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
John McAdams
>
> Nice job of ignoring my other posts on this subject, John. I didn't say
> Navis lost the letter. I said the original was boxed up for donation to a
> university, thus Navis didn't have ready access to it by the time (rather
> later than the conference) the controversy about it arose.
>
Martin, this was discussed on Compuserve a few years ago, and it was
obvious that Navis couldn't produce the letter.
Can he *now* produce the letter?
Where is it?
I'd like to see it. Wouldn't you?
This isn't another of those "your evidence is in the mail" things that
the LaFontaines and Bob Vernon are always pulling, it is?
If not, why doesn't he produce it?
.John
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>
>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>exists.
>
But this contradicts what his family told Gary Mack and Dave Perry.
They said he told them that there was really nothing beyond what he
had told the WC and Mark Lane.
Just how could Navis lose a letter like that?
.John
Martin Shackelford
I saw a photocopy of the letter in Dallas.
I don't care whether you believe it exists or not. Navis is
telling the truth.
Martin
John McAdams
>
> John:
>
> I saw a photocopy of the letter in Dallas.
> I don't care whether you believe it exists or not. Navis is
> telling the truth.
>
So Navis got this hugely explosive piece of evidence, and not only
didn't send copies out to people, he lost it to boot!
Doesn't any of this make you a bit suspicious, Martin?
I'll happily accept that you saw the "letter," but how do you know it
was not a forgery or a prank. Assuming Navis wouldn't do something like
that, how do we know that nobody played a prank on Navis, or perhaps
just fed him a forged letter?
Sort of like the "Mr. Hunt" note. You're aware that was forged, right?
.John
P.S. I don't care whether you care whether I believe it exists or not
:-).
--
Martin Shackelford
Bowers wrote the letter to Navis when Navis was 16 years old.
Navis has had a good reputation for integrity. I don't believe
he would attempt to foist a forgery on anyone.
No, I don't think it was a "Hunt letter."
Tony Pitman
McAdams) wrote:
>On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>>
>>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>>exists.
>>
>
>But this contradicts what his family told Gary Mack and Dave Perry.
>They said he told them that there was really nothing beyond what he
>had told the WC and Mark Lane.
>
>Just how could Navis lose a letter like that?
>
>.John
If he was at worried about his safety, which I think he should have been,
he may also have been just a little concerned for his family as well.
I dont know how he got along with Mark Lane but I could see why he would
not want to tell his family things which could put them in jeopardy.
I understand this contact with Navis took place well after he talked with
Lane so maybe he just finally decided to say what he knew. Since Martin
say the letter exists, or copies of it, then it should be possible to
authenticate it as I have said.
Tony
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>>
>>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>>exists.
>>
>>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
>>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
>>was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
>>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
>So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
>That is great news, to me anyway.
>That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
>having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
>Assuming it's in longhand of course.
>Is it?
>I guess the signature would help.
I'm afraid this is one of those pieces of "evidence" that's
conveniently unavailable.
Sort of like Beverly Oliver's film :-).
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>John:
>
> Bowers wrote the letter to Navis when Navis was 16 years old.
> Navis has had a good reputation for integrity. I don't believe
>he would attempt to foist a forgery on anyone.
How would he recognize a forgery? Did he have a questioned documents
expert scrutinize it?
If so, where is the report?
> No, I don't think it was a "Hunt letter."
>
How do you know?
Martin Shackelford
letter.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:02:24 GMT, a...@southern.co.nz (Tony Pitman)
> wrote:
>
> >On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
> ><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
> >>
> >>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
> >>exists.
> >>
> >>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
> >>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
> >>was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
> >>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
> >>
> >>Martin
> >
> >
> >So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
> >That is great news, to me anyway.
> >That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
> >having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
> >Assuming it's in longhand of course.
> >Is it?
> >I guess the signature would help.
>
> I'm afraid this is one of those pieces of "evidence" that's
> conveniently unavailable.
>
> Sort of like Beverly Oliver's film :-).
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Martin Shackelford
your earlier comment, it's not at all "convenient" that the letter isn't
available. I wish I had it to post here.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On 05 Nov 1999 19:23:00 EST, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >John:
> >
> > Bowers wrote the letter to Navis when Navis was 16 years old.
> > Navis has had a good reputation for integrity. I don't believe
> >he would attempt to foist a forgery on anyone.
>
> How would he recognize a forgery? Did he have a questioned documents
> expert scrutinize it?
>
> If so, where is the report?
>
> > No, I don't think it was a "Hunt letter."
> >
>
> How do you know?
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Tony Pitman
McAdams) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:02:24 GMT, a...@southern.co.nz (Tony Pitman)
>wrote:
>
>>On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>>>
>>>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>>>exists.
>>>
>>>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
>>>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
>>>was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
>>>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>>
>>So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
>>That is great news, to me anyway.
>>That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
>>having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
>>Assuming it's in longhand of course.
>>Is it?
>>I guess the signature would help.
>
>I'm afraid this is one of those pieces of "evidence" that's
>conveniently unavailable.
>
>Sort of like Beverly Oliver's film :-).
>
>.John
But Martin said that he has seen a copy of it John. Are you saying he is a
liar? I dont think so. Not Martin.
Tony
Bob Vernon
Reitzes doesn't exist.
Case closed.
Dr. Truth
"art guerrilla" <digde...@aol.comoc.loa> wrote in message
news:19991013220507...@ng-cn1.aol.com...