The most controversial poster in a.c.jfk history?
Dave Reitzes
posted about me -- from longtime conspiracy theorists as well as CT-bashing
Warren Commission apologists -- but strangely, no one cares to deal with the
evidence in any of the controversial articles I've written. In fact, my most
vocal detractors seem to wear it as some sort of badge of pride to have never
actually read any of the articles of mine they're attacking.
Find out why these people will call me every name in the book in their attempts
to convince newcomers not to read my articles and judge for themselves whether
my sources check out and my conclusions stand up.
Silvia Odio is widely regarded as the single most important eyewitness there is
to an assassination conspiracy, yet some conspiracy theorists now argue that
Odio has been lying all along. What is their evidence for this claim?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odio3.htm
New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison alleged that Lee Harvey Oswald was
seen in a rural Louisiana town with alleged conspirators David Ferrie and Clay
Shaw (portrayed in Oliver Stone's JFK by Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones), and
his witnesses were even deemed credible by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations in the 1970s. But new evidence from Jim Garrison's personal
files, and field notes from one of his investigators, challenges this belief.
"Impeaching Clinton" discusses the case in detail and includes links to
numerous complete, unedited eyewitness statements available nowhere else on the
Net.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm
Jim Garrison alleged that New Orleans businessman Clay L. Shaw conspired to
assassinate President John F. Kennedy, and Oliver Stone repeated the allegation
in his film, JFK. See for yourself what the evidence shows, including links to
numerous primary source documents available nowhere else.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
I have been offering ever since this article was first posted -- almost two
years ago -- to correct any factual inaccuracies that anyone can point out to
me. I've been attacked literally THOUSANDS (!) of times for writing this
article, but no one has refuted a single point in it.
One inaccuracy that does exist and will be corrected in the next revision is
the incomplete nature of the argument presented concerning the allegation that
Clay Shaw was involved in a CIA operation called QK/ENCHANT. Shaw's detractors
refused to produce their evidence for this charge, and I literally had to guess
what it was. Now that all the evidence is available, I can make a more complete
and accurate argument, and I do so in my article called "Fair Play for Clay
Shaw?" This article addresses a number of recent allegations made about Shaw,
and can be found here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fairplay.htm
I've even been attacked (by one Haizen Paige) for having some positive things
to say about Robert F. Kennedy:
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/rfk.html
Here are some more articles of mine that have come under fire, without having
any of the evidence refuted or even debated.
An examination of the allegation that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill his
arresting officer in the Texas Theatre:
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/mcdonald.html
A dissenting view against the widely held belief that Jack Ruby was an
assassination conspirator:
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/rubydef.html
A new look at the theory advanced by Jim Garrison and adopted by Oliver Stone
that Lee Oswald worked for ultraconservative Guy Banister (portrayed in JFK by
Ed Asner):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/camp.htm
A dissection of the claim that telephone records connect Jack Ruby to David
Ferrie:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid.htm
A reevaluation of Richard Case Nagell, referred to by Jim Garrison as "the most
important witness there is":
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell1.htm
A brief overview of the methodological problems with Ray and Mary La Fontaine's
Oswald Talked, regardless of whether their star witness, John Franklin Elrod,
is credible:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/12step.htm
A detailed discussion of how the La Fontaines rely on numerous discredited
theories of Jim Garrison's, including a great deal of background information on
the Garrison case:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ripples.htm
An examination of an alleged link between the accused assassin and NASA:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cadet.htm
A personal essay on why I no longer believe there were "two Oswalds":
http://www1.madbbs.com/~tracy/lho/dr1.htm
And there is much more on the JFK assassination, including eyewitness
statements, articles, book reviews, and the transcript from the trial of Clay
Shaw, available at my Web site (with much more to come):
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes/jfkmenu.html
I am grateful to those who see enough value in my work to archive it at their
sites, and I thank those who have expressed their support via this newsgroup or
personal e-mail. One day we might know precisely what happened on November 22,
1963, and why, but only thanks to those who value fact over theory and who
truly weigh the evidence with an open mind.
Dave
The Great Unwashed
drei...@aol.com says...
> Recently this newsgroup has seen an extraordinary number of personal attacks
> posted about me --
duquesne
several months request your take on this:
http://www.webcom.com/~ctka/LetJusticeBeDone/rebuttal.htm
All I have seen you do is refer those persons back to your original
review for the rebuttal. Well, Dave I have to tell you I have read your
review and I have read Davy's rebuttal. Seeing as how you choose to
ignore Davy and not challenge any of his assertions, I take that to mean
you are *unable* to challenge any of his assertions.
If that is the case, it appears to me that going by Davy's final word
that you have done some shoddy research and fudged many facts. That being
the case why should anyone waste a single second of their time reading
the lengthly dissertations of a shoddy researcher?
You see, you already have one strike against you with your chummy
association with John, Paulie, McAdams, Nolan. You see, John, Paulie,
McAdams, Nolan, has been shown here time and time again to report half
the facts, take things out of context, and outright lie in the articles
posted on his site. Now, you have been shown to have done the same thing
and like John, Paulie, McAdams, Nolan, you choose to ignore posts like
this as if they didn't even exist.
The article by Davy is the point by point rebuttal you are always
demanding from others on this newsgroup. Well, you have one. Why are you
ignoring this, Dave?
All I can say is, the ball is now, and has been, in your court. Are you
going to take the shot, or run away dribbling? We'll be waiting, Dave.
From past experience I expect it to be a long one.
gene
Jerry
witness? And claiming that the FBI and the DOJ confirmed that Clay Shaw
was Clay Bertrand?
And is this the Bill Davy who claims that the media and the
intelligence agencies carried out a campaign of lying about Garrison
and brought about a miscarriage of justice - freeing a guilty man?
Heck, the jury members said they weren't impressed with Garrison's
paperthin case and non-credible witnesses! Perhaps they were
brainwashed by the media.
Apparently, he thinks Clay Shaw was guilty - but of what? Using a
pseudonym? Passing money to Oswald who got up leaving behind FPCC
leaflets for Vernon Bundy to gather??
And is this the Bill Davy who still believes that David Ferrie
was "involved" and spilled his guts to Lou Ivon?
The Garrison investigators came up with nothing on Ferrie save the lies
that Jack Martin told. Why does Davy still push the refuted notion that
Ferrie was about to be arrested?
Why can't Davy even admit that Reitzes was demonstrably right when he
said that the entire book - excluding the front and back matter - was a
little more than 200 pages?
This is a fact, boys and girls, and anybody with the book can verify
Reitze's claim.
But Davy will spend three paragraphs pretending that Reitzes is wrong
about this, before grudgingly admitting it, taking the fallback
position of quality over quantity!
Jerry
In article <MPG.13bac049b...@news.skyweb.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
duquesne
to defend Reitzes? Can Reitzes not speak for himself? Why the silence?
Until HE responds I'll make my decision based on Davy's aritcle.
BTW, you really should purchase and read "Let Justice Be Done" by Bill
Davy. It has a lot of good information in it as opposed to the nonsense
some on this group have been posting from Lambert.
gene
art guerrilla
>attacks
>> posted about me --
>me me me me mememe mememe memememememe
hee hee hee
ann not-me archy
eof
Magic Bullet
onto Davy's credibility.
However, let me remind you that the issue here is Reitzes' credibility - not
Davy's.
What Davy believes is irrelevant to this. What IS relevant is why Reitzes
misquoted Davy and the NYT, while at the same time falsely accusing Davy of
doing the misquoting.
Address the real issues or piss off out of this.
more below
Jerry <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ir66m$m36$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Is this the Bill Davy who is still touting Vernon Bundy as a credible
> witness? And claiming that the FBI and the DOJ confirmed that Clay Shaw
> was Clay Bertrand?
>
> And is this the Bill Davy who claims that the media and the
> intelligence agencies carried out a campaign of lying about Garrison
> and brought about a miscarriage of justice - freeing a guilty man?
>
> Heck, the jury members said they weren't impressed with Garrison's
> paperthin case and non-credible witnesses! Perhaps they were
> brainwashed by the media.
>
> Apparently, he thinks Clay Shaw was guilty - but of what? Using a
> pseudonym? Passing money to Oswald who got up leaving behind FPCC
> leaflets for Vernon Bundy to gather??
>
> And is this the Bill Davy who still believes that David Ferrie
> was "involved" and spilled his guts to Lou Ivon?
>
> The Garrison investigators came up with nothing on Ferrie save the lies
> that Jack Martin told. Why does Davy still push the refuted notion that
> Ferrie was about to be arrested?
>
> Why can't Davy even admit that Reitzes was demonstrably right when he
> said that the entire book - excluding the front and back matter - was a
> little more than 200 pages?
The length of the book was made an issue by Dave. As was the percentage of
new material. Why don't you address that?
> This is a fact, boys and girls, and anybody with the book can verify
> Reitze's claim.
> But Davy will spend three paragraphs pretending that Reitzes is wrong
> about this, before grudgingly admitting it, taking the fallback
> position of quality over quantity!
No. The point was he was wrong about the number of blank pages, and the
percentage of new material.
greg
jpsh...@my-deja.com
William Davy. _Let Justice Be Done_ pp 59-60
In the papers of Edward and William Wegmann is a list entitled
"Notes on Search Banister's File - Residue - Sovereignty Commission -
7/68." Included in the seven page list is a handwritten summary
of the remaining contents of each file. A partial example is listed
below:
[...]
10-58 - "8/27/59 - Casing Rpt. for surrep. entry to Dr. James
Dumbrowki's [sic] Perdido Bldg from Allen Campbell to
G.B."
<end of excerpt>
I find this interesting because it shows that Guy Banister and
Jim Garrison both targeted the same New Orleans-based civil rights
group, the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF), for special
attention. James Dombrowki was the executive director of the SCEF,
which had its office on Perdido street in N.O. When the Louisiana
Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities orchestrated
a raid on this office in October of 1963, Garrison's assistants
cooperated by obtaining indictments against Dombrowski and two other
men.
380 U.S.
479
DOMBROWSKI ET AL. v. PFISTER, CHAIRMAN, JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF LOUISIANA. No. 52.
Argued January 25, 1965.
Decided April 26,
1965.
Appellants filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, invoking the Civil [380 U.S. 479, 482] Rights
Act, Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1958 ed.), and seeking
declaratory relief and an injunction restraining appellees - the
Governor, police and law enforcement officers, and the Chairman of the
Legislative Joint Committee on Un-American Activities in Louisiana -
from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute appellants for alleged
violations of the Louisiana Subversive Activities and Communist Control
Law and the Communist Propaganda Control Law. 1 Appellant Southern
Conference Educational Fund, Inc. (SCEF), is active in fostering civil
rights for Negroes in Louisiana and other States of the South.
Appellant Dombrowski is its Executive Director; intervenor Smith, its
Treasurer; and intervenor Waltzer, Smith's law partner and an attorney
for SCEF. The complaint alleges that the statutes on their face violate
the First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees securing freedom of
expression, because overbreadth makes them susceptible of sweeping and
improper application abridging those rights. Supported by affidavits
and a written offer of proof, the complaint further alleges that the
threats to enforce the statutes against appellants are not made with
any expectation of securing valid convictions, but rather are part of
a plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution under
color of the statutes to harass appellants and discourage them and
their supporters from asserting and attempting to vindicate the
constitutional rights of Negro citizens of Louisiana.
[...]
Appellants' allegations and offers of proof outline the chilling
effect on free expression of prosecutions initiated and threatened in
this case. Early in October 1963 appellant Dombrowski and
intervenors Smith and Waltzer were arrested by Louisiana state and
local police and charged with violations of the two statutes.
Their offices were raided and their files and records seized. 4 Later
in October a state judge quashed the [380 U.S. 479, 488] arrest
warrants as not based on probable cause, and discharged the appellants.
Subsequently, the court granted a motion to suppress the seized
evidence on the ground that the raid was illegal. Louisiana officials
continued, however, to threaten prosecution of the appellants, who
thereupon filed this action in November. Shortly after the
three-judge court was convened, a grand jury was summoned in the
Parish of Orleans to hear evidence looking to indictments of the
individual appellants. On appellants' application Judge Wisdom issued
a temporary restraining order against prosecutions pending hearing
and decision of the case in the District Court. Following a hearing
the District Court, over Judge Wisdom's dissent, dissolved the
temporary restraining order and, at the same time, handed down an
order dismissing the complaint. Thereafter the grand jury returned
indictments under the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law
against the individual appellants. 5
[...]
... The brief filed in this Court by appellee Garrison, District
Attorney of the Parish of Orleans, the official having immediate
responsibility for the indictments, concedes the facts concerning
the arrests of the individual appellants, their discharge by the
local judge, and the indictments of the individual appellants by the
grand jury...
<end of excerpt>
Jerry Shinley
Jerry
Do you really believe that the media got together and hatched a plot
against Garrison that resulted in justice being thwarted and a guilty
man going free?
Could it not be that the media had legitimate problems with Garrison
and the way he was conducting his probe?
Prosecutors receive a lot of attention - think of Ken Starr and his
investigation. Was there a plot against him?
Imagine if Ken Starr had a key witness against Clinton who gave an
innocuous account UNTIL s/he had been hypnotized and/or drugged.
Or if he had trotted out a heroin addict and a certified nutcase!
Jerry
In article <MPG.13baeeb17...@news.skyweb.net>,
duquesne <duqu...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Why are you other LN's putting in your $.02? Do you feel a burning
need
> to defend Reitzes? Can Reitzes not speak for himself? Why the
silence?
>
> Until HE responds I'll make my decision based on Davy's aritcle.
>
> BTW, you really should purchase and read "Let Justice Be Done" by
Bill
> Davy. It has a lot of good information in it as opposed to the
nonsense
> some on this group have been posting from Lambert.
>
> gene
>
duquesne
been silent before. Why is he ignoring everyone who has asked for a
comment on Davy's rebuttal?
When anyone did this to him he would crow and crow that they disappeared
because what they wrote was indefensible. He has been asked about this
for months repeatedly.
As far as I'm concerned Davy's right Reitzes is wrong or Reitzes would
have a reply. Why should I waste any of MY time reading any more of his
crap? He got his point by point rebuttal he always asks for and he goes
silent.
It's all here for his "huge" lurker audience to see. He gets challenged
by a real writer and he runs for cover. Hell, it's here for the entire
world to see.
gene
Jerry
Prove to me that there was a vast governmental and media conspiracy to
subvert Garrison's investigation and free a guilty man!
Prove to me that Perry Russo, Chas. Speisel, and Vernon Bundy were
credible witnesses!
Dave Reitzes has come forward, as you asked. See my thread, "Has Davy
Refuted Reitzes - Part II.
Jerry
In article <MPG.13bc0a808...@news.skyweb.net>,
duquesne
waste my time. Reitzes is the one that had to prove something. I never
made a single assertion concerning Garrison.
I will be reading what Reitzes wrote, at my leisure, because he has
proven that everything he does write must be checked for verification,
which takes time, which I'm sure he's always been aware of. He never
thought anyone *would* check up on him. I'm not going anywhere, not to
worry.
gene
In article <8itj67$dm4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jer...@my-deja.com says...
Jerry
foisted upon a research community that has a weakness for his style and
especially his enemies list.
You don't need to wait for Reitzes to explain his position. He has done
so more completely than anybody here in numerous essays which you can
get to with a few mouse clicks.
Jerry
In article <MPG.13bc26a3c...@news.skyweb.net>,
duquesne
> You are wise not to try to prove any of the nonsense that Garrison
> foisted upon a research community that has a weakness for his style and
> especially his enemies list.
>
> You don't need to wait for Reitzes to explain his position. He has done
> so more completely than anybody here in numerous essays which you can
> get to with a few mouse clicks.
>
> Jerry
>
nothing more than repeating the same things contained in his original
review that Davy responded to.
I guess he can't respond to the rebuttal. No surprise there.
gene