David Josephs Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Mr. Carroll... while we needn't see eye to eye, we do agree that Oswald was not involved in the killing of JFK that day. My agreement comes with a personal caveat about which Oswald we are referring to, yet rather than go that direction... let's just agree that the many Ruby killed was not "in on it" It would make little sense for him to be... he was helping identify pro-Castro supporters in the US... he was getting close here and there while not doing so well in other areas, like so many "assets" of the times. Was Lovelady where he was on purpose? So that afterward a mis-ID of Oswald at the top of the stairs would be explained by Lovelady's presence? Seems a bit too planned out for me... yet there he was and deep in the corner, obviously not in a spot where he could even see the motorcade after it turns. And barely moves until he is gone... Gonna go see if I can find the latest image of PM we have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Let's straighten a few things out here. "Out Front with Shelley" was clarified by Bookout in his report to have occurred AFTER the Baker incidence... Whether this was added cover for his being PM... who knows... The standard signed statement that said the witness did not see or speak to Oswald at any time also appears to be a CYA move... since no one is allowed to see Oswald during that time, no one did. The color image is from Hughes showing what appears to be Lovelady in the WEST corner of the entrance yet only seconds later (in the B&W underneath) he is over to the EAST and the PM is obviously deep in the WEST corner... I think we also agree that the only man in a suit on the top step is Shelley (B&W in Altgens) and would have been also to the EAST of the doorway. And that in the bottom right image, Lovelady is once again looking at the camera while the limo is already headed down Elm... In the bottom left, Lovelady appears to me as having disappeared... with Wesley at the top of the steps almost looking at PM... Other than Oswald, have we created a list of who left it still may be? To me we have rolled up sleeves, a watch or bracelet on the right hand (left handed person? - in Minsk he is wearing a watch on his right hand) here too is a slowed down version of the post shooting film as they file back into the TSBD.. And I'm sure you've seen the Tramp photo in front of the TSBD with who appears to be Oswald out front talking to a policeman Hi David But if you are going to go with the 'out front with Shelley' statement happening after the assassination then that leaves you with a problem in Fritz's notes of the interrogation. Because it means that Fritz has neglected to ask Oswald where he was during the assassination. I don't find that very likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted June 29, 2015 Author Share Posted June 29, 2015 But if you are going to go with the 'out front with Shelley' statement happening after the assassination then that leaves you with a problem in Fritz's notes of the interrogation. Because it means that Fritz has neglected to ask Oswald where he was during the assassination. I don't find that very likely. Thank you, Vanessa. Ever since the untimely death of Sylvia Meagher we have suffered from a "men only" syndrome in studying this case. It is good to have a feminine point of view again! They say you can't live with women, but you can't live without them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Hi Tommy (this is for your comment at #40) I hadn't really actually noticed the guy motioning Baker up the steps before. I think that's very significant, and if I may suggest it, I think you should put this comment on the main PM thread. If Baker ran past this guy instead of going up the steps then he would have had to push past him. And this motion shows that this person was convinced Baker was going up the steps. But the biggie is "Who is this man?". He's got on a suit (and maybe a hat?) so a management type. He's in the vicinity of the TSBD steps seconds after the shots are fired. He seems to be heading back into the building himself until he spots the police officer and lets him go first(?) Or am I reading too much into that? If we can work out who he is then maybe he gave WC testimony and we can see if he saw Baker. Because if he didn't then that would be.....strange. As strange as all the others on the steps who didn't see Baker or PM that day. I nominate a management type from the TSBD - maybe one of the publishers?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Hi Tommy (this is for your comment at #40) I hadn't really actually noticed the guy motioning Baker up the steps before. I think that's very significant, and if I may suggest it, I think you should put this comment on the main PM thread. If Baker ran past this guy instead of going up the steps then he would have had to push past him. And this motion shows that this person was convinced Baker was going up the steps. But the biggie is "Who is this man?". He's got on a suit (and maybe a hat?) so a management type. He's in the vicinity of the TSBD steps seconds after the shots are fired. He seems to be heading back into the building himself until he spots the police officer and lets him go first(?) Or am I reading too much into that? If we can work out who he is then maybe he gave WC testimony and we can see if he saw Baker. Because if he didn't then that would be.....strange. As strange as all the others on the steps who didn't see Baker or PM that day. I nominate a management type from the TSBD - maybe one of the publishers?? Hi Vanessa, Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad to see you're still around. Robert Prudhomme has pointed out that Baker actually veers and runs behind the guy who is sidestepping out of Baker's way, motioning him up the steps. But you're right -- the suited guy obviously thought that Baker was going to run up the steps, as did at least two women in the Darnell clip who seem to be scurrying out of Baker's way. I've incorporated most of this in my new thread, "Gerda Dunckel's Synchronized Couch and Darnell Clips." --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Hi Tommy (this is for your comment at #40) I hadn't really actually noticed the guy motioning Baker up the steps before. I think that's very significant, and if I may suggest it, I think you should put this comment on the main PM thread. If Baker ran past this guy instead of going up the steps then he would have had to push past him. And this motion shows that this person was convinced Baker was going up the steps. But the biggie is "Who is this man?". He's got on a suit (and maybe a hat?) so a management type. He's in the vicinity of the TSBD steps seconds after the shots are fired. He seems to be heading back into the building himself until he spots the police officer and lets him go first(?) Or am I reading too much into that? If we can work out who he is then maybe he gave WC testimony and we can see if he saw Baker. Because if he didn't then that would be.....strange. As strange as all the others on the steps who didn't see Baker or PM that day. I nominate a management type from the TSBD - maybe one of the publishers?? Hi Vanessa, Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad to see you're still around. Robert Prudhomme has pointed out that Baker actually veers and runs behind the guy who is sidestepping out of Baker's way, motioning him up the steps. But you're right -- the suited guy obviously thought that Baker was going to run up the steps, as did at least two women in the Darnell clip who seem to be scurrying out of Baker's way. I've incorporated most of this in my new thread, "Gerda Dunckel's Synchronized Couch and Darnell Clips." --Tommy Hi Tommy (this is for your comment at #40) I hadn't really actually noticed the guy motioning Baker up the steps before. I think that's very significant, and if I may suggest it, I think you should put this comment on the main PM thread. If Baker ran past this guy instead of going up the steps then he would have had to push past him. And this motion shows that this person was convinced Baker was going up the steps. But the biggie is "Who is this man?". He's got on a suit (and maybe a hat?) so a management type. He's in the vicinity of the TSBD steps seconds after the shots are fired. He seems to be heading back into the building himself until he spots the police officer and lets him go first(?) Or am I reading too much into that? If we can work out who he is then maybe he gave WC testimony and we can see if he saw Baker. Because if he didn't then that would be.....strange. As strange as all the others on the steps who didn't see Baker or PM that day. I nominate a management type from the TSBD - maybe one of the publishers?? Hi Vanessa, Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad to see you're still around. Robert Prudhomme has pointed out that Baker actually veers and runs behind the guy who is sidestepping out of Baker's way, motioning him up the steps. But you're right -- the suited guy obviously thought that Baker was going to run up the steps, as did at least two women in the Darnell clip who seem to be scurrying out of Baker's way. I've incorporated most of this in my new thread, "Gerda Dunckel's Synchronized Couch and Darnell Clips." --Tommy Thanks Tommy - I'll check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 It doesn't prove a conspiracy, since there is the minute possibility of a different "lone nut" on the job. And if there was a conspiracy, it does not prove that LHO was not involved in it. As my readers know, I believe Lee Oswald was a completely innocent man, who was framed for the Tippit murder and for the JFK murder.. greg parker is an Oswald accuser who won't let go even when he knows that Lee is innocent! And Carroll shoots as straight as a dog's hind leg. Let's put it this way, if Carroll had been the sniper, he wouldn't have needed no goddamn magic bullet. What Carroll deliberately omitted from his quote because he is an amatuer putz is this: For the record - I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy and that Oswald's sole "connection" to it was as designated patsy. That case is coming. Mister Parker is a GARRISON GROUPIE, conscious or unconscious I don't know which. Lee Oswald told reporters: "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union, I'm just a Patsy." The word "Patsy" has always meant nothing more than an innocent man falsely accused, and you can find it frequently used in the popular novels of Michael Connelly, e.g. Trunk Music. But Garrison gave it a special meaning, implying that Lee Oswald was an idiot who conspired in his own undoing, and Garrison followers like Greg Parker have been attributing that special meaning to the word "Patsy" ever since. Its a bummer when people don't understand the English language! Lee Oswald said that he knew nothing about the assassination or the murder of J.D. Tippit and his accusers, including Greg Parker and David Von Pein, are barking up the wrong tree You're a complete nut case aren't you, boy-o? Raymond can you not read? Parker is NOT a LHO accuser. And the fact that Marina did not reply to you is hardly "proof" of anything. For a lawyer your reasoning here is quite lacking. Maybe she simply is not interested in replying to you. But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it). Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it). Dawn Garrison formally accused Lee Oswald of plotting the murder of JFK, and the jury of 12 New Orleans citizens took less than an hour to find that Lee was innocent of Garrison's silly charge. If you want to be a sucker, Dawn, go ahead and be my guest. I have never seen you post a useful comment in the history of the Education Forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it). Dawn Garrison formally accused Lee Oswald of plotting the murder of JFK, and the jury of 12 New Orleans citizens took less than an hour to find that Lee was innocent of Garrison's silly charge. If you want to be a sucker, Dawn, go ahead and be my guest. I have never seen you post a useful comment in the history of the Education Forum Did I miss Oswald's trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 Did I miss Oswald's trial? Apparently you did. Lee was a named conspirator in Garrison's indictment. When Clay Shaw was acquitted of conspiring with Lee then Lee was automatically acquitted of conspiring with Clay Shaw! DOOOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it). Dawn Garrison formally accused Lee Oswald of plotting the murder of JFK, and the jury of 12 New Orleans citizens took less than an hour to find that Lee was innocent of Garrison's silly charge. If you want to be a sucker, Dawn, go ahead and be my guest. I have never seen you post a useful comment in the history of the Education Forum uh, Mr. C... Seems to me this says only Clay Shaw was accused and charged of conspiring WITH Ferrie and Oswald, neither of whom where charged with a crime at this trial, to kill JFK. Oswald was not found innocent, Clay Shaw was and for the worst possible reasons. Misstating the facts is not something suckers like me and Dawn go in for... flash a nice smile and be courteous works though... https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/001/1270/images/img_1270_20_300.png Are you now going to contend that Oswald didn't associate with Ferrie and Shaw.. Bannister and Martin? Or was than Lee instead of Harvey? In eitehr case, Garrison was not looking to convict Oswald but to show a conspiracy ocurred and that Oswald was the unknowing and unwitting Patsy in this plan. "Lee" was not found to be anything in this trial... SHAW was found not guilty of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER on a number of technicalities as well as the court's refusal to allow evidence to be presented, to name only a couple reasons. I fully understand Oswald did not kill anybody... but you might want to learn the facts before you post what you THINK they are instead of what they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Did I miss Oswald's trial? Apparently you did. Lee was a named conspirator in Garrison's indictment. When Clay Shaw was acquitted of conspiring with Lee then Lee was automatically acquitted of conspiring with Clay Shaw! DOOOH! No sir, he was not charged with anything... sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 No sir, he was not charged with anything... sorry. From Garrison's Opening Statement: The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/garrisono.htm If Lee had been alive, and Clay Shaw dead, then Lee would have been the first-named defendant. When Clay Shaw was found innocent, so was Lee. You Oswald accusers need to get a life! It doesn't matter, because the jury found ALL THREE WERE INNOCENT! Live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 and if mama had balls she'd be daddy "If" means nothing Ray. He "was not charged". You can't be found innocent of anything if you haven't been charged. Same is true for Guilt. Since he was never tried, he was never found guilty of a crime. Innocent until proven so. We don't disagree over Oswald's innocence in the actual deed Ray... so please lower the guns. The Garrison Trial was ultimately a sham as much as the FBI's investigation of the crime... The only thing we can learn from the Garrison Trial is that the CIA and FBI can and will affect the outcome of anything, anywhere if it is in their best interests. Killing ANY conspiracy was the point. The Garrison Trial has nothing at all to do with the innocence of Oswald... just like the WCR is a case study in how to perpetrate the cover-up of a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 and if mama had balls she'd be daddy "If" means nothing Ray. He "was not charged". Well the record shows that he was charged (in abstentia) so your post is just a load of codswallop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now