Martin White

I read Pat's interesting listing of assassination related coverage yesterday. I pretty much underlines what I had noticed, even here in the UK where you would think that "we" would be a little more objective. Naïve of me, perhaps. The BBC also ran an absolutely awful "minute by minute" account of events on Radio 2 that, seemingly, was put together entirely from the pages of the Warren Commission. At no stage did it even acknowledge any other viewpoint other than the WC view. The BBC, once a bastion of independent journalism - despite being State-funded - has been going down the toilet for some years now. It has no journalistic integrity left. It seems to me that there was more of a balance, perhaps even tilted towards the CT side, for the 25th and (less so) the 30th. I did not see a single pro conspiracy program on any mainstream or satellite channels in the UK. Nothing I saw even discussed the AARB or anything it turned up. The most balanced program I saw was the History Channel "Definitive Guide" that was - at best - 60/40 slanted in favour of the LN side. Even that program contained several outright lies and falsehoods, the most blatant of which was MacAdams saying that the Katzenbach memo said something that it didn't. I am sick of being patronised on TV by talking heads saying the people believe in JFK conspiracies because "Oswald" doesn't balance "JFK" on the scales of life. That is rubbish, and they know it's rubbish. Do they think no one has looked at evidence?

Is there any word on when Final Charade will be published?

Sounds like an objective book from a known neutral author..... [/sarcasm]

Did anyone ever identify the guy on the extreme right of the Croft photo posted above?

Lee, Whilst it seems indisputable that Frazier was "leaned on" for whatever reason, if his story was fabricated why would be he continue to say that the paper bag was too short to contain the rifle, and that Oswald carried it cupped under his armpit? Martin

- Deleted -

Sorry Jim, I have apparently missed this development. What happened to the judge? Martin, the judge's name was Carrie Chavez. From the Dallas Morning News: Over the years Groden’s been given 80 citations for illegally peddling his wares on city-controlled parks property, and 80 times those citations were tossed. The city long claimed that Dealey Plaza was a municipal park over which it had total authority, but as Dallas Municipal Judge Carrie Chavez ruled in December 2010, the site of the assassination is never mentioned in the Dallas City Code. So she tossed the case. (Chavez, incidentally, is no longer a municipal judge: She wasn’t recommended for rehire last summer during those contentions muni judge back-and-forths at City Hall.) As you can read below, on February 15 Judge Kristen Wade of the County Criminal Court of Appeals ruled that Chavez was absolutely right in her initial ruling. In documents filed in federal court last week, (now-outgoing) Dallas City Attorney Tom Perkins wrote that Dallas “will not further appeal the municipal court’s order quashing the misdemeanor information against Groden. Therefore, the City cannot further prosecute Mr. Groden in with respect to his actions that gave rise to that misdemeanor charge.” Full story: http://cityhallblog....ley-plaza.html/ Thanks Michael. Interesting turn of events.

Sorry Jim, I have apparently missed this development. What happened to the judge?

Pat, I've never met either you or David Mantik. I'm impressed with how much knowledge you have gained simply by immersing yourself in the literature, but you remain a layman (medically) and I nearly spat my coffee out when I read you saying that a board-certified oncologist had trouble interpreting x-rays. As I said, I admire your work ethic and study, but this is a step too far. Secondly, I have never read anything written about David Mantik that suggests he has trouble admitting he was wrong. On the contrary, I have only ever read positive comments about him, and his own writing is usually bent-over-backwards to be fair or to allow for or even acknowledge his own mistakes. I make these remarks with the best of respect to both you and Dr Mantik and I hope that they are received in the same way. Best regards Martin

Did Shaneyfelt really say he could not identify the rifle in the photo as the murder weapon?

Is there a documented reason why the Lincoln wasn't used in the May recreation?

The palm print wasn't found on 11-22, was it? I was always under the impression that the palm print was found after the rifle came back from Washington and after Oswald died. Apologies in advance if I've got this wrong or I've misunderstood. Martin

I understand (or at least, I think I do) why Gary does not post directly. I wish he would. Moderators: would it be possible to have a thread as a Q&A for Gary to respond to directly, but with the questions moderated before approval?

It appears to me that from frames 420-430, Clint Hill is turning to his left, or at least looking over his left shoulder back at the follow-up car. It could be that the thumbs-down occurs during this sequence but we don't see it because of the sprocket holes?

The exhibited shirt looks (to me anyway) more like the doorman shirt than the checked shirt which Lovelady may or may not have been wearing. That is not to say that I think the exhibited shirt IS the Doorman shirt. I think there appears to be several inconsistencies, however these may be explained by cleaning/pressing. The Doorman shirt looks nothing like the vertically striped shirt that Lovelady was pictured wearing. Neither shirt that Lovelady is alleged to have worn on the day looks like the Doorman shirt to me. And if I may ask what might be an embarrassing (to me) question - did not Oswald change his shirt at his rooming house after leaving the TSBD? If this is the case, then the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested was not the shirt he wore to work that morning.