Jump to content


Spartacus

David Reitzes - "Impeaching Clinton"


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:28 AM

As some of you may know, David Reitzes posted an article at McAdams website entitled, "Impeaching Clinton", in which he tried to convince readers that the Clinton La. witnesses who identified Lee Harvey Oswald actually mistook Estus Morgan for Oswald. I was reminded of this ridiculous article when someone at my forum said that the article debunked those witnesses.

It only took me a few minutes to track down information on the late Mr. Morgan at ancestory.com. As David correctly pointed out, Morgan died in 1966, but what he failed to mention is that the man was 56 years old in 1963, when he stood in line at the voter registration drive. David's theory that the witnesses thought he was Oswald, is ridiculous, as I'm sure David knew when he wrote the article.

http://jfkhistory.co...estusmorgan.jpg

At alt.assassination.jfk where David regularly posts, I asked if he or McAdams intended to correct the article or at least, let readers know what Morgan's age was in '63. Not surprisingly, they refuse to even reply.


Edited by Pat Speer, 01 November 2013 - 05:52 PM.


#2 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 28 September 2012 - 01:56 PM

Reread the article he was not saying they mistook Morgan for LHO.

http://mcadams.posc....du/clinton1.htm

EDIT - Originally wrote: " LHO for Morgan"

Edited by Len Colby, 28 September 2012 - 03:13 PM.


#3 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:32 AM

Reread the article he was not saying they mistook Morgan for LHO.

http://mcadams.posc....du/clinton1.htm

EDIT - Originally wrote: " LHO for Morgan"


Well then, tell us what he really meant. He said,

These remarkable similarities suggest that whoever was shaping the Clinton scenario simply appropriated the entire 'profile' of Estus Morgan, who really did appear at the registrar's office in 1963, and attributed it to Lee Harvey Oswald.

If David did not mean that this appropriation was an honest misidentification then what was it? Did all of these men conspire to lie about who they saw and talked to? Were all the details about Oswald's age, his military ID, and the men who were with him, complete, deliberate fabrications?

These men included members of the C.O.R.E. and members of the KKK. Is David suggesting that they all conspired to deliberately lie?

#4 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:45 PM



Reread the article he was not saying they mistook Morgan for LHO.

http://mcadams.posc....du/clinton1.htm

EDIT - Originally wrote: " LHO for Morgan"


Well then, tell us what he really meant. He said,

These remarkable similarities suggest that whoever was shaping the Clinton scenario simply appropriated the entire 'profile' of Estus Morgan, who really did appear at the registrar's office in 1963, and attributed it to Lee Harvey Oswald.

If David did not mean that this appropriation was an honest misidentification then what was it? Did all of these men conspire to lie about who they saw and talked to? Were all the details about Oswald's age, his military ID, and the men who were with him, complete, deliberate fabrications?

These men included members of the C.O.R.E. and members of the KKK. Is David suggesting that they all conspired to deliberately lie?



You need to read with more care the quoted passage was from Patricia Lambert but it is confusing because it contradicts his own interpretation. He wrote 'The report notes, "Mrs. Dedon said that we [sic] can't say why but somehow she relates Oswald with Estes [sic] Morgan whom both she and her husband knew."' Thus Oswald and Morgan were different, albeit related, people. He also quoted one witness' testimony:



PALMER. Soon after I got back, THE FIRST WHITE MAN CAME IN THE OFFICE. I asked him for his identification, and he gave me a driver's license from Livingston Parish. HIS NAME WAS ESTES [SIC] MORGAN, and he didn't have enough identification to register because he couldn't prove that he was in the Parish long enough so I sent him out.
SCIAMBRA. WHEN DID THE NEXT WHITE BOY COME IN?
PALMER. Probably one or two others came between him, and then he came. I asked him for his identification, and HE PULLED OUT A US NAVY ID CARD.
SCIAMBRA. (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Now I show you a picture that the State has marked "S-1" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you recognize the individual in this picture?
PALMER. Yes, sir, I do.
SCIAMBRA. Is this the individual who came into your office that day?
PALMER. It is.
SCIAMBRA. Do you know WHO IS THE INDIVIDUAL IN THAT PICTURE?
PALMER. LEE H. OSWALD. . . . He . . . wanted a job at the hospital in Jackson. . . . He couldn't give me any proof that he was living in the Parish long enough [to register, i.e., six months], but I told him he did not have to be a registered voter to get a job at the Jackson Hospital. He thanked me and left



So once again Oswald and Morgan were different, albeit [probably] related, people.


If David did not mean that this appropriation was an honest misidentification then what was it? Did all of these men conspire to lie about who they saw and talked to? Were all the details about Oswald's age, his military ID, and the men who were with him, complete, deliberate fabrications?

These men included members of the C.O.R.E. and members of the KKK. Is David suggesting that they all conspired to deliberately lie?




I didn't see any mention of any Klan members, Retizes is 'suggesting' their testimony was coached.


Edited by Len Colby, 02 October 2012 - 09:48 PM.


#5 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:50 PM

Nice work Bob.


Except he was wrong.

#6 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:26 AM

Its unfortunate Colby jumped on here, as it always is.

That was nice work Bob. And you quoted the goon Reitzes accurately. I did not know about the large age differential. In other words, they could not be confused as the same person, and they were not related in any way.

Therefore this is one more point that demonstrates it was Oswald in the Clinton Jackson incident.

Reitzes work on the Clinton Jackson incident is a disgrace. I mean all you have to do is see how the word first got out about Oswald being there. Garrison had nothing to do with that. Period.


There is what might first appear as a small detail, which pretty much nails the question of whether at least Oswald was there. This was a great catch by Ray and Mary La Fontaine - from their book "Oswald Talked".

Posner cites this Summers interview with Palmer as a
prelude to switching into search and destroy mode. The Warren
pitbull wants to show that whatever Palmer may have said to
Summers in 1978, he said something devastatingly different
eleven years earlier "in his 1967 statement to Garrison's
office. "Among the things Palmer said then", says Posner, was
that "Oswald produced a `cancelled Navy I.D. card' and that
Oswald told him he had been living in Jackson for six months
with a doctor from the hospital."106

The last part of Oswald's alleged statement has no more
consequence than any of the other minor contradictions Posner
dredges up in his six pages seeking to discredit the Clinton
testimony... The first part, however, about the cancelled Navy
ID card, is an extremely interesting find, for which we owe
Posner a debt of gratitude.

As we now know, none of the Oswald military cards included
in the Warren exhibits bears a cancellation. There is one
card, however, not included in the exhibits or ever shown to the
Warren investigators that is "cancelled" not once, but twice. This
is ID card No.N (for Navy) 4,271,617, the Department of
Defense Form1173 discussed in Chapter3. The apparent
cancellations on the DoD ID are probably circular postmarks,
one superimposed over the other. The clearer postmark is dated
October23, 1963. The previous postmark beneath it has only
three legible letters: JUL, for July. Since October23 would
have been too late for a Clinton debut (Oswald was already back
in Dallas by then), the cancellation that Palmer believed he
saw on the "Navy ID" was probably the July postmark, though
whether of 1963 or an earlier year remains unknown.


This is the card they were talking about:

Posted Image

Of course, "cancellation stamps" don't normally belong on a miltary ID card. However they got there, this was a millions to one fluke on Oswald's card. It was already ridiculously improbable that someone Oswald's age would come along who didn't have a driver's license and used a military ID to apply for voter registration. The notion that he also had a cancellation stamp on his card is beyond improbable.

Edited by Robert Harris, 03 October 2012 - 10:31 AM.


#7 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:19 PM

Its unfortunate Colby jumped on here, as it always is.

That was nice work Bob. And you quoted the goon Reitzes accurately. I did not know about the large age differential. In other words, they could not be confused as the same person, and they were not related in any way.

Therefore this is one more point that demonstrates it was Oswald in the Clinton Jackson incident.

Reitzes work on the Clinton Jackson incident is a disgrace. I mean all you have to do is see how the word first got out about Oswald being there. Garrison had nothing to do with that. Period.



I have to ask Mr. DiEugenio his favorite question, don't you read anything? Reitzes cited Palmer who clearly indicated Morgan was ahead of Oswald in the line, he also cited Mrs. Dedon who also indicated Morgan and Oswald were desperate people, thus he clearly was not alleging one was mistaken for the other.

Edited by Len Colby, 03 October 2012 - 02:20 PM.


#8 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:16 PM

So Robert do you still believe "Reitzes ...tried to convince readers that the Clinton La. witnesses who identified Lee Harvey Oswald actually mistook Estus Morgan for Oswald"?

#9 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,154 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2013 - 09:22 AM

Since Dave Reitzes has brought up this subject again, in relation to Tony Summers reading Pat Lambert's book and deciding the Clinton incident not worth including in his updated book, I thought I would revive this thread. 

 

For starters, if Pat Lambert shows that eight witnesses from Clinton lied to the grand jury that indicted Clay Shaw, then that's called perjury, and they lied under oath. 

 

In addition, she then proves there was a conspiracy, as they had to get their stories straight if they all lied. 

 

Something happened in Clinton, La., something that involved Oswald and probably Shaw and Ferrie, and I'd like someone who figured it all out to explain it. 

 

And I also recently learned that there was a young teenage girl from Clinton who knew Oswald and died suspiciously, does anyone know anything more about her? 

 

BK 


Edited by William Kelly, 01 November 2013 - 09:23 AM.


#10 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,429 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2013 - 05:01 PM

If you've read Loftus, Dave, then you also know that Howard Brennan's ID of Oswald is highly questionable, and pretty much meaningless.

 

Are you willing to admit as much?



#11 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,154 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2013 - 05:53 PM

Dave, 

 

In addition to Pat's comments regarding Brennan as a witness.- 

 

You have to add to your list those witnesses who identified Oswald as Tippit's killer in the bogus lineups. 

 

As for Clinton, how do you account for eight different individuals testifying that Oswald was there? 

 

If Lampert says they were all KKK - and all lied - then that's a crime AND a conspiracy. 

 

BK 


Edited by William Kelly, 01 November 2013 - 05:56 PM.


#12 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,154 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 November 2013 - 08:40 PM

My comments in blue:

 

 

Dave, 

 

In addition to Pat's comments regarding Brennan as a witness.- 

 

You have to add to your list those witnesses who identified Oswald as Tippit's killer in the bogus lineups. 

 

 

I will shed nary a tear if we toss out all the testimony of individual eyewitnesses to the JFK and Tippit slayings, and focus primarily on forensic evidence -- as my SKEPTIC article does.

 

 

As for Clinton, how do you account for eight different individuals testifying that Oswald was there? 

 

 

Please read my article, or Lambert's material on Clinton and Jackson, or both. If questions still persist, I would be happy to address them.

 

 

If Lampert says they were all KKK - and all lied - then that's a crime AND a conspiracy. 

 

BK 

 

Please refrain from assuming premises in Lambert's work, and instead consult her work directly. Once you have familiarized yourself with the research in question, a dialogue may ensue about a variety of matters.

 

Dave

 

 

Sorry Dave, I based my premises on what you wrote about it, but I'm not interested in that area right now and I don't have time to familiarize myself with Pat Lambert's book, unless some one sends it to me, but I've heard conflicting reports on it. In the end you can't introduce a book as evidence in a court of law - but the fact that Tony Summers apparently finds her convincing enough to impeach the Clinton witnesses. I'm not interested in that aspect of the case at this time - though I think something happened there with Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw - and if those eight people who testified against them - if they were all KKK who lied, If that's the case, then eight people lied to the New Orleans grand jury.

 

I know Pat Lambert has a good reputation as a researcher and worked closely with David Lifton, and I know that the whole Clifton tale - has been investigated on the ground - by Summers, diEugenio, Davey, Lambert and others, so I don't understand why anyone who knows all that shite can't put the whole Clinton Affair together in one sentence or paragraph. What was going on there?

 

Was Oswald there? Was Ferrie there? Was Shaw there? What the hell were they doing?

 

What does the CORE voter registration drive have to do with anything, and what was the connection with the Cuban doctor at the hospital ?

 

If the Clinton Affair was an operation, what was its purpose?

 

And what was the story with Gloria Wilson?

 

Now I thought I heard everything but I missed Gloria Wilson, who was mentioned at the Wecht conference and Joan Mellen told me about her.

 

Here's a bone for you Dave, you want to debunk a conspiracy theory and a mystery death, get a make on Gloria Wilson, a tart 18 year old from Clinton who hung out at two bars east of Baton Rouge - the Audubon and the Hawaiian Lounge - with her aunt Gladys Palmer and sometimes with Lee Harvey Oswald, and they drove a black Cadillac. 

 

Gloria worked at Cochran's Drug Store in Jackson when she "dated" Oswald in May 1963..

 

While Gladys Palmer married a man named Earl Wilson and moved to Baton Rouge, Gloria Wilson, who they say kept a diary, died mysteriously, possibly murdered when she was 18. She left her diary at Cochrans, but it disappeared.

 

I'd like to see a photo of the 18 year old Gloria Wilson, one of the Clinton witnesses who didn't survive. Must have been a Babe.

 

Does Pat Lambert mention Gloria Wilson in her book?



#13 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,154 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2013 - 06:38 PM

New comments in red:

 

 

My comments in blue:

 

 

Dave, 

 

In addition to Pat's comments regarding Brennan as a witness.- 

 

You have to add to your list those witnesses who identified Oswald as Tippit's killer in the bogus lineups. 

 

 

I will shed nary a tear if we toss out all the testimony of individual eyewitnesses to the JFK and Tippit slayings, and focus primarily on forensic evidence -- as my SKEPTIC article does.

 

 

As for Clinton, how do you account for eight different individuals testifying that Oswald was there? 

 

 

Please read my article, or Lambert's material on Clinton and Jackson, or both. If questions still persist, I would be happy to address them.

 

 

If Lampert says they were all KKK - and all lied - then that's a crime AND a conspiracy. 

 

BK 

 

Please refrain from assuming premises in Lambert's work, and instead consult her work directly. Once you have familiarized yourself with the research in question, a dialogue may ensue about a variety of matters.

 

Dave

 

 

Sorry Dave, I based my premises on what you wrote about it, but I'm not interested in that area right now and I don't have time to familiarize myself with Pat Lambert's book, unless some one sends it to me, but I've heard conflicting reports on it. In the end you can't introduce a book as evidence in a court of law - but the fact that Tony Summers apparently finds her convincing enough to impeach the Clinton witnesses. I'm not interested in that aspect of the case at this time - though I think something happened there with Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw - and if those eight people who testified against them - if they were all KKK who lied, If that's the case, then eight people lied to the New Orleans grand jury.

 

I know Pat Lambert has a good reputation as a researcher and worked closely with David Lifton, and I know that the whole Clifton tale - has been investigated on the ground - by Summers, diEugenio, Davey, Lambert and others, so I don't understand why anyone who knows all that shite can't put the whole Clinton Affair together in one sentence or paragraph. What was going on there?

 

 

You mean what was going on in relation to the JFK assassination? Or Oswald? Or espionage? Or sheep-dipping?

 

The answer is: nothing. Nothing was going on there. The whole thing was made up a few years later.

 

 

Was Oswald there? Was Ferrie there? Was Shaw there? What the hell were they doing?

 

 

No. No. No. Nothing.

 

 

What does the CORE voter registration drive have to do with anything, and what was the connection with the Cuban doctor at the hospital ?

 

 

It has nothing to do with anything. The Cuban doctor had nothing to do with anything.

 

 

If the Clinton Affair was an operation, what was its purpose?

 

 

There was no Clinton Affair of any kind until 1967, when an operation arose among some KKK types to link Oswald to the Klan's nemesis, CORE, presumably to hurt CORE. This last part is better documented in my article than in Lambert's book, due to one particular "smoking gun" document I was fortunate enough to turn up. But placing Oswald alone in Clinton would have been no help to Big Jim, so two of Garrison's suspects were injected into the story.

 

 

And what was the story with Gloria Wilson?

 

Now I thought I heard everything but I missed Gloria Wilson, who was mentioned at the Wecht conference and Joan Mellen told me about her.

 

Here's a bone for you Dave, you want to debunk a conspiracy theory and a mystery death, get a make on Gloria Wilson, a tart 18 year old from Clinton who hung out at two bars east of Baton Rouge - the Audubon and the Hawaiian Lounge - with her aunt Gladys Palmer and sometimes with Lee Harvey Oswald, and they drove a black Cadillac. 

 

Gloria worked at Cochran's Drug Store in Jackson when she "dated" Oswald in May 1963..

 

While Gladys Palmer married a man named Earl Wilson and moved to Baton Rouge, Gloria Wilson, who they say kept a diary, died mysteriously, possibly murdered when she was 18. She left her diary at Cochrans, but it disappeared.

 

I'd like to see a photo of the 18 year old Gloria Wilson, one of the Clinton witnesses who didn't survive. Must have been a Babe.

 

Does Pat Lambert mention Gloria Wilson in her book?

 

 

No. Lambert apparently didn't consider the story credible, for understandable reasons. It's based entirely on third-hand hearsay and would have required Oswald to have been in East Feliciana Parish more times than seems plausible. It's discussed briefly in Joan Mellen's book, however, a book I rank in terms of credibility somewhere between Judyth's books and perhaps Robert Morrow's FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE. It's also briefly referred to in a Lancer NID DVD from an interview with NODA investigator Anne Dischler, a major source for both Lambert and Mellen.

 

Dave

 

So Dave, congratulations, you and Pat Lampert have proven a conspiracy involving Oswald - not being in Clinton, when eight upstanding citizens of Clinton, La. got together and decided to lie and perjure themselves before the New Orleans grand jury to implicate Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw. 

 

I'll add Clinton to the list of crimes to be properly reinvestigated. 

 

If Shaw and the Trade Mart didn't have a black Caddy, maybe there is something to the Gloria - G-L-O-R-I-A - (there's a song there) Gloria Wilson and Gladys Palmer story after all, and if Lambert thought it not worthwhile to follow up on maybe somebody should. 

 

I'm really surprised that Fruge, a Louisiana State cop, was fooled by all those people, as I thought he was an outstanding Wrong Copper - that is he was the wrong cop to try to bribe or get to do something wrong. 

 

As Bob Tanenbaum said at Wecht conference, "The police are the bedrock of every investigation," and in this case, we depend on the police on the scene asking questions to get it right. 

 

Now someone with the time and inclination has to "research the hell" out of Gloria Wilson and Gladys Palmer and see if they lead anywhere. 

 

BK 



#14 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,154 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 November 2013 - 08:51 AM

Dave wrote: 

 

Let me know what you think of Lambert's book and my article, Bill.

 

 

Links to my Clinton article and relevant resources can be found at the first page of this thread:

 

http://educationforu...ic=19539&page=1

 

Are the Clinton and Jackson witnesses sacred cows among the research community?

 

BK: DAVE, WHAT'S WITH THE "RESEARCH COMMUNITY" ALL OF A SUDDEN? WHAT HAPPENED TO CONSPIRISTS? OR BUFFS OR ANY OF THE OTHER NAMES THAT YOU USUALLY CALL PEOPLE? NOW IT'S A "COMMUNITY"? I DON'T THINK SO. 

 

AND THE CLINTON AND JACKSON WITNESSES AREN'T SACRED COWS TO ANYBODY I KNOW. 

 

I DO SUDDENLY THINK THEY MIGHT NOW BE IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY IF ITS IS TRUE THEY WERE ALL KKK AND LYING - A CRIME TO PERJURY YOURSELF BEFORE A GRAND JURY, WHICH THEY MUST HAVE DONE. AND I'M JUST GETTING INTERESTED IN GLORIA WILSON AND GLADYS PALMER, ESPECIALLY IF OTHERS NEGLECT TO MENTION THEM, OR FIND THEM NOT CREDIBLE. 

 

 

I don't see why. For example, some of the most prominent conspiracy-oriented authors and researchers in the field went on record long ago condemning Garrison's case against Clay Shaw. See what they said in their own words:

 

http://www.jfk-online.com/ctsonjg.html

 

Peter Dale Scott went on record in DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK with his skepticism about David Ferrie's relevance to the Kennedy assassination. The new edition of Anthony Summers' book still has a fair number of references to Ferrie, but he seems to be on the fence regarding Ferrie's involvement with Oswald or the assassination. David Lifton has long been working on a follow-up to BEST EVIDENCE, and I think it's safe to say he won't be relying upon much of Garrison's evidence to advance a case for conspiracy.

 

Dumping Ferrie as a suspect would do far more harm to the Mob-did-it theories of Robert Blakey than to the theories I see espoused most often at this forum. Yet people seem so reluctant to consider even the possibility that Jim Garrison was wrong about Ferrie. Why? What's the big deal? Which is more important: getting to the heart of JFK's murder or defending Jim Garrison by any means necessary?

 

Dave

 

 

BK: And i thought you knew better than that Dave, as the Garrison case against Shaw certainly polarized the "research community" and its still divided among those who think Garrison on the right track but was co-opted by CIA infiltrators, and those who think he never really had a case. 

 

Me, of the evidence examined by the New Orleans grand jury, the Houma Bunker raid was more important to me, and showed clearly that the Bannister-Ferrie operations were off the cuff and incapable of conducting an assassination operation, at least the one that succeeded like the one at Dealey Plaza, which in my case book, was well planned and executed by an experienced and professional crew - and not the Yah-whoos who did the Houma Bunker raid. 

 

Maybe they helped set up Oswald as the Patsy, but they didn't kill JFK.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users