Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz

Members
  • Content Count

    6,572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tim Gratz

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

29,195 profile views
  1. Responding to Mr. Plumlee's post, Gerry Hemming was NOT a convicted felon in 1963. If I recall, his conviction was in the late seventies or early eighties.
  2. Granted Ragano's story about what Trafficante confessed to him constitutes hearsay but assuming Ragano was testifying in court (and assuming that what Trafficante told him was not protected by the attorney-client privilege) it would have been admissible in evidence as a "statement against interest". Since Ragano's story would have been admissible in evidence as a hearsay exception, I think John's criticism of Kaiser on this point is not well-founded. I do agree that it is astounding that Kaiser can propose Hall and Howard as Odio's visitors when both Silvia and her sister said they were not.
  3. Once more it is necessary to question Peter's logic. How likely is it that if there had been a plot at the highest level to assassinate JFK, it would have been put in writing by the conspirators, and then left around sitting in the files available for someone to chance upon, until the files were destroyed some ten or fifteen years later? Not too likely, I submit. Frankly, the SBT is easier to accept than THAT scenario, and of course you know what I think of the SBT. A far more likely scenario is that LHO was in fact working for one or more agencies of US intelligence and that is why it was
  4. The notion that documents exist within the CIA that could "unravel the whole JFK enigma" is IMO crazy. Someone has suggested that any relevant CIA documents re LHO were destroyed years and years ago--that's what Hunter Leake apparently told Michael Kurtz--and that the problem of the current CIA administration is that there may be some paper trail that discloses that those documents once existed. So how does the CIA explain that relevant documents once existed but were destroyed? Remember that the current officers of the CIA were probably like most of us only teenagers at the time of the ass
  5. To Bill: It just should have been obvious to you, my friend, that if your neighbor asked you to drive him to his bank so he could cash a check, and while in the bank he attempted a robbery and in the process killed a guard, if there was no proof you had knowledge of his criminal intent, there is no way the law could hold you responsible for either the attempted robbery or the murder. That would of course offend all concepts of justice. Now if the supposed comment made over the telephone to RP by MP ("we all know who is responsible") is correctly reported, to me that implies that the Paines
  6. From Wikipedia on "the Pinkerton doctrine": The Supreme Court took a different view. It noted the facts showed a continuous conspiracy with no evidence that Daniel attempted to withdraw from it. Therefore, he continued to offend. So long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward, and an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act. The criminal intent to do an illegal act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful project is established by the formation of the consp
  7. Bill's post remninds me of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I pointed out to him that because of the doctrine of "means rea", The full Latin term is "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", which (per Wikipedia) "means that 'the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty'. Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). Bill had suggested that the Paines could have been prosec
  8. BK wrote: Ruth and Micahel Paine, having provided aid and comfort, room and board and transprotation to the assassin and his family, could have been prosecuted as accessories to the crime (even if unwitting), but instead they were coddled and protected, as Gerald Ford himself takes note in his Profile of the Assassin. There is a legal concept called mens rea. It essentially means guilty knowledge. If the Paines had no knowledge that Oswald was going to kill Kennedy (assuming of course that he did) there is no way that they could have been prosecuted as accessories even though they let hi
  9. WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? Myra wrote: On 10th January, 1969, Bill Decker sent Buddy Walthers and Alvin Maddox to a motel to question Walter Cherry, an escaped convict and a man suspected of a double murder. When the two detectives entered the room Buddy Walthers was shot dead by Cherry.---------------------------------------- But then Peter Lemkin wrote: Yes, one of THE most suspicious deaths. How often does one police officer shoot another by 'accident' in such a situation...answer not often. Someone wanted the 'stone' out of their 'shoe' and presto [of blam!] and it was done...and inconven
  10. Tomorrow (February 27, 2008) may be a day of reckoning for the CIA re the Joannides matter: http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/...deral-court-cia
  11. Peter wrote (quoting Morley?): In my admittedly subjective view, the JFK Records Act is being slowly repealed by CIA fiat. No reason for a slow repeal. My reading of the Court of appeals opinion is that the courts have determined that the JFK Records Act is no longer in effect and that release of assassination documents are now governed by the much more restrictive provisions of the FOIA. I think Atty Lesar would agree that this is where matters now stand. The court essentially said the Records Act expired when the ARRB closed shop per the statutory limitation on its existence. The solu
  12. I found it interesting that the Dallas DA indicated he thought there was a conspiracy. He of course has the legal authority to do something about his belief.
  13. I just confirmed the sad news with one of his children. Two different people but that is two friends I made through this Form who have died. Gerry would have been 72 in March.
  14. Michael Douglas' father was Kirk Douglas. Also I might be wrong about this but I do not believe it is usual for a writer to share in a profit participation. Also since I have been accused of posting matters not directly related to the assassination (which I sometimes do but they are at least related to JFK) how does Helliwell's involvement in this have any bearing on whether he was involved in the JFK case?
  15. Peter, I greatly appreciate your clarification that it was not me who sent you a PM containing obscenities. In the Plumlee thread, I accepted your word that Dr Wecht had not warned you about Russell and that you only gave him a few thousand dollars. But does falling for Russell say something about your abilities as a researcher? Well, had you researched his background at all? I gather you must admit that he told you lies that you thought were the truth. And without knowing the full story, I suspect I might not have fallen for it because it probably did not "ring true", any more than does
×
×
  • Create New...