Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

Members
  • Content Count

    1,202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Don Jeffries

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 08/19/1956

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Writing fiction and nonfiction. My first published work, the 2007 sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," has been acclaimed by the likes of "Night at the Museum" screenwriter and "Reno 911" actor Robert Ben Garant and multi-award winning author and former Harvard Professor Alexander Theroux. My nonfiction book "Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics," was released in November 2014 by Skyhorse Publishing. My new nonfiction book, "Survival of the Richest: How the Corruption of the Marketplace and the Disparity of Wealth Created the Greatest Conspiracy of All" was released in July 2017 by Skyhorse Publishing.

Recent Profile Visitors

32,557 profile views
  1. To understand just how far from the truth the Fox News article linked above is, one has to have researched this case in some depth, as I have. The "friend" who maintained JFK, Jr. didn't talk about the subject contradicts what I found out from two of his very close friends, including one who was an inner member of his circle throughout his adulthood. They told me it was something he talked about all the time behind the scenes. Wayne Madsen was scheduled to meet with JFK, Jr. the week he died, to discuss a new position with George magazine. Madsen's main assignment was to research and write about the JFK assassination. It really is incredible what kind of lies and disinformation our state-run mainstream media disseminates to the public.
  2. I uncovered persuasive evidence that JFK, Jr. had long held a "quest" to find out who really killed his father. Please read my long chapter on the very suspicious death of JFK, Jr. in my book "Hidden History" for the full story. Here is one of several interviews I've given on the subject: https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-093-donald-jeffries-and-the-death-of-jfk-jr/
  3. I think it's great that more researchers are now focusing on JFK's very contentious relationship with Ben-Gurion, and his strong opposition to Israel's developing nuclear program. We should give credit where it is due; the much maligned late Michael Collins Piper was the first to delve into this area, in his book Final Judgment. Regardless of any other flaws he had, his contributions should be recognized.
  4. To my knowledge, RFK, Jr. hasn't commented on the book. Even though he has opened up with his own doubts considerably, he seems to confine his interactions to the more mainstream researchers (David Talbot, Jefferson Morley, etc.) The book establishes definitively that RFK was working on the case behind the scenes (which Talbot wrote about in Brothers), and JFK, Jr. had an absolute quest to expose the true murderers of his father (something I detailed in Hidden History). It also corroborates what David Lifton told me years ago- that Ronald Reagan had an intense interest in the case.
  5. I have finished reading The Inheritance, and will be interviewing Christopher Fulton on my weekly "I Protest" radio show this Friday. I've been researching this case since working as a teenager with Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s. I've read more books than I could ever remember on the subject. This book is special, and important. Fulton established that RFK, working with JFK's secretary Evelyn Lincoln, deliberately withheld what evidence he could from the government. This was done because RFK understandably didn't trust these agencies, and was biding his time until he could regain the White House and launch a real investigation. Fulton's work also verifies what I discovered in researching the death of JFK, Jr. He was indeed keenly interested in his father's assassination, and was about to enter politics. Fulton, unlike those of us who dabble in the minutiae of the assassination, paid a heavy price for possessing material the government wanted to remove from the public. He spent eight years in jail. During that time, his wife and lawyer died in suspicious car crashes, his mother died prematurely, and the guy who was bequeathed the watch and other material from Evelyn Lincoln, died very suddenly as well. This is a great read, and essential to anyone who wants to learn the truth about the subject.
  6. Yesterday, I interviewed Lisa Pease on my new weekly radio show "I Protest." https://tfrlive.com/don-jeffries-with-lisa-pease-and-gov-richard-lamm-83672/
  7. Much as we saw a lengthy recent discussion on Jim Jenkins here, with almost no mention of the go-to guy on that witness, William Law, here we have a thread about the Paschall film, with zero mention of Mark Oakes. Without the efforts of this seemingly forgotten researcher, we wouldn't even know about the Paschall film. Mark's excellent witness interviews were available for a long time on DVD, and included his ground breaking work on the Paschall film. They may still be, for all I know.
  8. Okay, I'll play long enough to ask a few questions. Since you're a lawyer, what do you think of the "evidence" against Oswald in a legal sense? If I'd been Oswald's attorney, I would have introduced the sworn affidavits of officers Weitzman and Boone, who both described finding a German Mauser on the sixth floor of the TSBD. I would then move to have any evidence related to the so-called murder weapon- the Italian Mannlicher Carcano- thrown out. There was no chain of possession for it, and legally speaking, the weapon found inside the building where Oswald worked was an entirely different one. How would you have introduced the Carcano into the record? Even if you play the "mistake" card and claim both officers were identically wrong in their identification, you can't explain away the fact that the Carcano had "Made Italy" stamped on it, as Mark Lane demonstrated before the Warren Commission while holding it up in front of them. As you well know, the same kind of chain-of-possession irregularities, to put it nicely, exist throughout this case. None of the evidence against Oswald would have been legally admissible in an honest courtroom. Now that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been introduced, because the odds are Oswald would have received pathetic Richard Hauptmann/James Earl Ray type of "representation" and the courtroom would have been a typically dishonest one. Every bit of evidence in the official record is tainted. Not only by chain-of-possession issues, but by so much of it being lost, purposefully destroyed, or clearly altered. Most lone nutters want desperately to believe in the official story, because they basically trust the system. Or they accept the msm narrative that JFK was a reckless womanizer who was somehow deathly sick at the same time. Their inference is that he was no good, and basically deserved what he got. Those of us who understand the policy changes that took effect upon the death of JFK, starting first and foremost with the inevitable escalation in Vietnam, prefer to believe that this charismatic political figure was killed for political reasons. But those who remain asleep buy into the unique American notion that political figures are killed by lone "nuts" for their own impenetrable reasons. I won't get sucked further into this assassination 101 stuff, but as a lawyer you should realize just how legally impossible the case against Oswald would have been, even in the hands of a capable public defender. Walt Brown elaborated on all this in his excellent book "The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald."
  9. I posted earlier about John Barbour and others having difficulty in registering here. We've chased away lots of good people, and now apparently are making it hard for good people to join. First, the fact that William Law is being mentioned so sparingly here, when he is THE expert on the medical evidence at this point, and especially is the expert on Jim Jenkins, is very telling. I can understand why those like him have no desire to post on these forums. But many of us are used to credit not being given where it is due by this dysfunctional community of ours. All of the medical personnel at Parkland reported a huge wound in the back of JFK's head. As is obvious by looking at the extant photos, that huge wound isn't there. Considering how much other evidence in this case has been lost, withheld, or altered, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the Dallas people were telling the truth, and that therefore the photos are not legitimate. I'm not going to get into an extended debate. I do wish that those who know the evidence well, and are still posting regularly here, would be more involved in these debates. And please give a shout out to William Law on this particular subject.
  10. So Earlene Roberts is joining the endless cavalcade of witnesses, all of whom presented testimony that contradicted the official fairy tale, in being smeared and discredited here? We know that several witnesses had their original reports altered and distorted by the FBI and Dallas Police. We know that some claimed their testimony before the Warren Commission did not reflect what they'd actually said. Roberts not initially mentioning the police car being out front of the rooming house may very well fall into this category; perhaps her words were simply recorded inaccurately, something we know was common with those "investigating" the assassination. Unfortunately, Earlene Roberts did not live long enough to clarify these matters, so we have no way of knowing if she might have echoed what Julia Ann Mercer and others reported about the dishonesty of the authorities recording their experiences. I wasted too much time over the years debating those who don't understand this subject, or have an ulterior motive. Lance Payette acknowledges that he is not a serious researcher. This is obvious by his acceptance of the absurd official narrative. As Penn Jones used to say, the only way to believe the Warren Report is not to read it. In that vein, I contend that the only way to believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK is to not honestly study the evidence.
  11. Jim, John will be using his You Tube channel exclusively for this. Keep checking his channel for the details. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn-FKP9Xmu1a5f4U9VXIJEQ
  12. Could someone clarify the process for joining this forum now? John Barbour is only the latest person to mention to me how difficult this seems to be. I would hope that this forum would welcome everyone, especially someone as prominent as John Barbour.
  13. Doug, Thanks so much for promoting this- both John and I appreciate your support. Actually, I think the information will be able to be processed much more easily this way, rather than in one huge data dump. John Barbour has only the best intentions here. He wants people to know the truth. Articles in American Free Press are usually 800 words, thus it was written concisely. Those interested should watch the video John just put up on You Tube, which is linked in Doug Caddy's above post.
  14. I still stand with Cliff Varnell here. The bullet hole location in the back is vital, and its location should be unquestionable at this point to researchers, given Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's notation in the death certificate, and the incontrovertible evidence provided by JFK's coat and shirt. Where the throat wound exit was can probably be added to the countless questions left unanswered by those who gave President Kennedy what Harold Weisberg called an autopsy "unworthy of a Bowery bum."
×
×
  • Create New...