Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Doudna

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Greg Doudna

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That is the argument for the non-conspiracy case. Three propositions in response: (1) A definitive solution to the bullets and wounds, the medical and shots fired, is possible--a modified Sibert and O'Neill--establishing four shots were fired heard as four at Elm and Houston but due to close-together and sound-travel times heard as three closer to the presidential limousine, with one shot coming from the front/side. The directions and timing including the near-simultaneity of two of those shots would definitively establish more than one shooter. (2) A definitive total exculpatio
  2. I made no claim or attempt to represent your case against Clay Shaw; I only quoted your slide presentation to establish an answer to a question I asked concerning whether you personally continue, now and today, to believe in Clay Shaw's guilt, which you did not answer me (not that you had any obligation to do so). (Maybe it came across as a stupid question.) But to address this which you bring up, on the six lies (listed above), as you are aware all of the ones except for the CIA one are disputed. The HSCA investigators judged that Ferrie and Oswald were in Clinton but that Clay Shaw was
  3. Thanks Dr. Wager for clarification on legal "conspiracy". Fair enough, but what, exactly, of the various claims alleged with respect to Shaw, apart from Perry Russo's testimony, even show Shaw to be part of an "ongoing criminal enterprise" by that less-stringent more elastic definition? Shaw was not claimed or shown to be part of the Schlumberger Well Co. munitions robbery in 1961. As for the other claims: (a) that as a CIA operative he was running Oswald in New Orleans--does that prove conspiracy to commit a crime (in the absence of evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime), let alone the ass
  4. My questions were an inquiry as to personal conviction concerning whether this moment today, with the benefit of hindsight and reflection, there exists belief that Clay Shaw was guilty of that with which he was charged and went to trial: conspiracy with Lee Harvey Oswald, together conspiring to kill President Kennedy. Two or more planning to commit a crime = legal conspiracy. Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald, and Ferrie and others, planning in coordinated manner to murder JFK, the conspiracy for which Clay Shaw was charged. From the indictment of Clay Shaw: "The Grand Jurors of the State o
  5. James DiEugenio, this is not an attempt to be argumentative but is an honest inquiry (actually two). (1) Do you, personally, in your heart of hearts, believe that Clay Shaw had guilty witting active involvement in the assassination of JFK "beyond reasonable doubt"? (2) In your view, is it conceivably reasonable and legitimate that some researchers who fully believe there was a conspiracy along other lines held by top researchers, might hold, in good faith and without ulterior agenda, that in the case of the prosecution of Clay Shaw for involvement in the murder of President Kennedy,
  6. Not intentionally Ron Bulman. Would you mind being a little more specific on what you see of my speculation, identified as such, that strikes you as implausible or unlikely? Assuming you are open to the possibility that Oswald was framed, there would have to be some specific mechanism in how that was done. I don't mean to derail James DiEugenio's original inquiry which was concerned with the history of prior discussion on the ballistics questions.
  7. Much appreciated Micah. The big problem with making sense of the information from the autopsists that the wound in the back could not be probed through-and-through to any exit and was shallow, is what kind of firearm would cause only ca. 2" penetration into JFK's back?--not a very lethal hit. I do not know whether this has been previously suggested as a possible connection to the problem of the JFK back wound, but there was a police report of a find of a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper sack found lying near a curb about 8 blocks north of Dealey Plaza, early in the morning of
  8. Could you do that Micah--paste more info? It just seems that the interpretation in the Sibert and O'Neill report was basically correct or close to it, and it is puzzling how Humes' interpretation seemed to change so dramatically overnight.
  9. Bill Simpich--that sounds like that could be right re Connally, rather than Korth, being behind the negative answer to Oswald. involved. On the timeline: Korth in his book (pp. 1-3) speaks of Connally as "then the secretary of the navy" (p. 1) and speaks of "a day or two later, Connally called me into his office. He had obviously read the entire file...we discussed the case for half an hour or so...he then signed that second piece of paper that sent Oswald's letter on its way, we thought, to oblivion" (p. 3). Kerr opens his book with this incident and dates it unhelpfully as occurring "one day
  10. Could it be the casings were too hot to hold and that was the reason the shooter purposely let them drop to the ground when reloading in a hurry moments after the shooting? From a firearms site: After you have fired the revolver, you will need to remove the spent shell casings from the cylinder. This works just like unloading the gun but with one little difference. Open the cylinder, transfer it to your non-dominant hand, and turn it upside down, but don’t try to catch the casings with your other hand. They’re going to be hot if you have just fired the gun, so simply let them fall to the
  11. Let me get this straight--the furniture store owner and her friend, Whitworth and Hunter, see a second Lee Harvey Oswald #2 who could drive? May I ask who by your interpretation was the woman, the two-year old girl, and the two-week-old baby girl with who you say was Lee Harvey Oswald #2 seen by Whitworth and Hunter? Are you saying Lee Harvey Oswald #2 shared Marina as wife, a two-year old girl and a baby girl born late Oct 1963, with Lee Harvey Oswald #1? Or are you thinking in terms of four instead of one doppelgangers in the furniture store? Separately, I may have been mistaken in my
  12. Interesting that the NZ wire story reads, "Oswald had been chased into the cinema by two policemen. The officers, J. Tippit and M. McDonald, had received a tip that the President's assassin might have gone into the cinema. Tippit was shot dead as he ran into the cinema." The first two sentences are contradictory, as if the writer had two different reports--perhaps a first report followed quickly by a correction?--and, in the rush wrote both--both the original version and its correction, as if both were correct. Its as if story A was corrected and a reporter is told by the source, "no, cor
  13. Disagree. The problem is twofold: (a) neither of these witnesses knew Oswald before the Sports Drome sightings, and (b) nothing about the individual they saw at the Sports Drome identified that person as Oswald other than a claim of physical resemblance based on these witnesses seeing Oswald on TV after the assassination. There was the gun/gun association, but that is too general. The person at the Sports Drome never was remembered to have called himself "Oswald" or "Lee" or to have spoken of being in the Marines or of having gone to Russia, or having a wife named Marina. Those are the kinds o
  14. The "14-year-old boy" would be 19-year old Buell Wesley Frazier. Shasteen simply got the age wrong. The only explanation that makes sense. I am sure Shasteen the barber was mistaken on seeing Oswald drive, probably some confusion from seeing Oswald and the "14-year-old boy" arrive together from a car driven by Frazier, such as Frazier and Oswald arriving in Irving after work ca. 6 pm on a Friday evening, and that is when Frazier accomodates Oswald in Oswald getting a haircut on the way home. Oswald had to get his hair cut somewhere. Another time Shasteen remembered an Oswald haircult was very
  • Create New...