Dawn Meredith

__________________________________---- Wim: If he 1. had advance knowledge of a plot to kill MM and then 2. drove killers to their destination- (airport or othrwise)- then he is not only a participant, but in the US can be punished the same as a principal. Different states employ different terms for this, ie "law of parties", "engageing in organized criminal activity". Accessory before/after the fact, etc. In Tx. all that is needed to be found guilty (as an actor)- is knolwedge and an overt act in furtherance of the crime. Dawn

Very interesting observation. Marina Porter may be one of the few living witnesses who could contribute significantly to the resolution of the "crime of the century" by telling "the whole truth". Query whether a grand jury investigation could force such disclosures from her? A district attorney from whatever county Dallas is in could restart the entire investigation. All the research community has to do is find the sharpest possible attorney and get him elected! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who would provide Marina physical and legal protection? By definition, no one who would pursue this matter in Dallas could be elected D.A. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________________________________________ Dallas District Attorney's name is Hill, I wrote to him last year asking that he at least look into this case, as it is his jurisdiction. Received no response. Big surprise. Dawn

I see plenty of opportunity for overspill in the above scenario, but fail to see how warm toilet bowl water would address that problem. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________________________ Thank you Tim for the valient attempts to save this thread. The notion that the Russians killed JFk is beyond nonsense, like Tim said, same as the Castro did it crap, which we all know was disinformation begun very early on, and continued via, Jack Anderson throught the 70's Don't waste time reading J Epstein, except his one good book, Inquest, he's disinfo. The "love triange" theroy does not even rate a response. Wim I am surprised that you would post it, even as a joke. Guess I too have no sense of humor on this subject. The notion that Jackie would conspire to kill her husband is beyond disinformation, it's plain sick. Lot's of rabbit trails here people. Just what the conspirators love, have the CT's running in circles while they sit back at some Langley type office in laughter at this mass confusion. It was planned and executed- (no pun intended)-by home grown elite. Books to the contrary are for people with too much time on their hands,IMHO. Dawn

Come on, now, Tim: one conspiracy at a time! But: see http://www.killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html Had you seen this before? (Boy, I checked the link and it is not where I was trying to go, but for now, I'll leave it as it is. Try it!) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _______________________________ John: Brilliant analysis. Every "Christian" who voted for W needs to read this and understand this. (Of course they will do neither). Your piece was perfect timing for what I needed to read today. Tim: I aso agree with you, but I recall when Pam pointed out something guite similar to what you wrote you dismissed her as an anti-Semite. (At least I think that is what she was trying to say, thread being gone I can't go back and recheck). Jim: 9-11 is very important, but as John and Tim so elequently pointed it's all tied together. Always ask: "Who benefited?" This forum is GREAT folks!!! Dawn ("Starting Over", in more ways than one.)

________________________________- Shanet: It was so obvious that Nixon was set up. Recall that McCord, an alleged security pro, placed the tape over the door lock at Watergate not in a vertical fashion- (to ensure security)- but horizontally, to ensure discovery! Then when this was discovered by the security guard, Frank Will, who removed the tape, McCord does the same thing AGAIN. This was NOT an accident. It was clear to me by early 73 that this had been a CIA set-up. As to the trick book theroy....I need to know more on that one. It would explain the blond's husband, but there are other explanations too. Will you be able to speak more openly on this sometime soon???? Tim: Really enjoying this article and the threads!! Think I might print them off and send to Carl. Great work everyone. Dawn

_______________________David, Have you, by chance, made such an index? Would such be it relevant to her life, death and this case? Ya, Dallas is a city where you could spend a year and still be learning. I don't mean about Dorothy, and am not sure if you do either. Can you drop more hints? Dawn

Dawn: One of my very favorite movies, Seven Days In May, was showing on cable this past weekend; I watched it twice. During the key confrontation between the president and the Chairman of the JCS, when the president suggests that the general stand by the constitution and run for the office in a year, the general's retort is that the president is too much a "weak sister" [like Shanet's unfitness framework] to last that long. The president then makes the argument: to paraphrase, the president asks "Did it occur to you that if the Soviets saw the U.S. govt. taken over by a military coup, you wouldn't have to wait for them to attack?" That is a reasonable recitation of the geopolitical reality existant in 1963; if the Soviets believed that the U.S. had been taken over by a military coup, they would have concluded that the preemptive first strike so long resisted by JFK was now imminent. This is an interpretation of the "40 million dead" argument used on Warren that is not generally recognized. Usually, analysts have seen the argument as being that if we admitted that it was a Cuban plot we'd have had no choice but to invade Cuba, which would then trigger nuclear war. The Seven Days In May analysis provides a better explanation of the condition with which Earl Warren was presented. LBJ was covering up a military coup. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> __________________ Tim: I totally agree, but I still think LBJ was also participating, in so far as we can ever really know. (Perhaps I am also just holding onto my first view, very much reinforced since moving to Tx. and studying the case from that perspective.) Funny you should mention that movie, I was talking with a close pal in Boston on Sat and John and I were discussing that movie. In fact later that day it was one of two I asked my husband to rent, the other was Spiderman 2, which he did rent. Will rent "7 Days" for next weekend. Dawn ps Am looking into scanning Yankee/Cowboy War onto computer. Carl gave the ok today, just have to locate the publisher. I think the Gahlen docs may be online too, will call Jim Lasar tomarrow to find out.

Dawn: One of my very favorite movies, Seven Days In May, was showing on cable this past weekend; I watched it twice. During the key confrontation between the president and the Chairman of the JCS, when the president suggests that the general stand by the constitution and run for the office in a year, the general's retort is that the president is too much a "weak sister" [like Shanet's unfitness framework] to last that long. The president then makes the argument: to paraphrase, the president asks "Did it occur to you that if the Soviets saw the U.S. govt. taken over by a military coup, you wouldn't have to wait for them to attack?" That is a reasonable recitation of the geopolitical reality existant in 1963; if the Soviets believed that the U.S. had been taken over by a military coup, they would have concluded that the preemptive first strike so long resisted by JFK was now imminent. This is an interpretation of the "40 million dead" argument used on Warren that is not generally recognized. Usually, analysts have seen the argument as being that if we admitted that it was a Cuban plot we'd have had no choice but to invade Cuba, which would then trigger nuclear war. The Seven Days In May analysis provides a better explanation of the condition with which Earl Warren was presented. LBJ was covering up a military coup. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> __________________ Tim: I totally agree, but I still think LBJ was also participating, in so far as we can ever really know. (Perhaps I am also just holding onto my first view, very much reinforced since moving to Tx. and studying the case from that perspective.) Funny you should mention that movie, I was talking with a close pal in Boston on Sat and John and I were discussing that movie. In fact later that day it was one of two I asked my husband to rent, the other was Spiderman 2, which he did rent. Will rent "7 Days" for next weekend. Dawn ps Am looking into scanning Yankee/Cowboy War onto computer. Carl gave the ok today, just have to locate the publisher. I think the Gahlen docs may be online too, will call Jim Lasar tomarrow to find out.

The LBJ telephone tapes show that despite the evidence that Hoover has provided linking Oswald with left-wing groups, the KGB, the Soviets, Castro’s Cuban government, etc., Johnson was determined to believe that Oswald was the lone gunman. Johnson wants people to believe the reason for this is his fear of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Russell and Halleck do not question the logic of this argument. What Johnson appears to be saying is that if the public becomes convinced that Oswald was part of a conspiracy that involved Fidel Castro, he would come under such political pressure he will be forced to order an invasion of Cuba. If he does this, the Soviet Union will order a nuclear attack on the United States. As this will result in the deaths of 40 million Americans in the first hour, he therefore has to cover this conspiracy up and instead convince the world that Oswald was a lone assassin. Yet the historical evidence suggests that this would never have happened if the United States invaded Cuba. The Soviets would have reacted in the same way as the American did when they invaded Hungary in 1956? The whole of the Cold War shows that both sides were given freedom to control their own geographical area. The argument that unless Oswald is found guilty of being the lone assassin, there will be a nuclear war is ridiculous. Yet, Johnson uses it over and over again. Why then was Johnson so keen to believe that Oswald was a lone assassin? Why did he not take the opportunity to invade Cuba? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ____________________________ John: Because LBJ knew full well that LHO was not the lone assassin, and that Castro had no part in the murder. But it was a good ploy to blackmail people to do the WC whitewash. I always wondered what on earth they had on Earl Warren to cause him to cry. I guess it was really that simple: convince him that if he did not head the commission and satisify the public then nuclear war was a possible next step. It sounds insane to me, that a man of Warren's intelligence and legal reasoning could have been so conned, but I have yet to hear a better explanation for why he permitted his name to become synonymous with the lie of the century. Dawn

____________________ Shanet: You're just too cool!!! Dawn

_________________________ Google Marina and Oprah, she did the show in I think 96, it's online. I have an old article of an interview she gave in about 85, I think she began speaking out publicly in the early 90's. Many don't trust her as her story changed over the years, but I think in the beginning she must have been scared s******, being from Russia, not even speaking English, no real right to be here, and then, like all of us here on the forum, she began to get educated on the case, so of course her story changed as she learned more. But I really don't know anything as to who she really "was" before coming here. Neice of a KGB agent, so, it's pretty complicated, like the entire story of the LHO part of this case is very complex. I'd love to hear more on this too. Dawn

__________________________ Great thread, interesting to read differing views of how we all arrived here. I began questioning authority as a child in Sunday School. By the time I was 14 on 11/22/63 I could not believe that every one I encountered just accepted what was clearly, to me, a mass cover-up. I had grown up reading murder "who -done-its?", so all the information about LHO so fast, so much, the media and LBJ so certain. All I could think was "this is not how the real world works,this is a lie". Having no one to discuss this with at the time, (my family thought this thinking was outrageous), I remember many months late at night, while staying with relatives in Quincy MA. having what I then considered "conversations with God". I wonder what the 60's, 70's would have been like had there been no murder of JFK: No Viet Nam, so therefore no anti-war movement. Would there have been the huge counter culture movement? How about the drugs? (Anyone read Marty Lee's "Acid Dreams"?). Speculation on what could have been is perhaps rather futile, but consider the thought : two terms or JFK, then two terms of RFK. Then contrast that with our historical reality and present situation: two terms of W with Jeb waiting in the wings, (Bush 41 as much as admitted this last week). I disagree with John that our divergent thinking is the reason for all the arguments. Healthy debates yes, but the arguments of distraction have two purposes: to casue dissension through planted utilization of red herrings, and to bog us down in trivial disagreements. When people ask me who I think killed JFK I tell them that the question to ask is: who benefited? what changed? It's amazing where this course of conversation can lead. People who have had their views formulated by mainstream media and never question this have no clue, often of very fundamental truths of this case. Just explain to such a person the total impossibility of the SBT, for example. The response I have generally received is "No way". But for many of us I agree that it originated in our childhoods, with a general questioning of authority. In my case my Dad was totally opposed to JFK because of his opposition to Catholics. (Believed the Pope was the anti-Christ). My rebellion against his view of JFK was to argue for the intelligent idealism that Jack projected, even on our little black and white tv in Springhill, Nova Scotia. We have never been there since. And that is why this case is still so important. Dawn

________________________ Wim and Shanet: That's why Blakey was brought into HSCA, to see that the truth stopped with his version: cover story #3: " LHO and the mob did it". After they got rid of the inimitable attorney Richard Sprague HSCA was through with any pretense that it was a legitimate truth-seeking inquiry. I'm sure Blakey has indeed "gotton on with his life". He would not join us any more than would "darlin Arlen" (Specter). Dawn

Hello Tosh, Thanks for the reminder, and I agree. Too often, I find myself wasting time which would be better spent learning (and hopefully contributing something once in awhile). I've been advocating the same thing for months, then I jump back into the same silly games with him. On an unrelated issue, I don't believe I've addressed you before, so I'd like to say that I appreciate your courage (along with so many others) in the quest for truth. Thank you. Steve <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ________________________ As usual Tosh, your wisdom carries the day. I'll be singing Beatles' today as I think of your advice: "whisper words of wisdom, let it be...". And Shanet's post on another thread: "Stay focussed". Dawn

__________________________- Very interesting study Shanet. I see this in my work as a criminal defense attorney. When someone is lying and does so consistently in hopes of avoiding a serious felony conviction the person who repeats the lie often appears to even believe it him/herself. I saw this about a year ago in a case, a 24 year old women was accused of a very serious violent offense. She was well id'd by the victim, but had conned a younger female to attempt to take the rap. I remember every visit I had with the defendant the more "convincing" she seemed to become. (Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary). It often appeared to me that she had, at some level, actually convinced herself of her lies by consistantly repeating them. I suspect this person will go through life continually denying this offense. Sex offenders are similar. This is the one offense where the perp. almost always denies the allegation. Again, even in the face of terribly compelling evidence, such as DNA. I am watching the Laci Peterson case very closely and found it fascinating to watch all the interviews Scott gave to the press. Consistent with another study about a person's behavior when lying, Scott would say something that appeared to be fabricated and, while speaking, shift the focus of his eyes downward. Interesting that he did not take the stand. Dawn

________________________________- Mr Vernon, I swore last night I would back off from all things related to the assassination of JFK for a few days, but I must ask you publicly: Why are you attempting to destroy this forum? It is very clear that you are, and I asked you this questions in a private fashion a few days ago, now I am asking it on the forum itself. I see it as a somewhat rhetorical question so I do not expect you to answer it honestly. I do not even expect you to answer it at all. I just do not know what you are achieving from this. You say it is truth that you seek, and that if someone misrepresents something about you you are merely seeking to to defend yourself. I do not disagree, in principle, with anyone's right to defend themselves, but from what I read, this does not appear to be what you are doing. To report John Simkin to some British authority smacks of something very mean spirited and not at all truth seeking. I am NOT trying to start a disagreement with you, but making an observation. Dawn Meredith

_____________________________-- Richard, I agree. I was way too tired to have been even reading posts last night, let alone responding to them. Sometimes my need to "put an end " to something causes me to be impulsive. After a very long, difficult week, on very little sleep, then an all day seminar, combined with a sad family matter, my own comprehension level was a bit off by the time I responded to your post. I was also confronted with several "group emails" when I got in last night and I tried several times to respond TO THE GROUP, that I wanted this to cease, as it was totally counter productive. More of the personal attack stuff that I have literally begged people on this forum to put a halt to. So I found that I had to actually write seprate emails to accomplish THAT goal. The group email stuff began on or about 11/22 and has continued. So I am publicly posting that while I enjoy being part of a group email that is dedicated to research on this case, I do not wish to be part of the attack mode mentality. I think that the people here who are serious about this case should just ignore the personal attackers. Perhaps that will casue them to stop. Replying has clearly fed into the agenda. Dawn ps Richard, It was not Nancy.

___________________________- ps I apologise for the typos in above post. Been a VERY long court week, and an all day contin. legal ed. class today, I kinda misread Mr. Smith's irony. One person told me to "have a sense of humor" on this, when in fact I do not have one, guess I need to develop such, where there CAN be irony. I am way overly tired and the irony missed me. I had a phone message "alerting" me that someone had called me "CIA" on the forum, then some calls to return when I got in and quickly responded to the post. I have been the recipient of some personal bad news recently and that combined with a full work schedule should have caused me to keep off the forum for a bit, but ...easier said than done. Back to square one for me. So much for "hypos". Dawn

___________________ Richard, I did not mean to overreact to you post about me, your hypo, on the rules of the forum thread. I am new to forums, I don't know you people. I am sick of the name calling. Period. I have had a long hard work week and there was a phone message saying someone called me "CIA" on the forum. If I have made one mistake here it's taking it upon myself to try to figure out who is for real and who is not. I have decided that on a forum that's an impossiblility. My husband finally convinced me of this last night. But he is not one who has been consumed with a desire for justice on the murder of jfk for now 41 years. So it's easy for him to tell me "don't take it so personally". I do. With that I am withdrawing from such activity on this forum and going back to the real world. I have had a great week in court, only to come home at night to this madness.....the fights, that I , in vein, have stepped into, tried to "fix" some of it. I cannot. Not leaving the forum, just stepping back some. Dawn

__________________________ Geez, this is getting pretty damn weird. I do not know quite how to take your post mr. Smith. My life is an open book. I have nothing to hide. My bio is 100% accurrate. You are welcome to check me out. I made the posts I did as an honest effort to stop the friggen infighting. Period. I have had many researcher friends over these many decades and I have seen such an abundance of infighting that it just drives me nuts. So I joined this forum about 5 weeks ago and I asked that it be limited to serious research. Call me an idiot. My husband told me I just "don't understand how forum are, how poeple just flame each other". No I do not. I have kept away from forums. Ok Richard, I am really agent 69. I have a second comperter hooked up with the company crowd, I just pretend to be an attorney, when really, I was in Cuba last week and behind the scenes Castro and I orcharasted the election to insure Bush would stay in power. Please....if I have made one mistatke here it is that I have let all this become too personal. I feel like I know the people here when in fact I do not. I care deeply about the murder of jfk and I believe it was an assassination from the highest levels of this government. So I foolishly got into a forum as I am sick and tired of all the people I know not giving two xxxxs and having zero knowledge about this case. I have talked to judges, other lawyers, district arttorneys... you just get the blank stare and the subject gets changed. THEY DON"t WANT TO KNOW. So I came onto a forum to find like minded people. If someone wants references on me as to who I am, PM me and I can provide same. BUT I will not give out my friends' private email and or phone numbers to be harrassed by people with an agenda. I have been truthfull at all times on this forum. I have one agenda: solving this murder and stopping the infighting between people who say they want the same thing. If some of you out there have a differnet agenda then you know who and what you truly are. I am not God. Bu there is a GOd and He knows the truth. We mortals are just trying to piece together the pictures of this horrible puzzle, to untalgle the forces behind the theft of our government on 11/22/63. Dawn Meredith

_________________________________ Hi Dennis, and Bernice: Add me to the Canadian list too. Born and raised in Nova Scotia. Moved to Boston in 1968, just one months after the murder of RFK. (That case needs to be solved!!) In 63 both my parents were ill for nearly a year and I lived in Massachusetts then too, arriving just one months PRIOR to the assassination of JFK. (But my interest in JFk himself began earlier than that in Canada.) I think most kids in that period really looked up to JFK. DAwn

Yes <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________ I totally disagree with the post(s?) that say there is nothing new to research.....please, read the seminars. Very good news Tim, Your posts are so well written, so knowledge filled. Glad you are not deserting us, your imput is much valued. Dawn

Tim, sorry to read that you are leaving the forum, I ask you to reconsider that, I found your contributions not only on this forum very informative and always enjoyed reading them, I think the majority here sees it the same. Tim,that what I was meaning with "the whole Wim/Vernon mess", one gets in the line of fire as a bystander, simply by saying what one is thinking, you stated what you think, Tim yours is a free country (well sort of), so please, if you got the same mail that I got today, and that is the cause for your decission,I think you are grown up enough to not take that too serious, and even if it makes you feel unconfortable and gets to your nerves, maybe that is all that is wished as a result. I write this on basis of what I have seen on different forums over the last month's and from having had contact to the main parties involved on occassions. As a member here, and as a scholar of the case, I say that I never had a problem with what you wrote in any post that I did read , be it here or on lancerforum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Dave: Before my account is closed I will say that I'm not grown up enough to make my wife feel secure when she is required to be involved to get the harassment at home to stop. If the one who came into the COPA seminar in Dallas on 11/19 to take me out of the room to be given a "message" has a view to share, she is invited to do so, and explain the content of that message (or any of the gentlemen present where I was taken). Any person present at that conference that Friday night probably witnessed the intervention to which I refer. Mine is not a "free country." That's why my participation had so much meaning to me, and my association, give-and-take, and general fellowship with those who care held such meaning for me. I'm ashamed for my country that it needs John Simkin and Wim Dankbaar to pursue its history. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________- Dear Tim, I am stunned. I hope that you will reconsider. Your imput was outstanding and I will very much miss your posts and updates on your paper. I hope that whatever Wim and Bob have to work out they do so and not let it drag this forum down. As I have said repeatedly since joining this forum, we all want to see this case moved ahead. Surely that has to be the number one priority and anyone with a further agenda who is coming onto this,or any other forum, needs to have that agenda dealt with. If Bob is so disbelieving of Tosh and Judyth, just bring it on. Post it, not these little in fights with Wim. It is THAT of which I was speaking against. Just why would someone go after - personally- people who are honestly trying to investigate the murder of a US president? I am really saddened to see people leave when they have made such important contributions. Terribly saddened. Dawn

_____________________________- John: You asked what we thought about the death of Lisa Howard. Her death, a supposed "suicide" on 7/4/65 sounds just like the "suicides" of Marilyn Monroe and Dorothy Kilgallen. Dawn

John...maybe I missed the posting you found offensive. I do not read every message, but I have found no message offensive enough to complain about, except those which contain personal attacks on other researchers. In particular, I recall several Pamela Ray messages which I agreed with. Why not let her postings stand, since any ideas should pass the test of the readership. What did she say which was offensive enough to warrant removal? Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack, I wondered the same thing, though sadly I didn't have the chance to read any of it. I generally find Pam's posts interesting and often informative, but I have no idea what may have taken place in that thread. I trust John's judgment, but I am curious. Steve <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ----____________________ John, Jack and Steve, I agree, I found Pam's posting very informative, I did not get to read what ever occurred today as I had court most of the day. I too trust your judgement, but wish I had seen what was so offensive. Could that part have been cut and her thread kept up, or had the whole thing just degenerated so badly that it was beyond saving? I did notice that it had attracted a LOT of posts. Dawn