Dawn Meredith

When Carl Oglesby was researching The Yankee and Cowboy war he did not rely solely on Skolnick's research, merely attributed it to him. Carl had the research director of the now defunct Assassination Information Bureau, then MIT Philosophy Prof. Jim Kostman, totally vet this evidence, including the part about Michele Clark and her involvement. (Jim did not take credit in Carl's book, but both he and Carl spoke to me about this as the book was underway as I had a strong interest in that crash as well). Additionally in 1974 I met an executive at CBS who admitted to me that Ms.. Clark was indeed working on the Watergate story. He assured me that CBS had "conducted their own investigation" into the crash of Flight 553 and concluded it was an accident. We remained in contact for a few months after his assignment ended in Boston via mail and phone. I had both his home and work number at CBS. I now no longer remember his name, except he did send me a funny post card with a pic of Ike and on the back he wrote "who killed Ike?". His way of making light of my CT views. I can see no reason why he would make up the story about Ms. Clark's involvement with this story. Dawn

I am really surprised that there is not more more commentary on this page than there is. Strange circumstances in my life today are causing me to really miss my dear friend. Carl and I literally had the most complicated relationship of anyone in my life. But the most important piece was that we were true family in every sense of the word. I still remember with awe the first time I was invited to his Cambridge MA apartment, in 1973.. Hearing him sing and play guitar, seeing his wonderful drawings, this on top of his incredible writings. The bounds to his talent were endless. His oldest daughter Aron would become my then young daughter's baby sitter and her life long "Fairy God mother". Divorced from the mother of his three kids, Carl and Beth and kids always had Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner together. Christa and I were always invited. Since my entire bio family was in Canada, those family dinners meant the world to me, as well as to Christa. I don't think I have ever heard a better speaker than was Carl. He spoke just like he wrote: a brilliance and talent shared by few. His passion for this case burned as deeply as did mine. Other times we just enjoyed jamming together. I loved adding harmony to his beautiful tribute to Beth: "Lemon Light". So many wonderful memories spanning four decades. I am feeling your spirit and voice today Carl and having a most difficult time believing that I cannot just hear your actual voice at the other end of the phone. All my love forever. Dawn..

That's J -in the background as usual. Really missing him this weekend. He and Tosh stored the Rambler. Dawn

"Involved" yes, Richard believes that. But "Mastermind" he does not. Just wanted to be sure this is understood. I don't think RB looks at this forum any more. Dawn

Doug: The researcher was Richard Bartholomew. BK: I am unsure of how Jay will fit into a Chronology. And few will own it, so little will ever be known of all of Jay's life's work. Except how it will be spun by a woman who did not know him. Those who knew and loved him will just have to wait and see. Dawn

I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine. There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say. However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected. In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did. Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode. A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief. From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.) Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books. Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part? This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.) Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney. I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour: “The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.” If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be. Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here. I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear. (Edited for typo) If John sticks to his guns on this he will have lost by far the most admired person on this forum. And that is a damn shame. Dawn

John: I have not seen you one here in sometime. So in this interview LHO was the one who began speaking in Russian. Not Judyth. Hmmmm. Dawn

Dawn, my only knowledge on the subject is based on a newspaper report of his death. Your question implies the press report may be inaccurate. This is the first time I have heard of this. Dawn, you are an attorney. Here is evidence. You know better than I what would have to happen to invalidate this document, so why post unless you are close to where you know you would have to be to overcome this? As I said before I am not at liberty to go into any of this. I just wanted to see what Doug's opinion was. More when I am able to reveal. I will say just one thing my dear friend Jay Harrison NEVER believed Wallace died in 1971. Many reasons,..including problems with this death certificate. I have done some investigation for an author and now I am convinced he did not die that day. However said author is most conservative and will likely go with that date. In spite of all that we have learned. Dawn

That is his major concern. It began with Clinton and his sexapades. Robert was obsessed with the Clintons. Then for some reason he began reading posts here, called me out of the blue to discuss the assassination. At first he seemed genuine so I gladly pointed him in several directions, to authors I believed would further his study. He was fixed on LBJ. Would not hear of CIA involvement, but later that changed. This was several years back. During our many discussions he kept his sex obsession and outright interest in all matters perverse under wraps. Only when I began to see his posts here, and on his facebook page did I see the full extent of his real obsession. That is when I cut off all ties.When I saw his post recently smearing Charles Drago I had to laugh. Equally so when he made comments about DPF and our private discussions. In his dreams. We booted him ages ago and he has no clue about our private dealings. He just likes to blow smoke. His sex rants do this forum no favors. He never misses a chance to scrape the bottom. So yes it's a valid question. But he is welcomed here. I supposed some deem his views "educational" . Dawn

Bravo! Agreed. RCD is one of the main reasons I come here. His brilliance and thought process are dazzling. Dawn

Pat, what message is being sent in the process which selected Tom and Jim's membership for deletion? The message is that it's John's Forum, and that he is only willing to put up with so much. So DON'T PUSH THE ENVELOPE. Several years back, John got into a fray with Tim Gratz. I supported Tim on the specific point in question (John had misquoted Tim about something), but supported John for ousting Tim anyhow. So why support John? Because this is JOHN'S forum, which is akin to his LIVING ROOM. That's how I see it. We are guests in John's living room, having a discussion. If we ask him for entry into his home, in order to talk to his other guests, and get out of hand, and abuse one of HIS other guests, well, then, we shouldn't be surprised when we're shown the door...ESPECIALLY if the guest was a friend of John's, invited by John into his home to discuss his work. It's that simple to me. We're his guests. And should act like it. On a point of information, Tim Gratz threatened me with legal action for pointing out his role in Watergate. Gratz, a disbarred lawyer, knew enough about the legal system to make life difficult for me when I visited the States. Yes Pat, you are right, I do consider this forum as like my home and have been unhappy for sometime about the way people behave in it. I am hoping that this decision will make people think twice before abusing other members. If it does not, then I will close it down and you can all get out of my house and find your own venue. John: I agree that member abuse should not be tolerated. But why is this so unfairly dispensed? I see Lifton questioning the mental health of others and similar abuse, yet he remains. I have other questions re the PJM thread but don't dare pose them, lest they be deemed "objectionalbe".. Dawn

JIm has been posting at DPF for a very long time.

This indeed seems harsh. Normally if a member crosses a line he or she is warned, or put on moderation. Like John I disagreed with virtually every word JIm wrote about Peter Janney's book. There was much debate over this. That said I find Jim and Tom's posts very informative, even though I usually skip over all the clips he ads.. I hope you will reconsider. (And you know just how much I detest the infighting in the community; been my montra since about 1974) Dawn

Doug: Do you believe Wallace died in 1971? (I have a reason for asking that I am not at liberty to disclose at the moment). Thanks, Dawn

I am stunned that anyone can still be a big fan of Obama. Was his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act not enough for people to see his true agenda? Of course he is lying. He is Bush's third and forth term. And maybe even worse. Certainly making Nixon look like a defender of the Constitution, and that is really saying something. "But even if the government is listening to my phone calls I have nothing to worry about"???? Wow. I thought you were a lawyer Ray. Seem you are missing the point here. Dawn

It is very important to get JFK assassination news into the Daily Mail online. Globally it is the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times' site, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month. Of course, one of the reasons that it is read by so many people is that it includes so many political conspiracy stories. It is one of the ways that the internet has undermined Operation Mockingbird. I always wondered why Barr McClellan included the nonsense of Mac and LHO together on the sixth floor. Now I see why: "Estes claimed that Wallace had persuaded nightclub owner Jack Ruby to recruit the killer Lee Harvey Oswald. Wallace had even joined Oswald in his sniper’s nest up in the Texas School Book Depository overlooking the motorcade route in Dallas — and had fired one of the shots that hit the President. Oswald, of course, was later shot by Ruby just two days after Kennedy’s death. Reliable? Hardly. At least on this point. Regarding Mac Wallace killing for LBJ, I do believe that.. Up to a point. Still waiting for Billie's secret tapes to emerge. Won't hold my breath. Dawn Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333618/TOM-LEONARD-The-death-outrageous-American-fraudster-raises-tantalising-question--Was-LBJ-Kennedys-assassination.html#ixzz2V4QSgu4X Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

OMG. Just when you think you cannot be shocked...wow. WOW. And I thought nothing I read here could shock me. Dawn

Why is that incredible? That we vote on membership and I was outvoted? People did not have to justify his or her vote. Anyway, I am opting out of this conversation. Michael asked where AG had gone and I replied then bumped the thread for him.. Private discussions and or decisions at DPF are not open to discussion here. At least not by me. Peace.

Bumping this thread for Michael who was asking what happened with AG. Dawn

Absolutely true. But there is no place to vote on the above poll. Just a place to put one 's qualifications to hold an opinion. I breath, I read, I connect the dots. If it was not clear fairly quickly people were not paying attention. Awfully quiet in these parts, kids. Dawn

Truly. If you examine Morrow's interest, first in all things Clinton, "graduating" to JFK you will see that his main purpose is prurient. And gay bashing. He once bragged that he put thousands of fliers all over a small community just north of Austin. It was also online. Now what do you suppose THAT was all about?

Sadly there will be more of this garbage, especially on tv just in time for the 50th anniversary. Liars, supporting the biggest lie of my lifetime. What is it about these people? Are they paid agents? Surely they cannot be THAT stupid. Yet, the re-killing of JFK continues, year after year. An old trick, being utilized again, make conspiracy sound crazy. Just make things up, like Ford did in moving the back wound. Wanna hear something truly crazy? The magic bullet theory. Dawn

I posted that earlier but did not begin a new thread. Will his tapes ever be made public?? RIP Billie. Dawn

Billie sol Estes died this morning. Age 88. I am sure he will feature larger than life in this new book. Dawn