Dawn Meredith

[s]I thought your attacks were all based on what you read. I confess I do read your hateful missives. Your one note wonders. I do not read the rantings of Hemming and Purvis, I just skim them. (DM) If that's not true, you have some other agenda then. What is your agenda, since it is obviously not to respond to a reasonable assessment of Jim Garrison's role genuine role in the Kennedy assassination investigation? [/s][s] You're the one with the agenda and your assessment of Jim Garrison is far from reasonable! Do you have any actual interest IN this case beyond trashing Garrison??? If so why don't you add to this forum instead of just repeating your're tired remarks day after day? Farewell Ms Foster. You , Hemming and Purvis all just need to join the circus or something. Dawn No idea why that post came out with lines thru it.... my computer must have a demon Dawn

Great pic Tim, thanx. Dawn By the way I too thought your questions to SOB Hemming were very civil and did not warrant such a harsh response. But we all know he's a crackpot. And a nasty one at that. Life must be hard when you're such a miserable person. Like our hero John Lennon once sang "One thig you can't hide is when you're crippled inside".

[i rest my case. An elderly egotist in search of an audiance, and I guess he thinks he's found one. good luck people, hope youv'e brought bedding its going to be a loooooong night. I agree Steve. Let the lunatics here rattle on to each other. They can each pat each other on the back, use potty language and the rest of us can continue to rise above this mentality. I don't even bother to read thier posts... Dawn

[quote name='Ron Ecker' date='Nov 12 2005, 09:35 AM' post='44945'] The text of the letter is quoted on page 430 of Crossfire by Jim Marrs. And quite a profound letter at that. "...I know that my time is running out...they plan on doing away with me. ...As soon as you get out you must read "Texan Looks At Lyndon" ...and it might open your eyes to a few things...." Re JFK's trip to Dallas, Ruby questions how LHO would know of the president's trip to Dallas, noting "Only one person could have had that information, and that man was Johnson.....The only one who gained by the shooting of the president was Johnson...What would the Russians or Castro or anyone else have to gain by eliminating the president"?" Wouldn't it be nice to know what Ruby told Dorthy Kilgallen??? Dawn

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 12 2005, 03:14 PM' post='44974'] As I said, there are people on this forum who are trying to undermine this book. Ms. Foster's above statement makes my case. I have nothing further to say on this subject and do hope that Ms Mellen will join the forum and defend herself from these disinformation attacks. Dawn

. So if someone does not agree with Dawn's view of Garrison, he or she must be a conspirator? Holy cow! Seek help. My point is that I see here a concerted attempt at undermining Joan Mellen's new book. I also believe that there will soon be proof of this. NOT by me, but by others who also have this belief. I am not trying to be coy. Gratz, you're the poster here who is the minority of one who believes Castor did it. And Purv is a LN guy.... Not exactly sound thinking, reasoning or intelligent conclusions, based on the evidence. Dawn

Don't get too excited. I can't help but wonder if Aaron Brown getting the boot from his nightly 10 pm slot on CNN had anything to do with his on-air indignation last year at Bush lackey Hastert's intention to not give additional time to the 9/11 Commission (as if that were a real investigation anyway). Brown is partly credited with the commission getting its extra time. Now Brown has no time at 10. Dan Rather (hardly a seeker of truth himself) recently said that he had never seen such fear as exists in newsrooms today. It looks like Brown wasn't fearful enough. His fate won't go unnoticed by his colleagues. I agree. When Aaron was sacked I was very upset. OF course it has to do with his work, not the so called "numbers". I think one of the reasons our press is so silent on JFK is the case of Dorothy K. They saw: they learned. (Save for the great Earl Golz). Rather built his rep on the back of lies about 11/22/63...so it's ironic that he got fired for telling the truth.... So I do see how scary it can be for the press to try....oppressive.... We hear our great leaders say we're breinging "democracy" to Iraq...when we have barely a semblance of freedom in the US. It's a mirage. I agree that Brown's firing will make others' more circumspect, to the detriment of the nation. There is literally almost NO free press in this country. Dawn

Ron: I think you may be able to find the Playboy iterview online. (I may also be wrong, I just seem to recall seeing something about it somewhere). That was really my introduction to him, when I was writing a paper in college in 75. There is also online correspondance between he and Prouty that is illustrative of his thinking. Think about it for just a second in today's atmosphere: A DA, first saying a conspiracy killed JFK and actually going to trial on it??? He was stopped/ bocked by the FBI, CIA, the governors who refused his extraditions- (something unthinkable in "normal" trials). His office was bugged, infiltrated. He was accused of having ties to the Mob, taking bribes, everything under the sun. Just can't imagine WHY? I mean aren't all DA's trying to get the real killers of JFK???? I do hope you real Mellen's book Tho I am too busy at the moment to get back to it- from what I have thus far real it's a real winner. Dawn and to GPH: It's nice to see you an open enemy of some- one who admired JFK and also the peace movement, instead of your emails to me- being so "pretend to be NICE". Such a phony SOB. There are several here of your ilk, but SOOOOOO many more who are true seekers of the truth about this case. On this forum we greatly outnumber the disinformationists bud. Or as Al calls you: "wanna be".

I have been on this forum for over a year now and very little has been said about Jim Garrison until just recently. I find it more than a little coincidental that with the release of Joan Mellen's long anticipated Garrison bio, suddenly we have several posters of questionable character, all eager to trash Garrison at every opportunity. An attempt to undermine Ms Mellen's work? Gratz, misrepresenting what she wrote, refusing to answer questions, twisting what others write, the usual with the ex- attorney. Suddenly, the arrival of Ms Foster, chiming in from Canada, that in HER opinion Garrison only tried to undermine the investigation, and further, those of us who support Garrison are really trying to impede the investigation. Now Hemming, with his inability to write a sentence clearly enough for most of us to even bother reading. Oh, and the always lovable Mr Purvis....who by virtue of living in, or near to, NO is a self -styled "Garrison expert". I think all of this may come to a head before too long, and we will see what is really going on. Stay tuned. Dawn

Excellent points in this thread. It's always been clear to me that JFK was killed because he CHANGED in '63. Some attribute this to dropping acid with Mary Meyer, certainly the BOP, then the terror of the Missile Crises. He died literally for the cause of peace. Peaceful co-existance with Russia and Cuba were not in the interest of the MIC and the "cold war" mentality of the day. Garrison always called the cold war an "artificial conflict", a thought in keeping with those who agree that it was all about $. It always is. (As to the US owning the USSR, the late Antony Sutton has adressed this notion in great detail). Like Ron I agree that "AIS". The "sheeple" know so little about what is really going on in this country. If only we did have a "free press" in the US. How can the citizens be informed when they are lied to daily on tv and in the papers? It's been exciting, however, to see one US cable guy- Chris Matthews- the last few nights do an indepth investigation into the deception that lead to Iraq. Gives me a bit of hope. And one last comment to silly Ms Foster: To suggest that I -or anyone here- would compare Garrison with the likes of Ken Starr, I can only quote a bumper sticker made by a friend in LA: "A Starr is Porn". Logic is definately not your strong suit. Dawn

I have just had this email from Robert Blakey: "Thanks for sending the material. My life is such that I don't have time to go into things of this sort." No surprise there, John. Blakey was brought into HSCA to do a WC re-run, imo. Dawn

Now that would be an investigation I would trust!! Not to give her any credence, but that Ms. Foster is now equating Garrison supporters with pro Bush people is beyone insane. Lack of logic is an understatement here. Dawn

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Nov 10 2005, 11:07 AM' post='44723'] Why don't you answer the questions about this evidence you claim you have? Have you seen Joan Mellen's comments about you misrepresenting her words in Farewell to Justice? John: I have not seen Ms. Mellen's words. I have a jury trial on MOnday and two more in the next three weeks so have been too busy to keep up with the forum, except in passing. But I did read the last two chapters of Joan's book first based on what Gratz said she alleged. Would you post where her comments are, as I would love to see them. Thanx. Dawn

[quote name='Stephen Turner' date='Nov 10 2005, 04:39 PM' post='44760'] Oh my aching b**s, so now were all disinformation agents, talking CIA folding green? As I said keep talking the tablets. And if you wonder why people are so aggressive toward you, try looking at your own style of communication, mayhap the answer lies there. Now are you going to take part in the wider debate about the assassination of JFK, or keep pounding this strawman arguement, the one note solo is getting boring. Steve. Steve, It's quite clear she's only here because of JOan Mellen's new book. She has NOTHING to say on the assassination of JFK. SHe cites known disinfo people like Epstein. And to say that we are trying to "obscure the truth about the assassinaion of John F> Kennedy" is such a vile absurd comment, it did not warrant a response. It's clear she has not the slightest interest in this case, only smearing Garrison. If we all ignore her she WILL go away. Internet trolls come and go. Dawn

[quote name='Shanet Clark' date='Nov 8 2005, 05:25 AM' post='44490'] I always liked Wim Dankbaar and never really thought he should have been barred, but John had his reasons.... Wim reminds me of my other radical buddies in Amsterdam and New York, aggressive hard working government critics, you know Shan: Wim was banned for protesting the banning of Tim Carroll, who is now re-admitted. I too like WIm and his work, but am NOT interested in FIles. So I just ignore the Files stuff. Dawn ps Where have you been dude???

Shan: So nice to see you back!!! But don't waste your time here, let her just piss in the wind, alone. She can argue with herself.

Folks it's really time to just IGNORE this xxxxx. Maybe then she will go away. Responding to her is like responding to a dog in heat... She only have one thought and it's been beaten to death. As for Ferrie he was NOT in Garrison's custody. Another lie. Dawn ps Tim It was Tosh who asked that you debate Hemming for him, I was only repeating this sentiment. Of course you represent your own view, and very well at that.

The above evades the basic point: if Cubela was sufficiently suspicious and/or investigative to demand a meeting with RFK, why would his inability to obtain the requisite meeting be interpreted as Kennedy approval? What did FitzGerald have to offer that would provide assurance of Kennedy complicity? It couldn't be the easily proven lie that FitzGerald was a senator.A while back, Tim Gratz asserted that there was a critical timing involved that demonstrated RFK's actual support for the Cubela initiative. He claimed that RFK's phone logs reveal that he had contact with FitzGerald the same day that FitzGerald met with Cubela in October, 1963. I have still seen no evidence of this. It's in this cognitive dissonance that Tim's right-wing bias is demonstrated. Tim Tim: I'd like to see some proof for your views: precisely some proof to refute what Tim C has written above. Excellent points. Bu we all know that Tim avoids/evades all our questions. It must be difficult to be a rightwinger on a forum about who killed JFK. I admire Tim for trying, actually. I think he puts us with US because no one else on the right gives a xxxx about the truth in this case and Tim sees that so he gravitates to a place where people obviously care and that's more important than that we all at odds with him about our personal/ political /philosophical bent. Dawn

How anyone can look back at this bloody two-bit actor as a hero is beyond me. It's called right wing revisionist history, Pat. Tell a lie often enough and beofre you know it half the sheeple in the US will be spouting it. The length of that funeral and the deification of that man just astounded me. Dawn I love the line about him in the film "Back to the Future".

I agree that the research community owes a great debt to Mark Lane. I don't have his contact information but can try to got it. He's often in Dealy Plaza on 11/22. (Not sure of his plans for this year). IN fact I have not seen him featured on any speaker list for several years now. NOt sure why that is. Perhaps Larry can address this, since I believe he has some control over who presents at Lancer. Dawn

************************************************************* Why was the media at his beckon call.? See for yourself.....the why.. "The Media, the CIA and the JFK Assassination" In the JFK case, we find many journalists were serving two masters - the press and the FBI or the CIA, depending on which journalist you are talking about. For example: Jack Anderson, famous for his 'breakthrough' investigative journalism, briefed the FBI after talking to Jim Garrison. He told the FBI Garrison had quite a case, and was quite serious in his efforts. [FBI document from 4-4-67, referenced in Unreliable Sources] But what did Anderson tell the American public? That it looked like the president had been killed in what might have been a Communist plot! During the Garrison investigation, worried about public opinion, the CIA sent out this operational memorandum instructing media assets how to respond to critics of the Warren Commission's lone assassin verdict. Instructions include trying to associate critics with Communists, and trying to insinuate that the critics are only in it for money (neither of which has any bearing on reality, if my own experiences are worth anything!) Leading the charge against Jim Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans in Louisiana, when he attempted to prosecute Clay Shaw along with others on the charge of conspiracy to assassination President Kennedy, was Saturday Evening Post writer James Phel an. Like Priscilla, Phelan proved to be serving two masters. While ostensibly working as a journalist, Phelan was also informing to the FBI on Garrison's case, sending them copies of documents from Garrison's case files. Here are a couple of FBI documents on Jim Phelan: Jim Phelan FBI documents http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/media.htm#Wh...s%20the%20Truth "The CIA's Interest in Garrison's Case" Once Garrison started looking into the case, people affiliated with the CIA kept popping up over and over. Garrison came to believe the CIA had direct involvement in the assassination. Garrison's interest in the CIA was returned in kind. This file from the Assassination Archives in Washington demonstrates the CIA's keen interest not just in the defendent Clay Shaw, who had covert security clearance to operate with the CIA, but in a man solely called to testify about the impossibility of the "single bullet theory". That Counterintelligence Director for the CIA Jim Angleton would find it necessary not only to spy but to work with Hoover's FBI in an attempt to dig up dirt on this innocent man's background is key to understanding the nature of (and perhaps reason for) the CIA's intense interest in wrecking Garrison's case. Angleton Spying on Garrison's Witness http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/...fk/garrison.htm "Media Distortions" When JFK was assassinated, Dan Rather was a small town TV newscaster in Texas. It was he who, immediately after viewing the Zapruder film, reported to all America that John Kennedy's head was "rocketed forward" by the head shot. The Zapruder film then vanished into TIME/Life's vaults, never to be publicly seen until the Jim Garrison trial subpoenaed it, and Dan Rather leapt to network status. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/lie.html "Mockingbird" ""An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered it (*71)."" http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...ockingbird.html ""I only wish the press would allow our case to stand or fall on its merits in court. It appears that certain elements of the mass media have an active interest in preventing this case from ever coming to trial at all and find it necessary to employ against me every smear device in the book. ""...Jim Garrison Jim Garrison, whether we agree with all or not, was the only official within the Unites States to ever bring anyone, to trial for being involved in the Assassination of President John F.Kennedy.. The man named Clay Shaw, alias Clay Bertram, upon information found in documents that were later released, was also proven to have been a C.I.A. employee.... Had this information been allowed, as it should have been at the trial....Jim Garrison would have had a conviction, as it was the proof, that connected, Clay Bertram, to the assassination dealings....Clay Shaw was Clay Bertram.... B.. HI B. You don't post a lot but when you do it's always great. Not that this will shut up our own little net xxxxx. Thanx Ter for the description of such a character. Of course Lynne did not read it: it hit home too hard. Dawn

Is there an echo in here? Are you merely a parrot and can only say three sentences? B-O-R-=I-N-G. Just what is your purpose here Lynne? Every word you write is a lie. Dawn

Diddo, Pat, Ron, Mark and John. Tim: You've gott a face the truth about your own country dude. Your government killed the president. And your blind "love it or leave it" patriotism has you deluded. (Or else you are actually lying). I guess we here in cyberspace can never really know can we? I often believe you are sincere (but deluded), but then when you stick so stubbornly to this CIA- planted nonsense about Castro, I begin to think you're pushing this crap on purpose, to mislead and confuse new comers to the case. Dawn