Dawn Meredith

I think this account undermine's the view that RFK was still plotting against Castro in November, 1963. I believe he fully supported JFK's attempt to negotiate a deal with Castro. I suspect that these CIA leaks about RFK's behaviour is an attempt to disguise what was really going on between the JFK administration and Castro in those last weeks before the assassination. ________________________________- Disinformation takes many forms and "divide and conquor" is the oldest trick in the book. The plan was to kill JFK and blame Castro. Then kill Castro. God stepped in: LHO was not killed immediately as was planned (by Tippit?); Abe Zaprudra was there with his 8 mm, and yet one more kill- Castro- with- a- poison pen-plan failed!! So, the CIA disinformation team went to work immediately. Dan Rather, Life mag, all of op Mockingbird. Sometimes authors are so slick that it's hard to tell which side they are on. I remember loving Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt until I got to his insane Chapter 11, The Cuban Connection: Coincidnece or Conspiracy". It begins with LBJ's famous quote about Kennedy trying to get Castro but Castro got him first and ends with "Castro was better served than any leader in the world by the death of (JFK)". His whole argument in ch 11 is that the Kennedy's were trying to kill Castro. Odd thing is the rest of this book- (sans the foolsih Easterling confession)- is PROOF of the opposite. It is actually very good research ON the case. I cold-called Mr Hurt 5/17/86 to discuss this incredible inconsistancy and thus began a series of letters-arguments over this one point. My point here is that perhaps in 1986 the entire purpose of this book WAS chapter 11: disinformation. We know just how close JFk and Bobby were: there is NO way they were not in agreement on the Castro issue. IMPO, of course. Dawn

[This is what I believe really did happened. Why does William Attwood say he does not wish to speculate? I suspect because he was frightened to do so. Attwood died in 1989. His surviving family members are still unwilling to go on record about what he knew about the assassination. Such is the power of those who carried out the “crime of the century”. [color=blue]____________________________ Such is STILL the power. Cuba, CIA, Vietnam, Big Oil... I wonder if it is possible to even calculate the number of needless deaths-murders- which have occurred since one man dared to live- (and die)- by his own words: "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war....We shall be prepared if others wish it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just... Confident and unafraid, we labor on-not toward a strategy of annihiliation but toward a strategy of peace" American University 6/10/63 Dawn

I tried to do my responses in red, to make it easier to distinguish and not have to utilize drawing lines... but it did not work...sorry. Will continue to experiment. I'm technically challenged. Dawn

After the Watergate break-in, the media began to react as sharks who smelled blood, and they wanted a taste of flesh. Agnew, whose abrasive attitude had irritated the press from the get-go, was thrown to the sharks and promptly devoured...but the press could sense that they finally had Nixon in their sights, and their tenacity on the Watergate story was remarkable. __________________________ Great posts guys!! But: With all due respect, Watergate was a totally controlled story by the CIA's Mockingbird. Woodward knew exactly where to "draw the line". Dawn I am going to try to respond within this post to points, so please bear with me _______________________________________ Upon Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford was looked upon by the media as a Nixon appointee, a sort of "stepchild-President," an object of both pity and scorn but little actual respect. Viewed as a "caretaker" of the office until the next election cycle, President Ford's term is remembered chiefly for his stumbles and errant golf shots rather than any policies, primarily because this is how the media portrayed him. __________________________________- Again controlled: Ford was payback for his role on the WC.(DM) ____________________________ Fast-forward to 2001: After the 9/11 incidents, the media again : ________________ Are not asking the tough questions: like who made all the $ on those put options??? (DM) __________________________ Some in the press certainly are "bought and paid for" by the power elite. __________________________ ****I would say "most" in the press hold this distinction. (DM) I think this is an excellent description of true terrorism and totally agree with Steven's posts. Only now they don't have to actually assassinate a person. Just find his vulnerability- (sex)- and put her on his knee (Donna Rice: Gary Hart). Have some fun while derailing the man's campaign,-especially a Sen. who spent two years looking into the assassination of JFK- have the bimbo on his knee on a boat called "Monkey Business". Boy those Republicans sure have one heck of a sense of humor!! Just ask Bill Clinton. Dawn

Lawrence Teeter, 56; Lawyer Tried to Win New Trial for RFK's Killer ----- Original Message ----- From: Copa To: undisclosed-recipients: Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 5:29 PM Subject: Lawrence Teeter, 56; Lawyer Tried to Win New Trial for RFK's Killer Friends, It is with sadness that I send notice of the passing of our friend and fellow truth seeker Larry Teeter, who until his untimely recent death was fighting in court for both the examination and preservation of the RFK assassination site at the Ambassador Hotel which he had been denied access to, and for the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the wrongly convicted alleged assassin who was under some sort of mind control at the time of the shooting. Larry was a constant presence and a speaker at various COPA meetings over the last decade and we will miss him sorely. The LA COPA meeting this year was co-sponsored by his Committee for the Preservation of Assassination Sites. He died of an agressive lymphoma and was seeking treatment at the end of his life in Mexico, since he was very critical of US medical methods. In June, he spoke at the COPA event despite being "under the weather" with what he thought was a bad cold. He gave me a tape to play there if he could not attend, so I will air it at the Dallas meeting in his stead. I hope the work he was doing can be continued in some way. John Judge http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/c...,1,240682.story COPA Dallas update: Dallas, November 18-20 (and 22nd on the Grassy Knoll) Hotel Lawrence, 302 S. Jackson St. (off Dealey Plaza) 214-761-9090 COPA rate $84/night single/double Friday, November 18 - Adolphus Hotel on Commerce Street 5-7 pm - drinks and dinner at the Bistro off the main lobby 7-10 pm - Keynote speaker Rep. Cynthia McKinney shuttle available from the Hotel Lawrence both ways Saturday, November 19 - George Alllen Building 9 am - 5 pm - Speakers and a panel on Assassination Archives and preservation 7-10 pm - Hotel Lawrence, speakers and videos Sunday, November 20 - Hotel Lawrence 9 am - 12 noon - Speakers and COPA discussion Confirmed speakers: Walt Brown, Dick Russell, Brad Ayers, Bill Kelly, Nick Kotz (author of Judgment Days, about LBJ and MLK), Dr. William Pepper, Dick Gregory, Billy Sol Estes, Joan Mellen (author of new book on Garrison), Philip Melanson, PhD, Jerry McKnight, (Weisberg Archives), and the curator of the Penn Jones archives, Chris Pike (researching Penn Jones), Dave Starks (JFK Assassination Web), John Judge (Emcee). Invited speakers: Michael Newton, Ronnie Dugger, Barr McCellan, Clay Carson (MLK Papers), the director of Malcolm X Museum, Paris Flammonde, Rex Bradford, Ed Tatro, Ralph Schoenman, Paul Krassner, Robert Groden, David Wrone, Stuart Wexler, T Carter. Registration $50 or $20/day, payable at event. If you are able to make an additional donation to COPA this year, please make the check to COPA, PO Box 772, Washington, DC 20044 or donate at the events. Thanks, and hope to see you there, John Judge

Larry Teeter died? I met him last year at Lancer. While he appeared to be in poor health, he still had quite an active mind. I just googled him and found nothing about his death. Do you have any details? nothing suspicious I hope. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ____________________________________-- Cancer, what else, age 56. Dawn

___________________________ Great great posts while I have been away for two weeks. I did get to check the forum a few times and got to read all the Dallas to Watergate stuff. Want to comment when I am recovered and have more than 3 hours sleep....Robert, Pat, Mark, John ...etc etc...EVERYONE!- just great stuff!!!. John I hope you are well- firewalled as you and other posters are putting a lot together here, much needed fallow up. Too bad Tim Carroll cannot weigh in, Dallas to Watergate and beyond was his speciality. I was thinking, on the plane last nite, that I'd write him and ask him to ask to be readmitted, but he speaks for himself, not I for him. But I miss his imput/mind on these matters. The community here, the critical thought, of late especially, the interactive/sharing: all the things that drew me here last Oct have me quite excited. I got to see two pals and JFK "experts" when in Pa: Steve Jones and Jerry Policoff.....a great afternoon and only one of two times I was not worried about husband Erick, in the hospital....The afternoon flew. I want to TRY to see if either would be interested in checking out this forum. Both are still very interested in the case so that was stimulating. (And I had just read some of the Watergate/ Dallas connection posts just that morning, so "you were on my mind" (Remember the Wee Five?) The other great JFK- moment in Lancaster PA was when my kid -(age 33) -asked us to rent JFK. (To get my mind away from worrying about Erick who had to undergo man days of complex tests). Seeing this brilliant film TOGETHER was -(for me long awaited)- first and it was very special; intense beyond belief. (She really "got it" too!!!) Good to be home....in so many ways. This forum rocks!! Dawn

Sorry, John, but I think it's more prosaic than that. Repeated failures to keep current with dues payable to the Wisconsin Bar led to suspensions, along with a failure to keep current with the Bar's continuing legal education requirements. Inexplicable oversights for a lawyer who wishes to keep practising, surely, but fairly mundane relative his far more exciting contacts with Segretti, Reitz, Ulasewicz, Rove, et al. However, since you raised the issue, these infractions seem to have led to a series of suspensions. The cause of the actual revocation of his licence is undisclosed in the public records. I will make some inquiries to determine if your hunch may prove correct. Stay tuned, Tim-fans. _____________________________ Just got back from a two week vacation.....also just read the terrible news of Sirhan's atty's untimely death...., also my husband spent the first 4 days of our vacation on the heart ward, VERY SCARY... and it's nearly 1 am so I should go to bed BUT: Why no response Tim?????? Lack of bar dues will NEVER get an attorney disbarred, nor will lack of CLE. To be REMOVED from practicing law one must do something pretty damn bad. Some examples are: conviction of a felony, or any conviction involving fruad, theft, stealing from a client, etc. etc. The bar also gives lawyers several "chances" so I'd like to know why our oh- so moralistic Mr Gratz has been removed from "the club". In the two states in which I have practiced - (Massachusetts and Texas)- such a sanction is also PUBLIC. In fact here in Tx. even a public reprimand by the bar is printed in our monthly bar journal. Sealed record????? What gives Tim? Dawn

________ Sorrry, no time, going on vacation!!! So missed it. Will miss the forum. Dawn I will have more questions tho:)))))

[Larry and John: In a nutshell!! Dawn

. "Tim, Castro didn't think that Kennedy was interested in dialogue, he knew so. They were in the process of lining up meeting just before the assassination. " Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. " Up to three days before in fact. Kennedy had shown a willingness to deal effectively with 'rogue' elements in the governmental structure. Why would Castro want to risk all this? I'm not privvy to Castro's thoughts. But the declassified documents indicate that his thought the following: "In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations." " By the date of the assassination he certainly knew that Kennedy endorsed rappoachment." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _______________________________________ I responded to Tim's words before reading these great responses. Tim, how can you TRULY argue against THIS??? This is the reality. And if you would ever bother to take the time to read the very long speech Castro gave immediately after the assassination you would see that not only did Castro NOT have JFK killed, he knew who did and exactly why. It is reprinted in full in Dr Marty Schotz' book "History Will Not Absolve Us". (I first read the speech in 74). Perhaps your local liab. has this book, or you can get it used online. Dawn

Would he have been re-elected? I say yes because his plans were to eliminate Castro between August and October of 1964. Had that plan succeeded, he would have won big. ______________________________--- I missed your little "joke" Tim not because I lack intelligence but because if I read what you write CLOSELY it will so anger me that I will go off to court in a bad mood. I am a very HAPPY person by nature. And a very good attorney who often has to defend the nearly indefensible-(I'm a public defender). So when I do read crap like this my blood just BOILS. So, for the LAST TIME: JFK and Castro were about to have PEACE "after a brief trip to Dallas". Your constant disinformation about JFK AND Castro has upset me SOOOO many times that like Shanet I have many times typed the words "I am leaving", but I know that this is what disinfo people want. Then the newcomers will perhaps start to believe the LBJ obvious lie that "JFK was trying to get Castro but Castro got him first". People who have not ever studied this case can spout this nonsence that the CIA disinfo machine put out long ago, but you Tim have studied the case. I have said before that I do not reallly believe you actually believe this. If you do then it's your intelligence that is in question here. Because ALL of the evidence points to a US coup. So I need to read some posts before court that don't involved your words and get my happy mood back. Since you often don't answer questions this may be a waste of time, but I long ago noticed you have a law degree and you said to Shanet "when I USED to practice law". Just what is it that you presently do??? Dawn

Tim, Rather than respond to your contemptuous demand that I supply numbers and not make "unsupported statements of fact", I'll note that you don't have the numbers to support your contention that Kennedy was in trouble electorally in '63. The only numbers your "other source" supplies are 55-39 for JFK--which supports MY argument. JFK won in 1960 with the narrowest majority, up to that time, in US history. The starting point for any polling concerning his chances in '64 is the percentage of the vote he recieved in 1960. I don't know what it was but I'm guessing it was around 50%. I can undertake to post the actual numbers--I don't expect they'll be hard to find. But don't try using smoke and mirrors here to bolster a false premise. Don't try to argue that because he was polling 69% on inauguration day, it was all downhill after that. That's rubbish, and another example of selective quotation which you use regularly to support nonsense. Kennedy's trend line begins with the percentage he recieved in the 1960 election. The 1960 election. Clear? If, as your "other source" claims, JFK was polling 55% when he died, the journey from 50% to 55% is one of electoral approval, not impending doom. Talk about making "unsupported statements of fact". I know what you're up to, young Tim. You're trying to assert that Kennedy's electoral fortunes were in decline, hence there was no reason for those in the MIC and Government to whack him--they could just wait for him to lose, or phone the Chicago Tribune or some other rubbish. Every book, news article and expert comment I've ever read on the matter has always said the same thing--JFK was looking very good to win in '64. That's why the conspirators had to act with alacrity. Don't try to rewrite history here. I'll die at this keyboard before I let you get away with it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________________________________ BRAVO, Mark!!!

____________________________ Tim I see you have lots of time to debate whether or not JFK would have won in 64 (there is no question he would have!) but are still avoiding direct questions. Perhaps you're hoping that your opposition here will just go away, like Shanet. Won't happen, there are way too many of us. Dawn

I hope you reconsider, Shanet. We need your voice, your analysis.... We should not be afraid of posting our opinions. Tim COME ON, you're threatening libel and lawsuits. Thou does protest too much perhaps????? Dawn

I am surprised you have given in to Tim’s bully boy tactics. Even so, do not let this stop you from posting on this Forum. If you do, Tim will have won. We can’t allow that can we? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________________________ Shanet: PLEASE do not leave. Tim is over-damn reacting, and I totally concur with John's post. Bullies should not ever win. Dawn

. And, as I suspect you know, despite how strongly I felt at the time that it was important for the future of the country that Nixon be re-elected _____________________________ It's just AMAZING how people can see things so differently!!. Myself and many others believed- (correctly so, it's been shown)- that what was "important for the future of the country" was that Nixon be DEFEATED. Had Wallace not been shot there is a very good chance that he would have taken away enough votes so that McGovern would have been president. Much the same way Perot helped ensure Clinton's election in 92. But....once again assassination (attempt) intervenes. Who benefited?? Dawn

_____________________ Will try to find out. I no longer have the article, nor does Harvery, but I will check to see if he remembers who published it. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _____________________________________ John: Just heard back from Harvey on the Sullivan piece. It was published by a mag called New Times and he says they are no longer around. But a good liabrary, like the Boston Public Liab. might have it. Worth a try. I tried to find it online but nothing. Sure wish I'd saved it. Dawn

They had a Massachusetts wedding, long before it was legal. John Kerry performed the services. With Willie Horton in attendance! (That wedding crasher Willie!) GHWB came as Boy Gray's date, and Dubya parked the cars for beer money! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _______________________ Thanks Pat, my laugh of the day!! Dawn

Judyth's story on TMWKK was cencored. One has to wonder why? I think she is gunuine. As Charles just pointed out just how does one "prove" a relationship from 43 years ago, epsecially since the other party has been dead for 42 of those years? It is my understanding that Marina has some evidence that may substantiate this relationship. I wonder too if anyone ever received the tapes that Debra Conway was (allegedly) refusing to turn over to Judyth and/or someone close to her. Why on earth would Judyth "invent" this story? She'd have to be NUTS and I did not have that impression of her. Just my opinion, of course. Dawn

Timothy W. Maier does seem to be implying this. I think the key to this mystery is that Nixon had several dirty tricks campaigns in operation. The most important of these was run by H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The chief field officer was Tony Ulasewicz. This operation began in March, 1969. Ulasewicz kept a strong control over these activities in order that it remained a completely secret operation. It had to be because Ulasewicz was running a campaign to set up Edward Kennedy in order to ensure he did not stand against Nixon in 1972. It is my belief that Ulasewicz was involved in Chappaquiddick incident. After Kennedy’s career was ended in 1969, Ulasewicz turned his attention to George Wallace. It was Wallace, rather than Muskie that posed the most threat to Nixon being re-elected. Ulasewicz’s operation was so secret that other Nixon aides (except for Haldeman and Ehrlichman) did not know of its existence. They therefore began organizing their own dirty tricks campaign. Colson ran Hunt and Liddy while Chapin employed Segretti. When Ulasewicz discovered what Segretti was up to he immediately moved to get it shut down. He knew that Segretti’s activities posed a serious threat to his own operation (he virtually says this in his autobiography). The same could also be said of Hunt and Liddy. According to Ulasewicz’s autobiography, when the Watergate burglars were arrested Ehrlichman immediately assumed it was a Ulasewicz operation. Nixon and Haldeman probably reacted in the same way. It was only after the arrest of the Watergate burglars that investigators discovered details of Ulasewicz’s activities (via Jack Caulfield). However, Sam Ervin and his Senate Committee backed off investigating this operation. It was one thing to accuse the president of lying about his knowledge of a break-in of an office, it was something else to suggest that he had given orders that had resulted in the death of a woman and an attempted murder of one of your leading political rivals. (What is more, any examination of the setting up of Edward Kennedy might well have led to calls for investigation into the deaths of JFK and RFK.) Given the situation he was in, Nixon was more than willing to resign over the activities of Hunt and Liddy as long as the activities of Tony Ulasewicz were not investigated. This explains why Ervin’s committee never asked Ulasewicz about Operation Sandwedge. Instead, they restricted their questions to Ulasewicz involvement in Watergate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> -_______________________ Bingo John, I believe you've nailed it here. Also during the Watergate hearings for about a day it LOOKED as if the Dorothy Hunt death might be probed....I remember being on red alert, alas the moment passed and nothing came out. Dawn

Not just Kelly, there are MANY mysterious deaths of scientists. Just google "dead scientists" and read, you will be mindblown. WHAT is going on??? Last time I checked it was up to 64!! Dawn

[directed by Mark Obenhaus and produced by Peter Jennings. It was made by an American company called PJ Productions. In the John Kennedy: Beyond Conspiracy the writer, Mark Obenhaus, argues that the Warren Commission got it right. Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed both JFK and J. D. Tippit. The only new evidence that Obenhaus provides is the animation work of Dale Myers. His animation of the Zapruder film is shown over and over again. ____________________________ I tried to watch this when it first aired on ABC in 2003. (In fact sent a long impassioned email to Peter Jennings begging him to get it axed). (No reply of course). I got thru about 15 minutes and found I was way too angry to watch the rest, tho I did tape it. My husband kept calling it a "cartoon" but I found it to be one of the mose sophisticated pieces of disinformation I have ever seen. Apparently by the 40th anniversary there were enough people who knew of the impossibility of the magic bullet theory, so this farce animation was put together to "prove" that it was indeed possible for LHO to have "acted alone". That it's being shown so often shows just how desperate the real "evil doers" are to continue to perpetuate this fraud. The tv shows to watch that year were the three Men Who Killed Kennedy episodes, which, of course, were cancelled and cencored for all time. A lot has been already written about "The Guilty Men" and of course being friends with the main principals of this one, BarrMcClellan, Nathan Darby and J. Harrison, I am quite biased in how I feel about that progran -(GREAT)- but just as good was the hour titled "The Smoking Guns". Chalk one up for cencorship. Dawn