Dawn Meredith

______________________________ What a bunch of bitter people. Pam you are great for just hanging in there. Your M. Brown analogy is an excellent one, I think. And she was given respect, but she also suffered greatly for her bravery in coming forward. I was fortunate to have met her in Dallas in 98 and have some great photos of her with another close researcher pal of mine, she was a classy lady to the end. Of course Judyth is a witness. The naysayers are entitled to their opinion that she is a hoax, but we've got people on this forum also saying LHO acted alone, so opinions are just that. Re the question to me on circumstantial evidence: I have seen many cases on circumstantial evidence go to a verdict. Direct evidence (where there is an eye witness for example) is often very rare. (People tend to commit crimes when no one can see them). Most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. The Scott Peterson case being just one recent example. Almost NO direct evidence, yet overwhelming circumstantial evidence. As to how to set up a fund, we need an tax/or accountant type of person here, it would have to be somehow set up in a similar fashion to that of a tax exempt charity, foundation sort of thing. Of course for now a simple bank account in her name would suffice, with those of us who wish to contribute just sending in a check, or better yet, a direct deposit to said account. That way it could be all done online and Judyth's privacy could be maintained. Just a thought. Dawn And Nancy nice to see a post that is not attacking Judyth.

__________________________ Tim: "Castro did not do it". Your utilization of the KISS method totally leaves out Lisa Howard and that JFK and Kennedy were in the midst of reconciliation. " A" was saying one thing to appease the public and anti-Castro folks, but the reality is that he was to actually meet with Castro "after a brief trip to Dallas". Period. We know this is the plain fact. And if someone would just post the darn Castro speech I have made so many references to you would see that not only did Castro not kill JFK, he knows who did. Let's try this, I will scan it at Wim's website and if you go there after he posts it, just click on the little icon that enlarges the print so that it can be easily read. (I posted recently here an email from researcher Steve Jones and John posted it, it's very small, but I clicked on the little icon and then could read it without difficulty. ) We even now know who actually FLEW Lisa Howard to Cuba to arrange these meetings. He's travelling now, but he did say on this forum he was that pilot. So you just cannot have it both ways. JFK called off the kill Castro stuff. We have so much proof of this. Start with the Bay of Pigs, set up primarily by Nixon, who was to win the election and then go into Cuba, get rid of Castro so that his Mafia buddies could get back into business. But alas, the election was lost and Bay of Pigs became Kennedy's problem. What did he do? Call off the Castro hits. Even later, after the Cuban Missile Crises, he was NOT trying to kill Castro. He was trying to prevent a world war. And he succeeded. So the only way your KISS method works is if you just totally dismiss the Lisa Howard evidence, and Castro's own words, on 11/23/63. If Castro had killed JFK the entire country would have backed an invasion and many would have personally volunteered for the job of offing Castro himself. The Mob did not kill JFK nor did Castro. The mob had means motive and opportunity, but they did not have the POWER to steal the body from the state of Tx. which had legal jurisdiction over this homicide (It was not yet a federal crime to kill a president), no power to alter the wounds on the president's body, no power to send his entire cabinet halfway around the world just prior to Dallas. Nor did Castro have this kind of power. Hell we can't even buy cuban cigars in the US. Dawn

_________________________ Nancy I know that Vernon and Harwood may not "know" each other, but I have heard they are online enemies. In fact Vernon sent me email to that effect, but I don't want to discuss BV on line and am now blocking his emails, as I DO NOT wish to engage in a dialogue with him. And yes, I have figured out many things . Some of the very same things you have figured out. You and I had long emails and talks about this. Especially where Judyth is connected. I am not going to post what I am talking about because I know that you will "get it", I know how smart you are actually. Can't you just take Judyth at ther word that she is TIRED of all this and needs a total break? You needed a break a few days ago and told me not to call you so I did not. We all have crazy and hectic lives, yet we care deeply about the truth in this case. I believe you do, and most of the others on the forum. True there are some paid disinformationists and lone nutters to be sure, but that has been the case since day one of jfk assassination. Starting with Good old "uncle" Walter and Dan I'd Rather not, who built a whole career lying for the WC. NOw he's thru, but because he told the truth this time, just the documents were forged. How very clever of the conspirators, they are done with old Dan now, he's served them well, W's docs became his "Watergate", if you will. So please let Judyth tell her story when she is ready and let this drop ok? Go in peace. Dawn SHe needs not put herself in further danger just because you think she must do sso NOW. Let her do it at her own pace.

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer. Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ___________________________________-- Paul: Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone. Are you working for Posner??? I still think you are a put on. And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers). The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dawn, I will do just that--rent the video. And because it is you, I'll watch it with a keen eye. But I gotta tell ya, the Zapruder film, the real thing, has been analyzed more than "Citizen Kane" and with more than just a stop watch and eye loup. You mentioned in an earlier post that there is a spiritual aspect to all of this. I believe you have said it perfectly. That is the core of all conspiracy theories. The desire, the need, the craving to lead people out of a desert they believe they're in. Alas, it is all mirage, for he who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _____________________ So Paul, by this am I to understand that you believe in no political conspiracies??? What about Watergate? Was that not a conspiracy? What about the entire Roman empire? What about the plot to kill Jesus? What about the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro? Where do you draw the line? Is it only the JFk conspiracy you do not believe in? Hope you enjoy Bob's video. I challenge you to watch two more movies: Executive Action, then watch 7 days in May. Both old movies and perhaps hard to find, but my husband got me 7 days in May for Christmas and I have a 2nd copy of Executive Action I'd be happy to lend you if you are unable to locate it. Not sure where you are, so I will check your bio. Dawn

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer. Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ___________________________________-- Paul: Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone. Are you working for Posner??? I still think you are a put on. And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers). The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________ ps The email from researcher Steve Jones to which I was referring is on this forum, I saw it earlier. You just need to click on it to make the print larger. Dawn

______________________________ Hunt will never talk for several reasons. The murder ( I believe) of his wife Dorothy, mother of their 5 children, on 12/8/72 aboard United Airlines flight 533, as she was (allegedly) about to spill the beans to Michelle Clark, a young (black) up and coming CBS newsperson is certainly a major factor here. Even Chuck Colson told time Mag. on 7/8/74 "I don't say this to my people. They'd think I'm nuts. I think the CIA killed Dorothy Hunt". Did they? Or did the man in the Whitehouse who had the most to lose? Coincidentally the pilot's name was "Whitehouse". Anyone interested in this plane crash can get all the details on line by going to Sherman Skolnick's webcite. It is also beautifully covered in Oglesby's Yankee Cowboy war. Carl give's Skolnick most of the credit in the book, but there was another person who checked out every word of Skolnicks work, but did not wish to be given credit for it at the time: Then MIT philosophy professor and member of Assassination Information Bureau, Jim Kostman. Dawn

___________________________ Ron, Might you be referring to Carl Oglesby's comments on the media? If so there are three chapters in Carl's book " The JFK Assassination The Facts and the Theories". Part 4, ch 7 "The Behavior of the Media" and chapter 10 "Reflections on the Assassination Media", also ch 13 "Media Reactions". You can probably find this great little book online. (amazon I mean) Dawn

__________________________ Me too Dennis, thanks for the great post. Dawn

__________________________ Me too Dennis, thanks for the great post. Dawn

_______________________________ Nic, I think Judyth got tired of being burned by people she thought she could trust. No matter how she answered a question she was screwed by those who were out to get her, and there are so many. WHY? If she is so unimportant, why bother or ask her... Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nic is absolutely right. She viewed the evidence and objectively came to a conclusion as many of us do. I think Judyth is tired of having her proofless story questioned. The info posted by those like Reitzes is legitimate, doesn't matter who he is. He serves a purpose by disspelling the more ludicrous scenarios, such as Ms Baker's. And Bob Vernon has nothing to do with it. Does it enhance Judyth's story to criticize him or Reitzes or anyone else for that matter? Is it really the opinion of an attorney that if so many people disbelieve someone's story, it makes them more believable? Her story is full of holes. She has made statements then retracted them, presented some "facts" then changed them due to bad eyesight, and most importantly has presented zero evidence. You, as an attorney, certainly should know what evidence is all about. As for people "out to get her", haven't you ever cross examined a witness? Ever caught them changing their stories, gone for the "kill" to expose them, then sat back in your chair with a feeling of accomplishment because you caught them manipulating the truth? Would you not use your abilities to the fullest to prove a witness is giving false testimony, or would you say "no questions for this witness your honor" because you deemed the witness "unimportant"? In your summation to the jury, would you point out the witness presented their own scenario that contained no proof? How did the jury vote after you exposed false or misleading testimony, or testimony that contained no actual evidence? Would you, as an attorney, let your personal feelings convince you to ignore the actual evidence? Not likely, so why do it here? RJS PS: I have no agenda other than the truth, no matter how many emails you get to the contrary. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _____________________________---- Richard, I do not have absolute proof that every word that Judyth is telling is the truth. I have not personally investigated every detail of her story, but she has been attacked and so I defended her based upon what I have learned. Periopd. Of course I have cross-examined witnesses. And I even had to impeach my own expert in a horrible child sex case two weeks ago as he lied on the stand. So I don't need to defend myself to you. You are beginning to sound like BV questioning my legal abilities when you have no idea of who I am. I think actually BV sent me a private email re my legal abilities. (So much trash from BV of late that it's hard to keep it straight if it's a post or email...for the record BV I will delete all further email and in fact block it so that your words will not clutter up my computer.) Nor will I waste another second defending Carl Oglesby. Jim Harwood and BV need their own forum, I have heard they are enemies but they sure act alike to me. And I just do not even read Nancy's long posts any longer. All this Judyth trashing is detracting from the goal of the forum. Again I agree with whomever said we should all help Judyth financially. (Pam? In fact I have yet to read one post by Pam that I disagree with, it is because of people like her that I come back to these forums). Dawn My so called "personal feelings" are based on the incredible attacks I have seen made against Judyth on this forum, and I do personally believe she has the right to refuse to answer qustions from such people. They know who they are, so I shall not name names.

____________________ Thanks Larry, I forgot Glen has this stuff all online. Dawn

______________________________ Tim: Yes Caddy is still alive. His letter can be found in the book the Men on the Sixth Floor. I could try scanning it, but the last thing I scanned was Castro's speech on 11/23/63 and John did not post it because he said it was not good quality. I scanned it directly from the book in which it is printed. (Marty Schotz "History Will Not Absolve us"). So hopefully Larry may have a copy of it and is better at scanning than am I. Dawn ps I did also scan a letter from Jim Garrison (top me) to Wim's forum and it came out fine, so I do not know why there was a problem with the Castro speech, as I did nothing differently. The most facinating thing to me about this particular letter is the date on which it was written. And of course it's author Doug Caddy is also quite interesting, is he not Larry?

_____________________________ Jack I would not be at all surprised if he did. That would account too for his strange behavior since then. Dawn

Thank you David. The book did good. About me and posting on the JFK assassination, let say that i was impressed by John's job and his commitment to History and Education. So, i'm still in a kind of semi-retirement. It's very interesting, especially the way the FBI is dealing with their own experts. On a general way, the fingerprint issue as evidence is a controversial topic between experts. It's why Darby's brillant job + two others confirmations are not a slam dunk. But now, he you add fingerprint+ tape+ Mac's background+ few other things, you are pretty close of a three pointer from Downtown ! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ________________________________ William, Thanx. I will let Nathan know the situation. And I will tell you know who too (you know who X is, deep cover man)..we're all awaiting the book in English. Great answers to all the questions asked of you. We really appreciate it. Weird being in LBJ's sorta hometown, but it's a wonderfully liberal FJk kind of town I'm sure Lyndon and I don't frequest the same haunts. As for using Mac, who else? He got away with several murders so what's a few more? He's still gotten away with it. I think he was in it, but who fired which shots, that's up for grabs. I know Lee shot no rifle that day. But the other "confessors"...I have questions and I have doubts, and they sway me every way. The one confession I am sure is false is Easterling. Files??Perhaps, but some think he read a lot of books...so hard to KNOW. But Wallace, there's so much evidence of him, and so thanx for sharing your work with us. Dawn

_______________________________ Nic, I think Jydyth got tired of being burned by people she thought she could trust. No matter how she answered a question she was screwed by those who were out to get her, and there are so many. WHY? If she is so unimportant, why bother or ask her, or like BV, torture and call her vile names. (And yes, Bob I do occassionally tape, where it is LEGAL , as an atty I have to tape victim witnesses for trial prep, but in my "personal life" I pretty much rely on memory and so I certainly don't remember someone's exact quote, I try to get the jist of it, what I remembered is that is was VIA Jim Garrison that you got interested in the case, long after his trial. That I did not cite your specifics, well Bob I am sorry that I just cannot remember every little aspect of the life you told me , so graciously I might add. But Judtyh should no longer have to be hounded by BV, who has said deplorable things about her. He's like two men: Satan and a gentleman. So Judyth, I hope you will return after you are settled in, rested, and most of all feel safe. Standing for truth after now 41 years is so courageous. You could have said nothing and had a regular life. Think about that folks. What is her motive to make all this up?? Peace and love to you. Dawn

Port Hueneme is in Ventura County. Port Hueneme is 4 miles from Oxnard. Along with Murphy, 5 other bodies were found in the crash. Reported to have been with Audie were: Herman Butler was the pilot, from Denver, CO. Claude Crosby, President of Modular Properties Raymond Prather, Attorney for Modular Properties Jack Littleton, who represented a group of California investors. That leaves one. I may retype the entire article on Hoffa, Washington Post, Jun 7, 1971, as I still cannot upload files. It is very interesting, to say the least. The 'favor' Murphy wanted, according to the author of the article, Jack Anderson, was a Maybe out of the old Pension fund Trafficante and others tapped through Hoffa.Pure speculation, but Dorothy Kilgallen's alleged contact 'in the music industry' is intriguing. From Simkin's Spartacus (thanks John!) Shutters And Boards 1962 When The Wind Blows In Chicago 1962 Please Mr. Music Man Play A Song For Me 1962 Foolish Clock 1962 Leave The Weeping To The Willow Tree 1962 The Only Light I Ever Need Is You 1962 Go On And Break My Heart 1963 Willie The Hummer 1963 My Lonesome Room 1963 Elena, Goodbye 1964 Big, Big Day Tomorrow 1964 If There Is A Short Cut To Nowhere (I'll Take It) 1964 Pedro's Guitar 1964 Round And Round She Goes 1965 Rattle Dance 1966 Dusty Old Helmet 1969 Was It All Worth Losing You 1970 http://www.freemason.org/cfo/julyaugust2000/audie.htm How bizarre. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _______________________________________________________ Great thread. We all think about the Dallas connections, the Cuba connections, Mexico City, but Hollywood??? Of course he and Sinatra were buds. I always believed Sinatra's son's kidnapping was a fake to get JFk assasination off the front pages. Have seen maybe one thing on this, (perhaps by John here at the forum?) that also finds this a plausible explanation of that whole werid event. Now I really want to visit LA, Ca, many firends out there .... What about Las Vaas, Hughes etc, for that matter the damn Morman church?? Dawn ps: Check in on the book section on the Tx. connection, questions being answered.

__________________________--- Mr Reymond, Nathan Darby has asked me to ask you about the dvd, or video he was supposed to receive. Also "X" has asked re same just now on phone. Neither posts on forums so I am the "elected" volunteer for this task. Did you find Billie to be credible? Why do you think he is still alive? Has anyone else evaluated the print evidence? ((Aside from FBI and Mark Sample's guys)? (Oh. and the other expert in Tx. who also found a match, but became too frightened,) If so reaction? Thank you so much for taking the time to do this for us, we are honored. I so hope to read your book. Dawn Meredith

Stan: Trafficante helped (if you are serious about Mafia involvement). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim: Let us remember that CIA sought Mob mechanics for the hits on Castro, not the other way around, in order to provide the Agency with plausible deniability in the event their plots - successful or not - were discovered. If Mob mechanics were involved in Dealey Plaza, should we not view them - in this instance, too - merely as hired guns working for the Agency? Or are we to presume the Mob was working for Castro, as you seem to argue? As I've pointed out elsewhere, there is a clear pattern of CIA plots against Castro - using Mob proxies. Can you cite a single instance of Mob proxies being used by Castro against a US head of state? If so, please share the details. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________________________- Amen to that Charles. Dawn

Paul, First of all, several of the significant players are still alive. Secondly, I won't give a speech about truth, justice and the American way(well, maybe justice). What bothers me the most is that several agencies of the United States government and its employees were either involved, had prior knowledge of the event, or knew what happened after the fact, and did or said nothing. For me there is nothing spiritual about it. The President was murdered as a result of a conspiracy, for political reasons, whatever they may be. Everyone has their own opinion as to why, and I have mine, but the basic fact of the matter is that there are conspirators running around free, the US government knows it, and in many cases, has protected them and covered up their deed for 41 years. It's about time the lies stop, and those responsible are identified and dealt with. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________--- I am not sure what Paul and now RJS is referring to, if I ever used the word "spiritual" in any contxt with the assassination of jfk it could only have to do with the fact that I equate "spreading the TRUTH about the conspiracy of the assassination" to "spreading the Gospel". For me it is all the same thing. Lisa Pease and I had a great email exchange about this right after Gary Webb died . She referred to someone at the memorial saying that (and this is a parphrase) their God is Jusitce, or perhaps it was Truth, forget the exact words, but it lead to a series of emails with Lisa and I on this subject. Being TRUTH and it's importance, no matter what the subjcet. How the Republicans in the WH lie and call themselves Godly men and how ugly that is. SO I do not have time to find the post now referred to twice, but if I used the word "spiritual" it was in that sense. That for me trying to educate people to the fact that we have a government and media of liars is a spiritual experience for me. Sorry if this is not as coherent as I would like. Late for court and will be gone all day so wanted to respond to this. Dawn ps Paul Why do you keep starting threads on this forum since you have made clear that you believe LHO did it alone????? thanx in advance for your response..

Ron: From my own perspective, I think it's important to draw a distinction between those who authored and executed the plan, and those who helped cover it up, because they're not necessarily the same people. Allow me to hypothesize a scenario. You are John McCone. You arrive at work on 11/23/63, and are briefed by underlings. They claim that a few of your personnel may have been involved in the prior day's events. Despite the fact that you had no prior knowledge of those plans, you now must do all in your power to obscure the truth. To admit the truth is to invite the dismembering of your Agency, which you rightly view as a vital part of the nation's defense against an implacable Communist enemy. Disclosing the truth will not bring back the dead President, but will irreparably harm your Agency. Hence, you collude with others to ensure that your Agency isn't subjected to greater scrutiny than is necessary. This doesn't make you responsible for the President's murder, but does make you an accessory after the fact. Yet, what other viable choice is open to you? Of course, it's a simplistic scenario, made only to illustrate a point. Aside from strict need-to-know compartmentalization being SOP at the Agency, I strongly suspect that McCone was completely out of the loop on any number of things, the result of what the Agency calls "selective briefing." Because DCIs were regularly questioned by Congressional intel committees, they were often shielded from the truth by their own underlings, to preclude sudden bursts of honesty while they were being grilled on the Hill. [Moreover, McCone was Kennedy's nominee for DCI, after all, and by most accounts such a boy scout that when the anti-Castro plots came to his attention, he fretted he would be excommunicated from the Catholic church should those plots be made public. If McCone didn't even know about the attempts to whack Castro while they were current, as he insisted, whom within the Agency - presuming that anyone within the Agency had foreknowledge - would have made him privvy to plans to kill the US President?] As for the coverup, I can see ample cause for virtually all agencies to collude in scuttling the truth, without it necessarily implicating them in the crime itself. In a perfect world, FBI should have admitted that Oswald was well known to them [as the subsequent release of previously classified documents makes clear], but chose instead to claim no prior knowledge of him or his movements. To admit otherwise would only have raised questions about why the Bureau didn't monitor this man more closely. Given their role as Warren Commission "investigators" [conflict of interest, anyone?], one clearly sees why certain facts were filtered out of the data provided to the Commission. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.] Ditto for the Secret Service, already in the frying pan for its multiple failures in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not Oswald fit their criteria for inclusion in the Protective Registry, the presumption of his sole guilt after the fact only made it more obvious that he should have been included, irrespective of SS criteria for doing so. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.] Ditto for the CIA, the most obstructionist of all the agencies, and the one with the most incendiary data about Oswald: the Mexico City charade. Oswald meeting with the putative head of KGB's assassination department before Kennedy's murder might qualify as the kind of information one passes on to FBI, SS, et al. Oops. Ditto for the DPD, which - with Oswald's death while in custody - had to to pin the blame on Oswald as a sole assassin, by itself and/or in collaboration with others. The alternative was to admit it had arrested the wrong man, and allowed him to be murdered while in its custody. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.] Ditto for military intelligence of all branches of the service. I've always puzzled over how much Colonel Robert Jones seemed to immediately know about LHO - per Jones' HSCA testimony - yet nobody within the military volunteered that data to the Commission while it was sitting. By the time of Jones' admissions to the HSCA, Oswald's own military intelligence files had been "routinely" destroyed, as though he were any other run-of-the-mill leatherneck, thus depriving us the means to verify Jones' contentions. None of the foregoing precludes individuals at each agency from being a part of the crime, of course. But collusion in the coverup doesn't necessarily demonstrate the colluders were [fore-]knowing participants in the crime. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________ The Castro speech I have scanned to this forum is primarily the first page and then 4-5 more pages, as it is a very long speech (as we know Castro does that). I first found this speech in the work of Paris Flommonde who did the very first book on the Garrison inverstigation. In fact he so titled it (to best of memory going back to 74)"An UNcommissioned report into the invertigation of Jim Garrison). Castro's remarks are extremely illustrative of how very insightful he was so quickly after the assassination. I took these pages today from the longer version of the speech from Dr Marty Schotz' book, "History Will Not Absolve Us". I do hope the words can be enlarged enough to be legible as I was only able to scan, but not enlarge the print. Hoperfully his words will put to rest once and for all the innane notion that "Castro did it". (Or as I have always called it "cover story no 2). LBJ KNEW BETTER, he knew tape was running when he was making those comments. LBJ knew damn well Castro did NOT kill JFK. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _______________________________ If someone has Marty Schotz book History Will Not Absolve Us, would you please post the portions of Castro's speech that I scanned to John yesterday, they were not good quality he said, sometning to so with not right scanning equipment. I think it is very important that readers on this thread read these words. I began with the start of the speech on p, 53, then pages 76-79. If someone else could post this I would greatly appreciate it. Dawn.

_______________________ Shame on HC and double shane on Peter Jennings. It will be a re-run of the total trash he did on ABC last year. But I will tune in and see if he has added so much as a speck of TRUTH. As always Dennis, thanks for the tv alert. Dawn

Ron: From my own perspective, I think it's important to draw a distinction between those who authored and executed the plan, and those who helped cover it up, because they're not necessarily the same people. Allow me to hypothesize a scenario. You are John McCone. You arrive at work on 11/23/63, and are briefed by underlings. They claim that a few of your personnel may have been involved in the prior day's events. Despite the fact that you had no prior knowledge of those plans, you now must do all in your power to obscure the truth. To admit the truth is to invite the dismembering of your Agency, which you rightly view as a vital part of the nation's defense against an implacable Communist enemy. Disclosing the truth will not bring back the dead President, but will irreparably harm your Agency. Hence, you collude with others to ensure that your Agency isn't subjected to greater scrutiny than is necessary. This doesn't make you responsible for the President's murder, but does make you an accessory after the fact. Yet, what other viable choice is open to you? Of course, it's a simplistic scenario, made only to illustrate a point. Aside from strict need-to-know compartmentalization being SOP at the Agency, I strongly suspect that McCone was completely out of the loop on any number of things, the result of what the Agency calls "selective briefing." Because DCIs were regularly questioned by Congressional intel committees, they were often shielded from the truth by their own underlings, to preclude sudden bursts of honesty while they were being grilled on the Hill. [Moreover, McCone was Kennedy's nominee for DCI, after all, and by most accounts such a boy scout that when the anti-Castro plots came to his attention, he fretted he would be excommunicated from the Catholic church should those plots be made public. If McCone didn't even know about the attempts to whack Castro while they were current, as he insisted, whom within the Agency - presuming that anyone within the Agency had foreknowledge - would have made him privvy to plans to kill the US President?] As for the coverup, I can see ample cause for virtually all agencies to collude in scuttling the truth, without it necessarily implicating them in the crime itself. In a perfect world, FBI should have admitted that Oswald was well known to them [as the subsequent release of previously classified documents makes clear], but chose instead to claim no prior knowledge of him or his movements. To admit otherwise would only have raised questions about why the Bureau didn't monitor this man more closely. Given their role as Warren Commission "investigators" [conflict of interest, anyone?], one clearly sees why certain facts were filtered out of the data provided to the Commission. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.] Ditto for the Secret Service, already in the frying pan for its multiple failures in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not Oswald fit their criteria for inclusion in the Protective Registry, the presumption of his sole guilt after the fact only made it more obvious that he should have been included, irrespective of SS criteria for doing so. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.] Ditto for the CIA, the most obstructionist of all the agencies, and the one with the most incendiary data about Oswald: the Mexico City charade. Oswald meeting with the putative head of KGB's assassination department before Kennedy's murder might qualify as the kind of information one passes on to FBI, SS, et al. Oops. Ditto for the DPD, which - with Oswald's death while in custody - had to to pin the blame on Oswald as a sole assassin, by itself and/or in collaboration with others. The alternative was to admit it had arrested the wrong man, and allowed him to be murdered while in its custody. [A conspiracy only compounded its culpability.] Ditto for military intelligence of all branches of the service. I've always puzzled over how much Colonel Robert Jones seemed to immediately know about LHO - per Jones' HSCA testimony - yet nobody within the military volunteered that data to the Commission while it was sitting. By the time of Jones' admissions to the HSCA, Oswald's own military intelligence files had been "routinely" destroyed, as though he were any other run-of-the-mill leatherneck, thus depriving us the means to verify Jones' contentions. None of the foregoing precludes individuals at each agency from being a part of the crime, of course. But collusion in the coverup doesn't necessarily demonstrate the colluders were [fore-]knowing participants in the crime. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________ The Castro speech I have scanned to this forum is primarily the first page and then 4-5 more pages, as it is a very long speech (as we know Castro does that). I first found this speech in the work of Paris Flommonde who did the very first book on the Garrison inverstigation. In fact he so titled it (to best of memory going back to 74)"An UNcommissioned report into the invertigation of Jim Garrison). Castro's remarks are extremely illustrative of how very insightful he was so quickly after the assassination. I took these pages today from the longer version of the speech from Dr Marty Schotz' book, "History Will Not Absolve Us". I do hope the words can be enlarged enough to be legible as I was only able to scan, but not enlarge the print. Hoperfully his words will put to rest once and for all the innane notion that "Castro did it". (Or as I have always called it "cover story no 2). LBJ KNEW BETTER, he knew tape was running when he was making those comments. LBJ knew damn well Castro did NOT kill JFK. Dawn

______________________________ What a strange conversation this is. Thanks Ron for being the voice of reason here. No one has mentioned Castro himself, what he had to say about the assassination so allow me to try. I will scan his speech to John, tho I have been told via email from Andy that when I send John an email it goes to Andy and not to John, so I hope that I can accomplish this. Dawn

I suppose there are a number of things Ferrie might have done with the package between the time he retrieved it and the time Garrison subpoenaed him in December 1966. As best I can tell, Ferrie's place was a pit on the day he was found dead, but there is no indication of anything like a search. The back boor was busted open, but that was by Jimmy Johnson, who found the body. The only inventory I've found of the apartment does not list anything like that package. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ____________________________________________ Thank you Judyth for that post. It clears up a lot of things. I hope Nancy takes it in the spirit in which you clearly wrote it. At this point I just do not know what to make of Nancy. One private reason that I shall not post. It concerns, of course Bob Vernon. I tried to help Nancy, she knows that I did, we had hours of email and phone conversations. She is far more intelligent than her posts show. In fact that is why I asked to call her rather than email when assisting her, I could not understand her posts. I agree it may be an eye problem, I thought at first English was not her native language, but upopn speaking with her discovered that not to be the case. I have not ceased trying to accomplish what Nancy and I discussed. It's still in the works, things take time. Great info on Ferrie Roy, sorry you had to come into the picture this way, but every piece of this puzzle is important in the big picture. "There are many people ...that have the answers to questions and don't even know the questions exist" A researcher famous for his lack of seeking fame. A friend. Dawn