Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz

Members
  • Posts

    6,572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tim Gratz

  1. Pat, re your post that political officers accused of wrongdoing such as that alleged against Dr. Wecht are usually "removed from office and disgraced" rather than prosecuted, as you I am sure know this is oft the result of a bargain between the accused and the prosecutor wherein the prosecutor agrees not to prosecute if the wrongdoer agrees to "get out of Dodge". How do you know that Dr. Wecht was not offered such a deal but refused it? Moreover, let us look back at the case of our mutual friend Richard Nixon. Is it not likely he would have been prosecuted but for the pardon? Re JEH, I suspect we all know why no one dared prosecute him while he was alive!
  2. Re the Chicagop Sun Times review: The Road to Dallas (Belknap Press, 536 pages, $35), written by David Kaiser, tries to preempt that shrug by billing itself as the first book written on the subject by a professional historian who has pored over the volumes of recently declassified information. Of course Michael Kurtz, a professional historian, has written two books on the assassination. The book is full of anecdotes that will make many wonder why these facts weren't reported before, or at least reported on a more mainstream level. It opens with three men visiting a Cuban woman -- Silvia Odio -- in Dallas in early October 1963. Odio testified that one of the men was Oswald, while the other two were believed to be American anti-Castro mercenaries Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard. Hall had spent time in a Cuban prison with Florida mob boss Santo Trafficante Jr., who owned several Havana casinos before Castro's rise to power. During their time in prison, Trafficante was visited by Jack Ruby. Of course there are errors most readers will recognize in the above. Even before the WR went to press the FBI had reports from Hall and Howard denying that they had visited Odio. Angelo Murgado told both Prof Joan Mellen and David Talbot that he visited Odio, accompanied by Bernardo DeTorres. Kaiser uncovered several quotes by people such as Hoffa calling for John Kennedy to be assassinated. Hoffa's mob associates relied on the money stolen from Hoffa's Teamsters Union, so many powerful and dangerous people suffered by RFK's personal quest to bring down Hoffa. The Kennedy administration was an enemy to many. I doubt that Mr. Kaiser "uncovered" new remarks by men such as Hoffa that JFK should be assassinated. While I of course agree with Kaiser's premise that the mob was involved (and in my opinion planned) the assassination, I disagree that LHO was the sole shooter and strongly doubt that he was a shooter at all. I am sure most on the Forum would strongly disagree that LHO was the sole shooter. Finally, while I do plan on reading Prof. Kaiser's book, I seriously doubt it is the "best" book written on the assassination--a book proposing Oswald was the sole shooter? One wonders how many assasination books the reviewer has read.
  3. You will notice, of course, that Peter cannot answer my question and he offers not one iota of evidence that the Wecht trial was the result of "selective prosecution". His view of the case derives, I suggest, not from facts but rather from his "world view". Of course I agree with Dr. Wecht's position on the asassination and I admire his work on it and his courage in offering his dissenting position to the collective view of so many of his peers (in fact I once had a very brief but very pleasant conversation with Dr. Wecht in which he stated that Gov. Connally's wounds come have come from a gunman firing from the 6th floor west window of the TSBD). I hope that he is innocent and that if is innocent that justice will be done.
  4. Although VB in "Reclaiming History" provides extensive coverage of the "London Trial" you will not find in his book any reference to the fact that Mr. Baker, in response to a question from Mr. Spence, stated that Oswald did not look like a man who had just committed a murder. A strange omission in a book the dusk jacket of which condemns the "selective" use of evidence by authors who posit a conspiracy. Or maybe VB just ran out of space to consider Baker's opinion.
  5. Peter, in order to demonstrate selective prosecution the defendant must show that others committed similar acts but were not prosecuted. I have not been following the case as you have but certainly the evidence as adduced demonstrates crimes (not to say the evidence is necessarily correct). You claim that the "ultra-right" judge improperly disallowed evidence of selective prosecution. I assume since you make this charge you are familiar with what evidence Dr. Wecht had that others who had committed similar acts were NOT prosecuted. Can you advise what evidence there was that you believe should have been admitted?
  6. Mr. Rosman wrote: Oswald was conned by rogue CIA agents into believing that President Kennedy, keen to invade Cuba (to retrieve his loss of face over the Bay of Pigs), and desperate for a justification for such an action, sanctioned a plan whereby an unsuccessful assassination attempt on him could be trailed through Oswald back to Castro. Oswald's role was to be a 'Communist' plant with appropriate Moscow baggage to whom the assassination rifle could be traced. I have suggested that Oswald may have been talked into helping incriminate himself because of a deliberately failed assassination attemot. This scenario resolves a lot of questions. But there are several possibilities in addition to the one mentioned above, e.g.: (1) There actually was a failed assassination plot planned by the CIA (not rogue agents) with the actual purpose to justify an invasion of Cuba. But a sinister element (certainly the OC comes to mind) could have hijacked the plot changing a failed assassination into an actual one. (2) There was an actual assassination planned but Oswald was conned into thinking it was planned to fail. But why would the planners need to be rogue CIA agents? If a sinister element (again I offer OC) was aware that Oswald was working with US intelligence, why could Oswald not have been told that someone was from the CIA even though he was not? Oswald could have been instructed that the plan was so compartmentalized and so secret that he must tell no one even his normal handlers. I tend to favor (1) above. This could explain the presence of CIA agents in Dallas while their presence would have been sufficient to necessitate a desperate cover-up. Planning a failed assassination attempt is not so far-fetched when one considers the plans contemplated by Operation Northwoods. So it seems we have either an actual assassination attempt communicated to Oswald as designed to fail, with the plotters being rogue CIA operatives or others claiming to be CIA; or an officially sanctioned simulated assassination hijacked by the forces of darkness. Either of these scenarios could explain a lot and certainly explains Oswald's actions when he discovered that he was being set uo to take the blame for the death of the president. I suggest it could it also explain a wild shot designed to miss everyone and hurt no one but that resulted in a ricochet that wounded Mr. Tague.
  7. Moderator: I thought insults were against the rules, or is there an exception if aimed at me? Dawn, I care less about your insults. At least I normally spell correctly. Now to the merits: Lemkin said it was prosecutorial misconduct and you said "Absolutely." Now you admit that without being trapped he knowingly broke the laws he was sworn to enforce. And how in the world can you as an attorney agree with Peter that there is prosecutorial misconduct when the last I heard no one had announced a decision whether or not to prosecute him. Strange indeed!
  8. Spitzer breaking the law possibly even including the Mann Act (a serious offense) constitutes prosecutorial misconduct? I am aware of no hint that Spitzer was entrapped. The argument advanced by Meredith/Lemkin must be that anyone left of center should never be prosecuted for commission of a crime. Curious indeed!
  9. WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? Myra wrote: On 10th January, 1969, Bill Decker sent Buddy Walthers and Alvin Maddox to a motel to question Walter Cherry, an escaped convict and a man suspected of a double murder. When the two detectives entered the room Buddy Walthers was shot dead by Cherry.---------------------------------------- But then Peter Lemkin wrote: Yes, one of THE most suspicious deaths. How often does one police officer shoot another by 'accident' in such a situation...answer not often. Someone wanted the 'stone' out of their 'shoe' and presto [of blam!] and it was done...and inconvenient truth and witness gone....as so many others. Why would anyone need to silence Walthers six years after the fact? Moreover Myra wrote that Cherry, the escaped convict, shot and killed Walthers. Why did Peter write that Walthers was accidentally shot by Maddox? For what it is worth, about ten years ago there was an incident in Key West where two police officers entered a hotel room to investigate a suspicious person. He was hiding in the bathroom and shot both officers at close range, one in the head. The first officer down shot the man and paralyzed him. Miraculously, neither police officer, both of whom I have met, suffered permanentr injuries. But it is unfortunate that police officers are sometimes killed in the line of duty. If Walthers had to be silenced, why did the conspirators wait so long? Had they exhausted their methods of disposing of witnesses in 1965 and 1966 and it took them three years to figure out how to get Buddy? And did they get him through Maddox and Cherry? I would characterize Walthers as one of the LEAST suspicious deaths: a police officer killed in the line of duty by a crazed escaped convict, a full six years after the assassination.
  10. I think Ron may be correct that the acoustics evidence indicated there may have been more than foiur shots but HSCA decided not to pursue the possible additional shots. But given the scenario of the acoustic report as adopted by the HSCA, I think the only way it could reconcile Tague being hit by a shot other than the last was to adopt the absurdity of the SBT, largely based on Dr Guinn's NAA (called the "linchpin" of the SBT by Blakey). If the NAA correctly matched bullet fragments removed from Gov Connally to CE399, the SBT HAD to be correct, regardless of its improbabilities. But here I think the HSCA's reasoning was precisely backwards. It should have concluded that given the problems with the SBT, the NAA just had to be wrong. Even logic should have suggested that there were problems with an analysis based on the premise that MC bullets were unlike all other bullets in that you could match fragments to a specific bullet rather than simply to the batch of bullets. Now by somewhat similar reasoning, I think we can conclude that: (1) the SBT is wrong; and THEREFORE (2) the shot sequence scenario proposed by the HSCA acoustic study has to be wrong. By similar reasoning, the shot sequence proposed by Christian David to Steve Rivele has to be wrong. Interestingly, the HSCA shot sequence and the David shot sequence are identical, although the HSCA says the third, GK shot missed and David said the GK shot hit JFK in the head and the fourth shot from the rear missed. Now David COULD be correct if Tague was in error about hearing a shot after the shot that hit him. If Tague was wrong, then the actual shot sequence of HSCA could be correct but then the HSCA Pathology Panel was wrong and the fourth shot missed and hit Tague. But again to support this one must argue that Tague was wrong about hearing a shot after he was hit. I think we also need to consider the actual timing of the shots as proposed by the HSCA acoustics experts as well.
  11. Much more significantt, Antti. Actually at least three events, first not directly related to assassination. March 13, 1957: Rolando Cubela and other members of an anti-Batista student group storm the Havana presidential palace in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Batista. March 13, 1961: Robert Maheu meets Johnny Rosselli at the Patterson-Johanssen fight in Miami. After the fight, Maheu delivers poison to Rosselli which he passes to a Cuban outside the Boom Boom Room at the Fountainebleu. This assassination attempt was intended to eliminate Fidel before the BOP. March 13, 1987 Trafficante "confesses" to his attorney Frank Ragana, says to effect, Carlos screwed up. We should have got Bobby. (But Trafficante's family (his REAL family) dispute Trafficante even met with Ragano. He died four days later. The latter two events are of course important in the history of the assassination.
  12. What two significant events happened on March 13 that relate to the Kennedy case?
  13. I would appreciate if anyone regardless of his or her opinion can suggest a shooting scenario that is consistent with the HSCA acoustics study showing the first two shots from the rear, the third from the knoll, and the fourth from the rear. If you accept Tague's testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit (i.e. he was NOT hit by the final shot (from the rear per the HSCA) then I submit it is impossible to construct a shooting scenario without accepting the SBT. Not that I accept the SBT. On the contrary, I suggest that this exercise must disprove the results of the HSCA acoustics study. Unless I am missing something, I cannot see how three shots from the rear can 1) hit JFK; 2) hit JC; 3) hit Tague AND deliver JFK's head shot (that's FOUR THINGS) unless one bullet does two things. If you try to escape the dilemma by asssuming the third shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot, then I think you must be left with Tague being hit by the fourth and final shot, and that is inconsistent with his testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit.
  14. Well of course the (alleged) use of steroids is a far more important issue than determining why the Secret Service destroyed possible assassination-related records while the ARRB was functioning. But is the failure ours (I mean those who are not "cognitively impaired" (LOL) for not getting the message out to the public? I want to take a minute to applaud the efforts of Mr. Jesus in getting all the important clips to You Tube. One would hope they might have some impact.
  15. Tomorrow (February 27, 2008) may be a day of reckoning for the CIA re the Joannides matter: http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/...deral-court-cia
  16. "The book portrays LHO as a disgruntled moron, which seems inaccurate." Seems? It certainly remains an issue whether Oswald was "disgruntled", that is a distict possibility for sure. He may have been disgruntled with both communism as practiced in the Soviet Union and capitalism in the United States. But it is clear that LHO was no moron, although I guess he suffered from dyslexia. Witness his mastery of the Russian language; how he handled himself in the debate in NO; how skillfuly (by some reports at least) he handled his interrogation. That being said, it was probably moronic for him not to tell his captors that he would not answer ANY questions until he had a lawyer. And moronic for him to deny owning a rifle if in fact he did own the (a) rifle. That issue still puzzles me because his mother-in-history saw at least one of the backyard photos the night of the assassination. So IF the backyard photos were fake, Marina must have been part of the frame even before she was grabbed by the Secret Service.
  17. Mr Caddy probably knows but he can't say. I think Mr. Estes is at least as credible as the fellow who wrote "Blood, Money and Power."
  18. http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/02/21.php#19154 On the Diane Rehm NPR radio show on Thursday, February 21.
  19. Peter wrote (quoting Morley?): In my admittedly subjective view, the JFK Records Act is being slowly repealed by CIA fiat. No reason for a slow repeal. My reading of the Court of appeals opinion is that the courts have determined that the JFK Records Act is no longer in effect and that release of assassination documents are now governed by the much more restrictive provisions of the FOIA. I think Atty Lesar would agree that this is where matters now stand. The court essentially said the Records Act expired when the ARRB closed shop per the statutory limitation on its existence. The solution would be for Congress to amend the law so it still controls even if the release of records is now controlled by the courts rather than the ARRB or a similar body.
  20. I agree with Charles this issue is of great importance indeed, and that it deserves a separate thread. I am suspicious of whether Oswald indeed owned a rifle because of this reasoning: (1) Intelligent people, facing criminal charges, do not lie about things that can be easily proven, knowing that the very act of lying can be used against them at trial. (2) Oswald was an intelligent person, perhaps very intelligent. If he indeed owned a rifle (regardless of his guilt or innocence) he knew his wife (and others) had seen it and that indeed he was photographed with it. (3) Being an intelligent person, therefore, there was no reason why Oswald would want to deny ownership of the rifle. Of course another fact mitigating against Oswald owning the rifle was, as we all know, the illogic of his purchasing a rifle through mail order knowing its ownership could therefore be traced to him. And the issue where he bought the ammunition. But on the contrary, if Oswald did not own the rifle, that means that Marina did lie-- remember she also testified she saw him practicing with it in New Orleans. Was she also coached about that? It also means that deMohrenschildt lied. If I recall correctly, he also testified he saw the rifle. It also means that there was a lot of forgery associated with the purchase of the rifle (forgery handwriting experts did not catch) and of course that the backyard photos were indeed faked. It also means that his palm print was planted on the rifle. I certainly believe someone could have ordered the rifle from Klein's using the Hidell alias and then picked up the package from the post office box by showing some Hidell identification. But in order for that scenario to work, the person doing that would have to have known that Oswald had listed Hidell as a person to retrieve mail from the box. If Oswald did not own the rifle, then, it was a rather elaborate frame that necessarily involved the cooperation of his wife. Those are my thoughts anyway and I look forward to the comments and analysis of others.
  21. Re LHO's ownership of the rifle, didn't his mother see the backyard photos the night of the assassination? If LHO did not own the rifle then Marina was a rather large xxxx since she stated she witnessed him practicing with it in NO. However, it has always bothered me that LHO denied ownership of the rifle. He was obviously an intelligent fellow. Why would he deny ownership of the rifle if he knew his ownership could easily be linked to him through the photos and through his wife's testimony? Had he been tried, even given the rules of husband-wife privilege I think she could have been required to testify re the rifle since it was not a communication from him to her. So why would he deny a fact easily proven? He must have known that his lie could be proven and his the fact of the lie could be used against him. In other words, LGO's denial of rifle ownership does cast doubt in my mind whether he actually owned it. BUT if LHO did not own the rifle, Marina must have been part of the conspiracy against him and faked photos put in her possession before the assassination.
  22. There is a good article re Dallas DA Craig Watkins' efforts to secure justice on the front page of the February 19, 2008 "USA Today" (re use of DNA to exonerate those wrongfully convicted). Mr. Watkins looks like an interesting fellow.
  23. I found it interesting that the Dallas DA indicated he thought there was a conspiracy. He of course has the legal authority to do something about his belief.
  24. Re John's Post #5, I submit it is a rather large leap to assume because a CIA officer, at the direction of a superior, was looking for ways to assassinate a foreign head of state, arguably even with the implicit approval of the Commander in Chief, he would then turn that capacity against his Commander. Arguably the CIA officers involved in foreign assassination plots somehow justified those plots in part because they thought they had the implicit if bot express authority of the POTUS. One cannot draw an inference because a police officer is prepared to kill a person in the line of duty that he is prepared to commit a murder. Of course I have regularly condemned political assassination plots by our goverrnment and believe that the plots against Fidel may have "blown back" in our face, regardless of whether JFK had approved of or was aware of said plots. But as John's post demonstrates one reason why the CIA is suspect in the assassination (wrongly as I argue above) is because it had shown willingness to murder foreign heads of state.
  25. Prof McAdams recently posted a link to this article on alt.assassination.jfk http://www.midtod.com/new/articles/7_14_07_Dorothy.html He wrote: I'm not endorsing this, which seems to have the normal quote of misinformation, but it's mildly interesting. So is the good professor beginning to wonder if the death of Dorothy Kilgallen was "mysterious"? If so he may need to rethink his views on the death of JFK!
×
×
  • Create New...