Stephen Roy

All I'm trying to say is this: Many of us think that some of the evidence against Oswald is questionable, and it's right that we don't blindly accept it, that we question the source. By the same token, we should not blindly accept but should question the sources of evidence against other people. Some of the New Orleans cast are worthy of our interest, but I keep seeing evidence cited which is questionable.

Hmm, let's see now. Starting with a presumption of innocence for Oswald, our friendly jurist would seek to know the answers to a few odd questions: (1) Why did Oswald leave work after the JFK murder, go directly to his rooming house and obtain a pistol? (2) Why was Oswald so close to the murder of JD Tippit (fairly close to his rooming house) that he was counted as a suspect? (3) Why was Oswald sitting alone in a movie theater with a loaded pistol? (4) Why was Oswald's MC rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD building? (5) Why were at least some of the bullets of the actual JFK assault found to match Oswald's MC rifle? So, yes, let's start with the presumption of innocence on the part of Oswald -- but then let's not simply accept a "shrug" to any of these common-sense questions. Also, let's not forget the temper of the times in 1963 -- and remember the words of Dallas DA Henry Wade, who said words to the effect of, 'I've sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than this.' A presumption of innocence must still be followed by an able defense against hard questions from the prosecution. Regards, --Paul Trejo Correct. That's why I used the word "start." Do you think we should start with a presumption of innocence for, say, Banister?

1) I find it peculiar that Gaudet would not have volunteered such info in 1963 or 1964, and even more peculiar when he didn't volunteer it to Garrison in 1967-9. I also find a few things in his HSCA statement questionable, but that's for another time. 2) I think Tommy already answered this, but Oswald indicated n his FPCC letters that he rented an office, and there is the stamp. Both Newman and Arthus made some odd statements about people wanting to rent an office. All I have is a feeling that Oswald told the truth and that Newman was too embarrassed to admit renting to him. BTW, the documents available online (including MFFoundation) constitute only a bit more than half of what's available. SOme stuff needs to be ordered from NARA. 3) Nothing to add 4) I know people really want to glom together 544 Camp and 531 Lafayette, but contemporaneous stationery, ads and other materials make clear that Banister moved to Lafayette in 1960, and THAT was his address. (And it was not, BTW, at the same time Arcacha's Cubans moved.) Your answer to my "intel" question is why I asked about presumption of innocence. If we rightly start with a presumption of innocence for Oswald, we should start with a presumption of innocence for people like Banister, Arcacha and Ferrie. If we're going to dismiss various witness allegations about Oswald's involvement, we shouldn't be blindly accepting ANY allegations against the others without critically examining the source. I don't know what connection Arcacha, Davis and Banister had with Oswald's flyers, and I don't know where you source the Ross Banister and Ferrie allegations.

If I read correctly, you're saying yes, start with a presumption if innocence for Oswald, yes?

DJ I'll respond when I have more time later, but let me ask: Do you think it is reasonable to start with a presumption of innocence for Oswald?

Some good observations here, especially: "The LAST thing that organization would do is have Oswald hang around with Guy Banister."

1) There are enough people who claim a Banister-Oswald relationship that it is possible that there was one. On the other hand, some of the claimants are not impressive: I'm not sure the Campbell brothers really knew Banister. I don't know why Delphine Roberts changed her story so dramatically in 1978. I have so many reservations about the tales told by Prof. Michael Kurtz, that I can't accept his claims without corroboration. You see my point?? 2) Yes, I do think Oswald probably arranged to rent an office at 544 Camp, and when Newman and Arthus found out the purpose, they begged out of the deal. And that they "misremembered" to the authorities after the assassination. 3) Yes, like I said above, Russo printed an Oswald FPCC flyer with the stamp in his "Live By The Sword." Inquiries indicated that the flyer originated with Frank Martello's widow. 4) I don't know. I think he really expected to have an office there, at one time. 5) Getting close! I've been spurred on by several factors: A friend who simply has been gently pushing, another researcher who has traded some great Ferrie stuff with me, and the unauthorized use of a lot of my material by a crazy person. I've adopted the Rick Nelson philosophy about the Ferrie project: "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself." Hi Stephen et al... 1) I notice you do not mention Gaudet related to 544 Camp, Bannister and Oswald... Is he not a reliable witness to Bannister-Oswald? 2) Was it necessary for Oswald to actually rent the space if Bannister is already there and he was working with/thru him and his associates? 3) Other than Russo there does not seem to be any "544 Camp" flyers, only the Corliss pamphlet and his stamp kit (below is a report of th3e SS trying to distance Oswald from 544 Camp) 4) Seems to me that he was playing with the stamp kit for a variety of reasons over that summer... He had stamped his PO BOX and MAGAZINE addresses and evidently 544 CAMP as well. That his stamp kit was used to stamp the Corliss book with Camp Street should give the SS a little evidence that he was associated with that address. I have not looked into CAMP as deeply as you and look forward to reading the work you've done... Does the fact that most everyone involved with these flyers was US intelligence and that the flyers were in direct opposition of Oswald's stated intentions to the same people who he tells "Hit me" - as an anti-Castro supporter - not give us enough reason to associate Oswald with Bannister's little operation? Facinating stuff... thanks Stephen DJ 1) I only mentioned three selected examples of people who could have been good witnesses but weren't. Gaudet seems like a good witness. My only reservation is that he said nothing until 1978. 2) I'm not talking hypotheticals. Oswald said he rented an office, and Newman and Arthus were just cagey enough to make me think that he really had tried to do so. But hypothetically, if Oswald was an agent, yes, he'd likely rent an office and conceal any Banister connection. 3) I first saw an LHO flyer with the 544 stamp in one of Groden's books, but people told me it was just a prop from the Stone film. When I noticed the one in Russo's book, whom I consider more responsible, I asked him the source and he said it was Martello's widow. 4) Yeah, the SS and the FBI were concerned and mystified by the 544 stamp, at different times. (I asked an SA in the NO FBI office about the quick investigation of the 544 stamp in the days immediately after the assassination; He said it "never occurred to them" that it might be associated with Banister). When you say "most everyone involved with these flyers was US intelligence," who do you mean?

Stone was wrong. Each entrance led to different offices. Banister's office was not surrounded by anti-Castro people in 1963, when Oswald was in town. Banister was active in anti-Castro matters in 1960-61. It is amazing how the erroneous info about this has been repeated from book to book. Well, Stephen, if Oliver Stone (JFK) was mistaken about the two entrances of the same building leading to the same set of offices used by both OSWALD and BANISTER, then do you suppose that Jim Garrison was misinformed by Jack S. Martin about the working relationship between BANISTER and OSWALD in NOLA during the summer of 1963? I ask because Thomas Beckham apparently confirmed that same story of Jack S. Martin to Joan Mellen (Farewell to Justice, 2009). Regards, --Paul Trejo Stone made lots of mistakes. The layout of the building is confirmed by the HSCA testimony of owner Sam Newman, by others who were there in 1963, and by pictures made later of the building (since torn down). There are many things that can be said about Jack S. Martin. One is that his MANY stories changed radically over the years. I did a newsgroup post on just a portion of this many years ago. Have you ever looked into the opinions of other researchers on the believeability of Tommy Beckham?

Stone was wrong. Each entrance led to different offices. Banister's office was not surrounded by anti-Castro people in 1963, when Oswald was in town. Banister was active in anti-Castro matters in 1960-61. It is amazing how the erroneous info about this has been repeated from book to book.

If I'm missing a nuance, please let me know. The left vs. right thing has been an open question for along time.

So if he believed in them, he was genuinely left?

I meant more "odd" than out of character. A certain pointlessness. Interesting to have your perspective. As a "patsy" (I hate that word), do you see him as a manipulated genuine leftist or a manipulated agent-playing-leftist??

Banister's address was not stamped on Oswald's materials. It was the same building but a different address. Paul, I absolutely do not concur with the way you leap from one presumption to another. "It seems to me...explained this better...we should probably conclude...connection appears solid...have both deduced...we may suspect...thus it is possible, even probable...we have to guess..." Are you listening to yourself? Paul, you don't know me from a hole in the wall, and based on some earlier encounters, you have no respect for the many years I've spent on the New Orleans case: You have decided on a theory, and you are bending the evidence of some things that MIGHT have happened and elevated it to fact. You will argue 'idea equality' with me, but you should dial back your certainty a few notches.

In other words, Stephen, do you think Oswald was just an Odd Duck doing one of his Odd Duck things, or was it perhaps a little more sinister that that? Hmmm? --Tommy Wow! Some serious deja vu there, man... The whole thing is hard to explain. Under the mirror-reading scenario, the 'Oswald was actually an agent' scenario, the leafletting makes absolutely no sense to me. But under the prima facie scenario, the 'Oswald was what he said he was' scenario, it makes no sense either. He clearly seems to have been going for publicity.

To me, there is something odd about it, but it's hard for me to define or articulate. I don't think, however, that my "vibes" about it are the standard ones that most observers have. What do you find odd about it?

1) There are enough people who claim a Banister-Oswald relationship that it is possible that there was one. On the other hand, some of the claimants are not impressive: I'm not sure the Campbell brothers really knew Banister. I don't know why Delphine Roberts changed her story so dramatically in 1978. I have so many reservations about the tales told by Prof. Michael Kurtz, that I can't accept his claims without corroboration. You see my point?? 2) Yes, I do think Oswald probably arranged to rent an office at 544 Camp, and when Newman and Arthus found out the purpose, they begged out of the deal. And that they "misremembered" to the authorities after the assassination. 3) Yes, like I said above, Russo printed an Oswald FPCC flyer with the stamp in his "Live By The Sword." Inquiries indicated that the flyer originated with Frank Martello's widow. 4) I don't know. I think he really expected to have an office there, at one time. 5) Getting close! I've been spurred on by several factors: A friend who simply has been gently pushing, another researcher who has traded some great Ferrie stuff with me, and the unauthorized use of a lot of my material by a crazy person. I've adopted the Rick Nelson philosophy about the Ferrie project: "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself."

You're usually pretty accurate and sensible, TG, but: Gus Russo prints one of Oswald's flyers with the 544 address on it, and indicates that it came from the widow of NOPD officer Francis Martello. The CIA-source thing is a misreading of evidence. There is a solid paper trail. Oswald wrote to the FPCC and requested those specific Lamont pamphlets, and the FPCC noted on that letter that they had been sent. The idea that the FPCC would wait until ALL copies of the first (and various) printings were gone before ordering reprints is silly. If anyone had copies of the various printings on hand, it was the FPCC. And the idea that the CIA would supply an undercover agent from an order openly made by the CIA's reading room is equally silly.

That is funny. What an interesting analogy. It seems to me Haslam created a curious alternate universe that Judyth walked right into and claims is *real*. I believe the greatest undoing of Judyth and Haslam will take place when the truth about the timeline of their interaction is unmasked. Haslam is the one who brought Judyth to 60 Minutes. They are both from Bradenton, FL. Anyone can do the math if they wish... What do you feel Golitsyn and Nosenko's relationship was? Thanks, Pamela Golitsyn and Nosenko were basically adversaries. Golitsyn, who came first, warned that phony defectors would follow him, and right on cue comes Nosenko. Each convinced a faction of CIA that the other was a phony. It hard to say, even today, if either was phony. I think both "puffed" their stories a bit to seem more valuable to CIA, but were basically real- that is, not disinfo agents.

David J: We may just have to agree to disagree on this, as you've indicated a desire to move on. Our brief discussion here, I think, illustrates my point: You have some very strong opinions on the authenticity of the evidence, and you press those opinions with great vigor. But in an earlier post, you take it further and suggest that smart people can only see it your way. If I disagreed with you, you'd require that I accept your opinions on the authenticity of the evidence. You might be right on some but wrong on others, but how are we to arrive at that? Anyway, we can drop it at that. I just think we all need to respect each others' opinions more.

It certainly is not. There are many shades of nuance in opinion. Take the JFK matter, for example, and limit it to CTs: Some think Oswald was involved, some not. Some think CIA (or US intelligence) was involved, some not. Some think the mob was a major player, some not. Some think Garrison was right, some not. Some have differing opinions on the number of shots. Many shades of nuance. I'm sure there are some among us who wish things were more black and white, but they're not. Just my nuanced opinion...

I do understand the frustration in wanting to debate/discuss conspiracy particulars but being sidetracked into debating conspiracy itself, yet again. What concerned me about the original post was that a couple of people actually wanted von Pein prosecuted or banned from the Internet. Surely you don't agree with that. But even within the community, there is disagreement over certain concepts: H&L, USSS complicity, extent of mob involvement, heck, even the extent of Oswald's involvement. I'd hate to see debate arbitrarily limited on any of those topics. Most of us are savvy enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

David, I hope someday you see things differently. I'm not taking a side here, I'm debating an abstract point of discourse. A weapon that we use unfairly today can be turned around and used unfairly on us tomorrow. Sometimes you make very good points, sometimes not. Sometimes David Von Pein makes very good points, sometimes not. The world is not as black and white as some think. In fact, the intensity with which one presses their viewpoint (and tries to limit debate) often affects how their arguments are received. In a real sense, everybody benefits by give and take. I suspect you may not fully agree, but I respect your position.

Again: To try and frame a discussion as "My side is legitimate and your side is not legitimate" is anti-intellectual.

First, you're missing the point. It is not for one of the debating parties to decide who has a right to join the debate. Next, it is simply wrong to try to pre-emptively discredit the opponent, especially by setting up a framework of debatable premises. Third, it is wrong to assert moral superiority, that one carries the flame of absolute truth in his hip pocket. You're a talented guy, you've achieved some gravitas over the past year and you are a good guy to have as part of the discussion. But the same is true of others.

The formula is pretty simple: Redefine the undesired opinion as foolish to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason. A real discussion-stopper. No offense taken.