Jump to content
The Education Forum

J. Raymond Carroll

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J. Raymond Carroll

  • Rank
    Super Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Long Island, New York
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

34,859 profile views
  1. Granted that Garrison was a talented writer, and that Oliver Stone's movie led to the release of documents, but it is a pity that Stone relied on such a misleading book. Stone thus created a "countermyth" that is just as misleading as the myth he was countering.
  2. Garrison is all over the map in his out-of-court statements, and often contradicted himself. The only reason he is important is because he brought charges in court - and had his ass handed to him. Garrison's only achievement was to destroy the career of Dean Andrews, whose only crime was being willing to go to Dallas to defend Lee Oswald.
  3. The indictment clearly states the charge that Clay Shaw conspired with Lee Oswald. Clay Shaw could not possibly conspire with Lee Oswald unless Lee Oswald conspired with Clay Shaw. A conspiracy, by definition, is an AGREEMENT, a meeting of the minds. The jury found there was no conspiratorial agreement involving Clay Shaw and Lee Oswald, ergo they found that Lee was innocent of Garrison's charges. There is NO ESCAPE from, and no mealy-mouthed way around that conclusion
  4. Logic and Law are subjects that seem to be a foreign language to all Garrison suckers.
  5. He was named in Garrison's indictment as a co-conspirator with Clay Shaw. Garrison could not actually charge him, because he was dead. The jury found Clay Shaw not guilty of conspiring with Lee Oswald, ergo they found Lee Oswald not guilty of conspiring with Clay Shaw. Like the song says, you can't have one without the other. Elementary deduction, i.e. inevitable logic.
  6. All due respect, Jon, Lee was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. All you have to do is read Jim Garrison's opening statement, which I quoted earlier. When the jury found that Clay Shaw was innocent of conspiring with Lee Oswald they also found, by neccessary inference, that Lee was innocent of conspiring with Clay Shaw. BTW, Clay Shaw could not provide an alibi for the evening of the alleged conspiratorial meeting, since Garrison could not specify a date,so Shaw's best witness was Marina, who testified that Lee was home with her every evening while they lived in New Orleans, and
  7. Well the record shows that he was charged (in abstentia) so your post is just a load of codswallop!
  8. From Garrison's Opening Statement: If Lee had been alive, and Clay Shaw dead, then Lee would have been the first-named defendant. When Clay Shaw was found innocent, so was Lee. You Oswald accusers need to get a life! It doesn't matter, because the jury found ALL THREE WERE INNOCENT! Live with it.
  9. Apparently you did. Lee was a named conspirator in Garrison's indictment. When Clay Shaw was acquitted of conspiring with Lee then Lee was automatically acquitted of conspiring with Clay Shaw! DOOOH!
  10. Garrison formally accused Lee Oswald of plotting the murder of JFK, and the jury of 12 New Orleans citizens took less than an hour to find that Lee was innocent of Garrison's silly charge. If you want to be a sucker, Dawn, go ahead and be my guest. I have never seen you post a useful comment in the history of the Education Forum
  11. But if you are going to go with the 'out front with Shelley' statement happening after the assassination then that leaves you with a problem in Fritz's notes of the interrogation. Because it means that Fritz has neglected to ask Oswald where he was during the assassination. I don't find that very likely. Thank you, Vanessa. Ever since the untimely death of Sylvia Meagher we have suffered from a "men only" syndrome in studying this case. It is good to have a feminine point of view again! They say you can't live with women, but you can't live without them!
  12. Greetings, Randy: I Hope all is well with you. As you already know, I have the highest regard for the incredible research of my fellow countryman, Sean Murphy, for which all serious researchers are deeply indebted. There is no doubt Sean is on to something fishy re: the Bookhout Report. But I think Sean made a wrong turn when he concluded that Fritz copied from Bookhout's notes (someone please correct me if I am wrong, but from memory I don't recall that ANYONE has ever seen Bookhout's notes). I believe it was the other way around: Bookhout copied from Fritz's notes, and that is where
  13. It seems quite IMPROBABLE, since we know that Shelley was gone by the time Lee left the building. The only time he could have been out with Bill Shelley in front was just before and during the time JFK was passing the building. Will Fritz's testimony is weird, and often appears evasive, especially when talking about where Lee said he was. But during Fritz's testimony, this gem slipped out, corroborating his notes: Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What did he say? Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with
  14. Prayer Man does not remotely look like a woman. He looks like Lee Oswald. And he is leaning back into the corner, which makes him appear shorter. And he told Will Fritz that he was "Out with Bill Shelley in front" when the President passed by. The only extraordinary claim here is the claim that Lee shot JFK. That is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof -- something no one will ever see. I got news, Pat: Every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty!
  • Create New...