J. Raymond Carroll

His book "On the Trail Of the Assassins which became the basis for Stone's film caused millions to become aware of the conspiracy and lead to the Assassination Records Review Board releasing a large amount of previously hidden records.

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.

And finally Ray... Garrison basically agreeing with you - so you must be one of those Garrison suckers as well... no ?

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.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1270#relPageId=19&tab=page

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

Logic, Mr Carroll.

Logic and Law are subjects that seem to be a foreign language to all Garrison suckers.

If Oswald was not charged, how could he be found not guilty?

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.

J. Raymond Carroll,

Oswald was not a defendant in the Clay Shaw trial.

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 could not possibly have been present.

when the alleged conspiracy was hatched.

Garrison was an idiot, and so are his followers!

As Sylvia Meagher pointed out, so many years ago!

and if mama had balls she'd be daddy

"If" means nothing Ray.

He "was not charged".

Well the record shows that he was charged (in abstentia)

so your post is just a load of codswallop!

No sir, he was not charged with anything... sorry.

From Garrison's Opening Statement:

The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/garrisono.htm

Did I miss Oswald's trial?

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!

But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it).

Dawn

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

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!

As Sean Murphy has said, I think the "clarification" by Bookout in the report provided above is an attempt to transpose some key elements of what Oswald had really claimed into a different timeframe. This was done to deprive Oswald of an airtight alibi.

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 he learned

that Lee was "out with Bill Shelley in front," from which he concocted his ridiculous story.

Fritz testified that he "kept no notes at the time," although we know from Lee Oswald, via Secret Service agent

Thomas Kelley, that Fritz took notes during the interrogations. When Fritz's notes finally surfaced after

the enactment of the JFK Act, it became obvious that Fritz was lying when he said he "kept no notes"

of the interrogations.

The notes that surfaced were obviously not emotion recollected in tranquility; they were raw notes made

in the heat of the moment. So Will Fritz is a PERJURER!

Fritz, by his own testimony, began interrogating Lee at about 2. 25. Hosty and Bookhout (by their testimony)

did not arrive until 3.15.

It is obvious from the testimony of Hosty and Bookhout that the questioning was completely controlled

by Fritz, and that the FBI guys were practically mute.

I submit that any questions about Lee's whereabouts at the time JFK passed the building had already been asked by the time Hosty/Bookhout arrived, and that their joint report simply includes what Fritz told them.

It is amazing that, when Bookhout gave his testimony to the Warren commission, he was never asked about

his report and he was never asked where Lee said he was when the President passed by.

Bookhout was given the opportunity to add anything that he had not been asked about, but he had nothing to add.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Bookhout.pdf

It is equally amazing that when Hosty testified about that subject, his testimony is almost a word-for-word

repeat of the Hosty/Bookhout report.

Sean Murphy is right that there is something fishy going on here!

And the recessed entrance to the building is on the first floor.

I believe Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the assassination.

And Lee would have been lying if he said he was not "in the building"

when the President passed by.

Enough to account for the severe difference in height with Frazier? Perhaps a re-enactment with a man Oswald's height and a man Frazier's height is in order.

Perhaps, but anyone can get a friend with a camera and reproduce the same effect. Common sense and your own experience will tell you

that leaning back against a wall will make you appear shorter.

Nope. Will Fritz wrote notes saying "Out with Bill Shelley in front". When one reads the report written on these notes, it seems probable this is a reference to his leaving out the front door after the shooting, not his being outside during the shooting.

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 some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement….. and he didn’t think-I also asked him why he left the building….

4H213

One of the employees, of course, was Bill Shelley.

Frazier has consistently claimed the bag was too small, and his description of the shots is also quite helpful. I have met him, and his son. It is my impression that he just wants' to tell the truth. I don't know anyone who has met him, and spent time with him, who thinks he's lying to cover up that Oswald was on the steps.

I have no doubt Frazier & his sister lied about the alleged bag. I don't know why they lied, but they did.

Jack Daugherty saw Lee arrive at work, and said Lee was carrying no bag.

And I have equally no doubt that today Frazier is lying about Prayer Man.

Kinda amazin' he can't ID PM, don't you think?

There's also this. Prayer Man appears to be much shorter than Frazier. It follows then that Prayer "Man" might very well be a woman. Was it Sarah Stanton? I don't know. But the argument we can assume it was Oswald even though no one saw Oswald on the steps and Oswald himself said he was in the building, is a weak one. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Where is the extraordinary evidence?

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!

based on a websters collegiate edition 1976 which is based on websters new international 1961

Patsy :

one who is duped or victimised:SUCKER

Sucker:

a person easily cheated or deceived

I've got lots of other dictionaries but this one because it's US english of the right era is probably most appliccable. (yes based on a 1961 edition, but these things take years to put together and usage is relevant as to years pre 1961. What dictionaries were used in the south during LHO's earlier years?)

So, basically he is saying he was victimised, duped, cheated, or deceived. That's different from outright innocent. The way I read it is he is saying there is a conspiracy. He's there as a result of it.

Another Garrison Sucker.

We have film of Baker entering the building, so there is nothing suspicious about that.

Actually we don't, J. Raymond. All we have is film of him or another motorcycle officer running towards the steps.

--Tommy

Well if it is not Marion Baker shown in the Darnell film , then can you please name who it is?

We have film of Baker entering the building, so there is nothing suspicious about that.

It doesn't prove a conspiracy, since there is the minute possibility of a different "lone nut" on the job. And if there was a conspiracy, it does not prove that LHO was not involved in it.

As my readers know, I believe Lee Oswald was a completely innocent man, who was framed for the Tippit murder and for the JFK

murder..

greg parker is an Oswald accuser who won't let go even when he knows that Lee is innocent!

And Carroll shoots as straight as a dog's hind leg. Let's put it this way, if Carroll had been the sniper, he wouldn't have needed no goddamn magic bullet.

What Carroll deliberately omitted from his quote because he is an amatuer putz is this: For the record - I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy and that Oswald's sole "connection" to it was as designated patsy. That case is coming.

Mister Parker is a GARRISON GROUPIE, conscious or unconscious I don't know which.

Lee Oswald told reporters: "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union,

I'm just a Patsy."

The word "Patsy" has always meant nothing more than an innocent man falsely accused,

and you can find it frequently used in the popular novels of Michael Connelly, e.g. Trunk Music.

But Garrison gave it a special meaning, implying that Lee Oswald was an idiot who conspired

in his own undoing, and Garrison followers like Greg Parker have been attributing that special meaning to the word "Patsy" ever since.

Its a bummer when people don't understand the English language!

Lee Oswald said that he knew nothing about the assassination or the murder of J.D. Tippit

and his accusers, including Greg Parker and David Von Pein, are barking up the wrong tree

It doesn't prove a conspiracy, since there is the minute possibility of a different "lone nut" on the job. And if there was a conspiracy, it does not prove that LHO was not involved in it.

As my readers know, I believe Lee Oswald was a completely innocent man, who was framed for the Tippit murder and for the JFK

murder..

greg parker is an Oswald accuser who won't let go even when he knows that Lee is innocent!

Raymond,

The issue of pinning is a difficult one. Members ROKC have repeatedly asked for the thread to be pinned. However if we pin one thread we are in danger of being requested to pin others.

James.

James, Thank you for your prompt response.

I assure you, after studying the JFK case for many years, you will never ever find a more important discovery than Prayer Man.

It is the greatest discovery in the history of the case.

To leave it as a needle in a haystack, instead of The EDUCATION FORUM'S most important contribution to the case is a very sad waste IMHO.

It is a bad idea to keep bumping the the thread since most of the best data is at the very beginning. The thread should have been stopped and Pinned even before the Baker/Oz lunchroom issue got going. That should have been a separate thread, IMO.

If you are not too lazy Robert, go back and read the original thread!

It is all laid out there for every ignoramus to see.

The Evidence is indisputable that Lovelady had left the scene when this scene was filmed

By insiders I do not exclude foreign intelligence agents.

Please give us a clue as to which foreign intelligence agents might have wanted Lyndon Johnson to be President,

and why.

Judith Baker Rules the World!