Mark Stapleton

I think I must be getting slow in my old age because, as John stated, there's a large thread on this very subject under the title "William Greer and JFK" started by James Richards. My thanks to all the contributors on that, it's a very interesting thread if you're interested in this small aspect of the case. Most remarkable revelation, IMO, is that Bill Greer didn't personally like JFK, as told to Palamara by Greer's son. Not quite enough evidence to prove guilt, IMO, but provocative all the same.

From what I recall occurred according to the Zapruder film, the limo starts to slow down, Kennedy gets shot in the head. Simultaenously the SS agent leaves the SS car and runs for the President's limo, and sees his head blown to pieces before he reaches the car. That's when Jackie climbs onto the trunk to pick up a piece of JFK's skull. In my view the limo was slowing down before the agent left the follow-up car. I don't think any radio traffic on the SS radio's or any of the testimony says anything about requesting the Presidential limo to slow down so another agent can reach it from the back. Afterall there were already two agents in the car. Another picture shows the break lights on as the agent has just left the SS follow-up car. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Antti, Yes, this is what I recall from the Z film also. The limo actually slowed a couple of seconds before the agent climbed in back (I might be wrong here). However, I think I read where one of the close witnesses, perhaps Moorman, was harshly critical of the driver when interviewed immediately after the assassination. It's probably understandable under the circumstances that Greer wasn't subjected to an inquisition on this but it would be very interesting to know for sure whether it did actually stop. It's also possible that stopping the car was a panic reaction by Greer or that he anticipated too early that the agent was climbing in. It's a small but interesting part of the case, IMO, and the WC didn't try to make it any clearer.

Very interesting discussion. To slightly extend the debate a little, a question that has always interested me is whether the Z film was altered to conceal the actions of Bill Greer. Did he briefly bring the President's car to a dead stop before the kill shot? Or has that been disproved?

Tim, Despite my suspicion that your continuing intransigence is a very funny gag at our expense, I must point out that this "arcane" tax deduction which you dismiss as a possible assassination motive is not really a tax deduction at all. I might have misled you by describing it as such in an earlier post. If you refer to John Simkin's illustration in the thread titled "Oil Depletion Allowance--Good or Bad" you'll see that the ODA is not an expense like Postage, Rent or Salaries. These expenses can be written off (for tax purposes) only insofar as they are incurred in the normal course of earning an assessable income eg. if you spend $100 on Postage in any given accounting period, then you are entitled to a tax deduction of $100. The ODA, however, by a miracle of Texas logic, departs from the "Expenses" side of the ledger and attaches itself to the "Revenue" side. ie. The 27.5% is deducted from revenue earned, not expenses incurred---a far greater income tax deduction. Why else would the Texas lobby lock it up in committees for 30 years? Regarding your request that opponents of your theory have not provided a "scintilla" of evidence, what would you like Tim--- a taped confession corroborated by eyewitness testimony? a DVD of the entire assassination tableau with a narrative by NBC ending with rolling credits for all participants? Authenticated minutes of the final assassination planning meeting complete with notes and attachments? Say the word and they'll be winging their way to your door forthwith. "Show me the evidence" he says. The world ain't ready for another Gerry Posner. You gagmeister.

Tim, For your information, yes I do believe that JFK's determination to scrap the oil depletion allowance was one of the factors behind the assassination. There were others. In fact, when reading about his short time as President the only thing that surprises me is that he wasn't assassinated earlier. The queue of people who must have wished him ill included the military (Joint Chiefs), arms manufacturers, the oil industry, steel executives, elements of the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, girlie boy Hoover, the Israeli Government and LBJ. Sorry Tim, can't find a place for Castro anywhere. Haven't you been reading John's postings on the Suite 8F Group or Larry's postings dealing with Billy Sol Estes and the murders implicating the Johnson/Carter group? The evidence of Texas involvement is compelling, IMO. Also, where's your proof that JFK's murder was the FIRST TIME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that a leader was murdered over a tax issue, as you so sensationally describe it? Do you possess the documented, authenticated reasons for all other political assassinations?

I can tell you one, Tim. The assassination of JFK.

Stephen, Thanks for that. I feel we're fortunate to have a genuine "Ripperologist" to bounce ideas off. I'm up to my ears in Kennedy books at the moment but I still have a keen interest in this case. Looking forward to your further postings. I always believed that this description, coupled with Hutchinson's, were the most crucial in the case. However, it's hard to reconcile the two. Hutchinson's man might not have been the Ripper, though, as there is still a lag of one hour or so between Hutchinson's departure and the cry of "murder" heard by Mary Kelly's neighbour. She may have gone looking for one more client, as we know she was way behind in the rent. Does Detective White's description mention approximate age or presence of a moustache? Also, how tall was Monty Druitt? I'm predicting he would have been reasonably tall in order to throw down all those quick deliveries.

Tim, Thanks for your reply. When you say "one does not use one's own agent as a patsy" I disagree. It's fine to use one's own agent as a patsy providing one has the capacity to silence one's own agent before he has the opportunity to implicate those higher up on one's totem pole, so to speak. Does one agree? As for Ruby, where's the evidence linking him to Communism? I believe he visited Cuba in the pre-Castro days but I don't see how that links him to Communism. He may have had ties to Trafficante, but his underworld associations are now well known. In any case, the underworld figure pulling all their strings was, IMO, Meyer Lansky. As for Trafficante confessing participation to his lawyer, I wouldn't place great faith in what mobster's lawyers say---they're often as bent as their clients.

Stephen, Thanks for your reply. From memory, I thought the killer was disturbed(interrupted) during the Stride murder. Wasn't that borne out by the "JTR' letter? Not that I place any faith in them, probably 2 and maybe all 3 were fakes. Whoa! What's this? The killer presents himself at the station next morning? I'm all ears(and eyes)!. Personally, I believe the killer was one of the 3 mentioned in Anderson's(?) notes -- Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog. In one of the books I read some years ago, there was a great description, IMO, of the killer. I'm going from memory here so I'm glad to be corrected as it probably won't be totally accurate.... a cop on the beat patrolling (maybe) Mitre Square gave a description of a man who walked hurriedly past him shortly before one of the victims was discovered. From memory he stated he was young - mid to late twenties - pale complexion, looked a bit dainty even but with blazing, wild eyes. The cop later regretted not questioning him.... Can you tell me who the cop was? It's one of the more obscure facts of the case and it's hard to dig up on the net. Anyway, who was this contrite suspect? Is this widely documented or a new discovery?

Tim, You just don't give up on this Castro thing. You still haven't answered the issues of LHO and Jack Ruby, which I asked you about on another thread. Namely, why would Fidel frame a man who had an active profile within Communist circles--whether genuine or not? And if Fidel didn't frame him, why would the CIA, FBI, DPD, US Government, US media etc all join forces to cover for Fidel, for heaven's sake? Also, why did Ruby kill LHO? So Castro wouldn't be exposed? I thought Ruby wanted Castro out, like everyone else in the mob did. Are you arguing that Ruby was genuine when he initially stated that he killed LHO to save Jackie and the kids from enduring a courtroom trial, even though he later contradicted this? The Castro/Soviet argument is all upside down. You're just cherry picking quotes and heresay and trying to make them fit your premise. So what if Castro made threatening statements directed at the U.S.? He's a dictator, they often make inflammatory statements. It doesn't mean the case is closed. Unless you can credibly explain LHO and Jack Ruby's involement, Castro can't be a serious contender.

Stephen, It's a big jump. The killer changed his M/O anyway, with the murder of Kelly. All the "right handed-- left handed" stuff can be overestimated, IMO. Some of the doctor's reports contradicted each other. Also, the killer could have been ambidextrous. The best rebuttal of your theory is, however, that if there were two killers it's even more strange that the case remained unsolved. Surely one of them would have been caught.

Mike and Mel, Welcome to the forum. I agree with other members that you are entitled to argue your case and look I forward to reading your side of the debate. Just a couple of warm-ups before the pace bowlers come on: 1. Like Stephen, I can't imagine how LHO could be described as a crazed psychotic. The way he reacted to his predicament is the same way any intelligent, rational, innocent person would. 2. The thing that irritates me most about LN theorists is the way they rebut arguments by saying, "but where's the evidence?". This, to me, is a Homer Simpson rebuttal. Firstly, much evidence was destroyed or removed--the president's car was repaired immediately and all the evidence destroyed, for example. Also, it presupposes that anyone who doubts the WC bears the burden of proof. Mel, there was no LHO trial, no conviction, so no-one bears that burden. If anything, it should be you who is asked that question, because, as John pointed out, the official verdict, as at 1979, is conspiracy. p.s. I don't believe in moon landing conspiracies.

Stephen, You might have started as a Ripper man, but once assassinology gets in your blood, you're hooked. We're all slaves now.

Pat wrote: It's obvious to me that the CIA et al had grown sick of the anti Castro forces and were hoping they'd just disappear. I believe the anti Castro forces knew this. There's your motive. They were the ones who had nothing to lose. This is an interesting point. The case presented in "Invisible Government" by David Wise and Thomas B. Ross tends to support this. The book is discussed at greater length on another thread. By the time of the Bay of Pigs, the CIA had assembled quite a fleet of leased vessels and B26 and C46 planes. When they suddenly relocated their base from Guatemala to Nicaragua, ostensibly for political reasons, it was quite an effort. It was becoming unwieldy. There was also the ever present chore of maintaining morale. I think the CIA got sick of them early in the piece. Which makes them sitting ducks for a group persuasive enough to convince the anti-Castro forces that there was something in it for them if they would lend their assistance. Doublecrossing them by not invading Cuba wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem--some were killed shortly after the assassination. Who would that group be? Possibly US Military Intelligence, at the urging of the JCS. If this scenario were accurate, even the JCS may not have been the originator of the plan. The plot keeps thickening.

Tim, Your reply concerning researchers tailoring their theories to their political persuasions is acknowledged. I probably should have worded that sentence more carefully. On your further suggested scenario re LHO, I agree LHO was working for one or both of the agencies but this only makes it more likely, IMO, that the plot had its genesis in the USA. My point about the Soviet/KGB theory is that if they were behind the assassination why would they frame an innocent man with (percieved) communist leanings? Or are you saying the local authorities framed LHO as a favor to the real plotters (Soviet/KGB)? The only remaining alternative is that you think LHO is guilty--but you believe, like me, that he was working for US Intelligence. It seems that you're trying to twist the facts in order to fit them into a predetermined outcome. The other thing that makes the Soviet/KGB scenario so unlikely is how did the plotters convince Ruby to help out? He had no leftist sympathies at all. Another favor from the local authorities?

Can you ponder this point for me, Tim, as I'm having trouble figuring out your reasoning: At the time of the assassination, there were many rumours flying about concerning the possibility of JFK's assassination. Last month I was looking at old newspapers at the N.S.W. library and there was a reference to a plot to kill JFK in an Australian newspaper a few days prior to the assassination. What I'm arguing is that maybe the KGB had foreknowledge of the plot to kill JFK---they only had to read the papers for that---but so did many other people/groups. The suggestion that the KGB or Soviet military intelligence was behind the plot (if Gerry Hemming told you this he either has a good sense of humor or he doesn't know as much as I thought he did) is bizarre. Why then would the Soviets have LHO, a man with Communist leanings, in Dallas pointing suspicion right back at them? Why also would they immediately declare that they didn't believe the official lone nut explanation of the crime? (Buchanan, p.13). Agreeing with the LNT puts them in the clear, doesn't it? Those trying to tailor an assassination theory to compliment their political philosophy are easily exposed.

Stephen, Sorry for the brief interruption. Great storybook concept. Couple of things: 1. If you're including the Emma Smith murder, as some do, then you're exonerating Oswald Puckridge. I'm inclined to think you're making him up as I've never heard of him, but everything else in your story checks out so I guess you're just throwing him in as a red herring---unless you exclude the Smith murder OR you have him as the second killer, which I fear you do. 2. I'll reveal who I believe it was after your dissertation. Please continue the ripping yarn....................

Tim's claim that LBJ, through Cliiff Carter, deleted all reference to a communist conspiracy in LHO's indictment is also a crock. It seems likely that LBJ did this after reaching consensus with certain people that the LNT was the official story. The consensus could only be reached, IMO, after undertakings were made that LHO would die before any trial, burying a genuine investigation with him. IMO, searching for any record left by LBJ revealing the identity of these certain people is wasting time. LBJ seems to have been one of the cleverest and most cunning of politicians and any records left to scrutiny by him would most likely push investigators in the wrong direction. The only problem I have with Buchanan's book is he that states (p.188) that any involvement by LBJ would be "fantastic". I can forgive him for this because he wouldn't have known things about LBJ that we know now.

Tim, Are you seriously suggesting that a section of the Soviet Politburo were involved in killing JFK as a roundabout way of getting rid of Khrushchev? Surely there were easier ways to get rid of him than risking a nuclear war. p.s. you misspelt the author's name thrice.

Tim, If, as you suggest, Santo Trafficante Jnr. masterminded the assassination then how did he persuade LBJ to empanel the WC? How did he persuade the DPD to destroy evidence? How did he persuade the FBI and the Secret Service to harass witnesses into changing their statements? And how did he dissuade the American media from laughing at the Warren Report?

Has anyone obtained either the CIA or Mossad aerial photos of Dealey Plaza? Were the CIA aerials part of the documents released to the public from 1994 to 1998 as part of the JFK Assassination records? Thanks, Jeff <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Jeff, Did Mossad possess aerial pictures of Dealey Plaza? I've read elsewhere that Mossad knew of the assassination in advance.

Interesting. Let me guess, he committed "suicide" by firing a shotgun in his mouth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm betting it's a fishing accident.

Interesting question.

John, I've never researched the RFK murder because I always thought it was an open and shut lone nut case (just the way the MIC/Agencies like it). However, in view of all that has been disclosed on the JFK threads about Governments, Agencies and power groups and their convoluted workings, nothing at all would surprise. I seem to recall a doco I saw on TV where RFK was asked, just prior to his assassination, whether, if he was to win the nomination and presidency, he would revisit the assassination of his brother. I think his answer was something like, "I'll be in a great position to do that". Another observation that can be made about these things, IMO, is that when the authorities say "look left" it is usually best to look right and vice versa. Immediately after JFK was murdered, everyone from LBJ down was trying to persuade the public that it was communist(s) responsible when, in reality, Castro or Kruschev would have no reason to murder a President who was attempting to normalise relations and enter treaty negotiations with them, against the advice of many in his own forces. So when a Palestinian, lone nut assassin materialises as if by magic, I start to look in the opposite direction, irredeemable cynic that I am. The Israeli Government of the 1960's was an aggressive, bellicose force. The terrible memories of the holocaust were less than two decades old and they were determined, with justification, that it should never be repeated. Their behavior during the Suez crisis and their attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 recieves scant media analysis. The Liberty coverup was another of LBJ's dubious legacies to his people, where sailors on that ship were threatened with court martial if they spoke out, despite the fact that 34 American servicemen were killed. I also have never seen it mentioned on this forum. Finally, this is in the realm of pure speculation, but it's curious that by the time of the MLK and RFK assassinations, most people were skeptical about the WC findings and the LNT in general. Suddenly, two nice, pat, lone nut assassinations occur as if to lend some kind of post facto reinforcement to the WC findings. I can visualise the LNT supporters telling their friends, "see, I told ya'---this place is full of 'em". How's that for cynical?

John, My answer would be yes, but on a smaller scale than in the U.S. Here both major political parties are funded by the corporate sector, although the Labor Party still recieves significant funding from the union movement. Attempts by minor parties or Independents to advocate alternatives recieve the usual treatment, with the major parties always zealously guarding their "middle ground" status, thereby pushing any newcomers out into the cheap seats, where they can be easily portrayed as extremists. While the advent of the Internet has provided a welcome forum for critical analysis of what the media tells us, I don't agree that MIC/Corporate lobby concentrates less on controlling the media. For them, media control is as important as political control. Despite many recent examples of dishonesty, people basically still believe what they see and hear through the media to be the truth. Few realise how simple it is for the media to lie by omission as well as commission. That's why many issues which should be comprehensively debated in the media never get a hearing. One example, among many, is tax avoidance by the mega rich. Without serious discussion of these issues in the media, politicians won't be forced to make the necessary legislative changes. The media will never seriously debate these issues because it would jeopardise the generous corporate patronage they enjoy--they don't want to offend their sponsors. An independant media, free of state control and corporate control, IMO, is the key to making the political system responsive to the wishes of the people and not just a select few.