Thomas Graves

3. In one of the more high profile books on the assassination, (the name escapes me) there is even an allegation that Jack Ruby was inside the Texas Theatre at the time Oswald was arrested.

_____________________________________

I remember reading somewhere that LHO and Ruby were not only the theatre at the same time but were actually sitting in close proximity to each other.

FWIW, Thomas

_____________________________________

Duke,

I like your idea of sitting down for lunch with a local Texas prosecutor and giving him the necessary information to open a grand jury investigation into JFK. In today's local paper here in Jersey, a State Grand Jury refused to indict six State Troopers in a shooting incident. The paper notes: "The review by a grand jury is routine n shooting cases involving police officers, according to officials in the state Attorney General's Office."

If that is the case in Texas too, then I think it more probably that we could get a local Dallas County or Texas State Grand Jury to investigate the murder of J.D. Tippit, which of course would dovetail with what happened at Dealey Plaza, if the cases are indeed connected.

Duke, if you had fifteen minutes with a DA to make your case, which you want him to take on and present to a grand jury, what evidence would you give him?

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

I tend to agree with you about shooting a cop: re-opening the Tippit murder might well be easier, and frankly, it seems like a much more reasonable approach than re-opening the whole can of worms. The difference between them is like a lunch at McDonalds (okay: Luby's, then) and a ten-course meal, and the list of suspects - or just those with motives - is substantially shorter.

With 15 minutes, I guess I'd prefer to deal with something "digestible" than something completely satisfying in every regard. One would, as you say, dovetail into the next if the cases are related since, if someone else shot Tippit, it would certainly raise questions about everything else, wouldn't it.

It's worth a thought.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Guys,

Just like the Rolling Stone's song says: I know it's only rock 'n roll, but I LIKE it... (The idea of re-opening the Tippit murder investigation, that is. Obviously, figuring out who killed JDT should help prove who killed Kennedy...)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Merry Christmas, everybody!

Thomas

_________________

He didn't shoot so he never meant to, never tried.

________________

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

John,

I think I read somewhere that Oswald did try to shoot a policeman (McDonald?) who was trying to arrest him in the theater, but the firing pin of his .38 revolver was defective so his gun didn't fire. Maybe I'm wrong.

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Gerry, I'm sure that you're a charming fellow, an excellent drinking companion, and likely a staunch and loyal friend to those you think worthy. Also, you're clearly possessed of a trenchent wit and have a certain way with the written word. These are all to your credit, but are ultimately irrelevant.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Robert,

I wore my trenchent coat today, but no one thought I was wittae.

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I know nothing about Godell, other than what Tim Gratz relayed here from Joe Trento's book which I don't yet have, and the fact that Gerry Hemming named Godell as a suspect in 1996, which I assume is the lone mention of Godell in the last 40-plus years that Gerry has now referred to. But Joe has obviously mentioned Godell too in his book, so the only two people on earth that I'm aware of who have information on this historical mystery man are Gerry and Joe.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By clicking on the link below, you can read a declassified (1993), generally unfavorable CIA book review of Andrew Tully's 1969 The Super Spies. The reviewer, Sherman Kent, mentions Tully's writing about WILLIAM GODELL's embezzelment problem(s) in the second paragraph of the book review.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v14i1a08p_0001.htm

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE JFK ASSASSINATION – BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION. – By William Kelly – bkjfk3@yahoo.com

It is a myth that the assassination of President Kennedy will always remain an enduring mystery. Though justice may never be served, the murder of John F. Kenney is not an unsolvable crime, but rather a homicide that can be solved to a moral and legal certainty.

To keep people questioning, to allow multiple theories to abound, to let time slip away and drag on before applying the basic and routine legal procedures for investigating and solving such a crime is only a reflection of the institutional unwillingness, resistance and refusal to challenge the powers that took over the government on November 22, 1963.

The feeling of citizen helplessness is reflected in the subtitle of the book by one of the living victims of the same criminals – James Tague, whose book is called The Truth Withheld – A Survivor’s Story – Why We Will Never Know the Truth About the Assassination. But those responsible for JFK’s murder win and go free only if they die before being exposed, and escape justice.

The reason for the Congressional law that established the “50 year rule” on the classification of all Congressional documents is that is the amount of time it is estimated for the people mentioned in the documents to be dead. Since it is not yet 50 years after the assassination of President Kennedy, some of those suspects are therefore still alive.

It is simply not true that the murder of JFK will forever remain a mystery, and we’ll never know the truth, since thanks to the JFK Act, we have most of the evidence, the documentary records and witness testimony in the public domain.

Despite the institutional unwillingness to make the effort to solve the crime, a strong regiment of independent researchers, determined investigators, honest witnesses and ordinary citizens have taken upon themselves to determine the truth, solve the crime, but justice has yet to take its course.

“We need not accept (the) view that mankind…..is doomed,” JFK said in his landmark June 10, 1963 ‘Peace Speech’ at American University. We need not accept, “that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…Our problems are manmade – therefore, they can be solved by man….No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable – and we believe man can do it again.”

American political assassinations and murders were committed by men, and therefore can be solved by men, if only the effort to do so is taken to do so. However belatedly, there has been a new trend to at least attempt to resolve the civil rights and political murders of the 1960s, with the assassination of Medgar Evers, the murders of the Philadelphia, Mississippi Freedom Riders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot killings, and the MLK assassination civil trial have all utilized the judicial system to solve crimes that were thought to be untouchable a decade ago.

The assassination of President Kennedy was not an accident of history or an act of God, but the act of man, and men can solve the crime if only the effort is made to do so.

Whether the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman as the official report alleges or a patsy as he claimed, he was a former U.S. Marine who worked with the U2 program in Japan, was trained in the Russian language, defected to the USSR, returned with a Russian wife, reportedly took a pot shot at General Walker, participated in covert Cuban operations in New Orleans and Mexico City, and fits the covert operative profile that makes the assassination a covert intelligence operation. As former Senator Richard Schweikder (R. Pa.) put it, the case has “the fingerprints of intelligence.”

Just because covert operations are designed to conceal the actual perpetuators doesn’t mean that they can’t be exposed, identified and brought to justice, just as other, similar covert crimes have been exposed – Watergate, Iran-Contra and the assassination of the former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. in Washington.

How can ordinary citizens force the hand of an entrenched judicial system? An examination of how the assassination of Medgar Evers and the other civil rights murders of the 1960s were resolved presents a legal road map to follow, and one of the first stops on the way to justice is the grand jury.

“As a general policy,” former Justice Department official Ben Civiletti testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in its last session, “the Department of Justice seldom turns down at least exploring, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request,…(and)…to some extent it becomes a matter of public will…but also a matter of judgment that falls within the duties of any particular department or agency of government…as to how far questions…can be explored to a useful or fruitful purpose.”

Well, besides determining the truth and seeking justice, it would be useful and fruitful to determine who killed President Kennedy, why they did it, and how they accomplished it, so such a thing can never happen again. If the assassination of Medgar Evers was immediately pursued and justice resolved, President Kennedy would not have been killed in the same way, and if JFK’s assassination was properly resolved immediately, RFK and MLK probably would never have died the way the did.

Political assassination remain an effective tool for controlling policy only because the true perpetuators of these crimes are permitted to remain hidden in the background, pulling the strings of the puppets and moving the pawns as they have for centuries. The assassination of President Kennedy has maintained its watershed mark as the single most significant political event of the past century because it remains unresolved. Despite the tremendous amount of information that is now available, it remains an unresolved enigma and unsolved cold case homicide because there is no institutional willingness, motive or desire to simply solve it.

Unsolved cold cases, especially homicides, are reviewed every few years, sometimes by a new detective who looks over old evidence to see if there is anything that has been overlooked, or if there is any previously unknown evidence or witnesses, or recently developed scientific tools that could be used to help solve the crime. There is no statute of limitations on murder, under the rules of criminal procedure homicide is given precedence over all other crimes, and once accumulated, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury

Independent researchers, journalists and ordinary citizens can identify evidence, uncover conspiracies and witness crimes, but if there is no case, no grand jury, no place to present the evidence, then there is no justice. As Mr. Civiletti explained to the HSCA, the DOJ “seldom turns down exploring at least, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request…”

Towards the development of a legal case, the grand jury Petition-Request is a citizen’s petition to a District Attorney responsible for prosecuting offenders to request a grand jury be convened to review the facts of a case and determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.

A grand jury is asked to decide, not guilt or innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to have a person brought to trial for a crime. The grand jury only hears evidence of guilt, but does not render a verdict. Its decision is whether to indict, which is merely an accusation, or not to indict. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law; where the rules of evidence preclude hearsay evidence and allows the defense attorney the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Hearsay is allowed, and witnesses must testify before a grand jury without counsel, as all attorneys other than the prosecutor are not permitted in the grand jury room.

If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, they vote a “True Bill” and indict someone for a crime.

The DA can simply ignore such a citizen’s petition and request and not present the evidence to a grand jury, or even if a grand jury votes to indict, it is still up to the DA to issue the indictment and proceed to take the matter to court.

The Grand Jury process, which stems from English Cannon law, has been refined by the United States Constitutional system as an extension of the prosecutor’s will, though historically the grand jury can investigate official corruption, review and develop evidence, attempt to answer questions, subpoena records and witnesses, order forensic autopsies and specialized tests and follow the evidence where ever it leads.

While grand juries composed of ordinary American citizens do not have the knowledge of the history and powers of a grand jury, and are often merely tools of the prosecutors, sometimes a prosecutor will lose control of a grand jury that begins to ask questions and make requests of its own. Such a grand jury is called a “Runaway Grand Jury,” and often goes beyond the original intent of the prosecutors, such as the Rocky Mountain Flats Runaway Grand Jury. When the Colorado prosecutors refused to issued the indictments against major defense contractors for environmental contamination, the grand jury leaked its report to the press [see: Westword Rocky Mountain Flats ]

The previous reluctance of district attorneys to prosecute political assassinations, especially decades old crimes, is being overcome by new, young and diversified blood in official positions of authority. Although those District Attorneys at the top of their profession know that investigating political assassinations is detrimental to furthering their careers, and witnessed what happened to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, there is a younger generation of assistant prosecutors who look upon solving such major crimes as an achievement that will advance their future careers.

Former HSCA attorney, Dean Browning Webb, Esq., who specializes in RICO litigation, said that such indictments are possible and that, “I am especially interested in developing an approach to seek indictments of those who conspired to murder the President.”

“I believe that a prosecution is feasible,” says Webb, “especially when invoking the Pinkerton Doctrine,” which holds that “a person associated with a conspiracy culpable for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme.” Agency theory holds that “all conspirators act as the agent or represent the other conspirators involved in the criminal scheme, and are liable for all criminal acts committed by the other conspirators.”

Another reason that District Attorneys are reluctant to investigate and prosecute political assassination, besides opposing the criminal effort behind the murder, is the effort and manpower it takes to solve it, which takes away from the normal, day-to-day prosecutions that the District Attorney is also responsible for.

This can be compensated by including the most significant evidence, lists of documents and witnesses, and outstanding questions with the Petition-Request, laying out the case for crimes and conspiracy and reducing the work of the prosecutors. Such a convincing attachment would also help persuade a prosecutor to accept the case and take it to a grand jury.

It will only take one such JFK grand jury, and there are dozens of potential jurisdictions. There are Federal, State and County grand juries, each with many assistant district attorneys who work under the District Attorney, providing dozens of individuals in which to present the Petition Request.

Establishing jurisdiction in any particular district will not be difficult. Although some will argue that it was not a federal crime to kill the president in 1963, it was a federal crime to conspire to kill a federal employee, whether it is a postman or a president.

Besides the local Dallas district, there are Texas State grand juries, as well as the North Texas Federal District court, which is located in Dallas. The reluctance of any Dallas or Texas official to investigate the assassination will probably make other jurisdictions more inviting, New Orleans in particular, where a new District Attorney recently took over from former DA Harry Connick.

Of the dozens of the potential jurisdictions, it will be easiest to convene a Special Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C., where most of the original evidence is located at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the body of the victim can be exhumed for a proper forensic autopsy.

Although conspiracy and homicide are the crimes being investigated, once the grand jury begins to subpoena records and require the sworn testimony of witnesses, other crimes, such as perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice come into play, and help persuade witnesses to tell the truth.

One aspect of the grand jury proceedings is their secrecy, which prevents the testimony from being made public before a trial. If there are no indictments, and there isn’t a trial, the grand jury could issue a report explaining what it learned and the reasons behind its action or inaction.

Historically, traditionally and legally according to the Constitution of the United States, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury, which is where the evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy must go before there can be justice.

“That we live as a nation of laws, and are not a ‘Banana Republic,’” said Warren Commissioner John McCloy, “requires us as individuals and as a society, to purse truth and justice, ‘even if the heaven’s may fall.’”

It is not too late now, but soon, this case will slip slowly from an unsolved homicide to an historical mystery, unless we act now, and present the best evidence in a Petition-Request to convene a special JFK Grand Jury, and let the legal action take its course, wherever it may go.

William E. Kelly, Jr.

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just tryin' to keep this thread on the "front page"...............

--Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Interestingly, long-time Dallas DA Bill Hill has decided not to seek (a shoo-in) re-election, and several candidates are beginning to emerge for next year's election, including one or two judges. More will undoubtedly file in coming months.

I have a friend who is a former Dallas prosecutor, and he and I will be having lunch in the course of the next couple of weeks. Any questions, comments or suggestions that would be beneficial to pursuing this avenue of thought?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Good idea, Duke.

--Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

HARD EVIDENCE LIST –

12) Automobiles #2 – a) Rambler Station Wagon at scene; Ruth Paine’s Chevy Station Wagon;

Bill: (or anyone)

Are you familiar with RIchard Bartholomew's manuscript about the Rambler Station wagon he found, at Austin's UT? With all the mag articles from '63 in the back seat: like clues.

Sadly, this automobile is no longer in Richard's possession and the person who last had it-J Harrison- died this past May. (Very interesting tale, Richard was pretty certain this was the car seen by Roger Craig.)

Dawn

RB's manuscript is online

Hi Dawn,

Yes, I am familiar with Richard's Rambler and agreed it might be the one photographed at DP.

I think Richard knows where it is located and it could/should be salvaged and examined closely as the type of hard evidence that can be presented to a grand jury.

As significant, I would like to identify its passangers, especially the man in the brown suit coat that was also seen standing on the sixth floor of the TSBD next to a man with a rifle in port arms positon, who left out the back door, went around the corner and got into the Rambler.

There is a photo in another thread of DP that shows a Rambler station wagon in the backround.

BK

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dawn and Bill,

Please see my recent post (#6) on John Dolva's thread "the unknown witness."

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In the photo (posted by Lee Forman) above in post #3, the car in the parking lot behind unknown witnesses 12 and 13 sure looks like a RAMBLER STATION WAGON. (I should know- I used to own one!)

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If you or anyone would like to sign on to the petition or assist in compiling the Request Brief - you can become familiar with the grand juries you can read the excellent site at the University of Dayton School of Law by Susan Brenner, who has agreed to assist us as a counselor.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Thanks for that info, Bill. I'm a bit surprised that more Forum members aren't on it but FWIW, I'll sign on.

_____________________________________________

Hi Bill,

I took a look at the list and I noticed that most of the people didn't give their full address. Is that going to be a problem?

Thomas

_____________________________________________

All you do is for other members to see your name at the end of the thread which probably put them off from reading it (and therefore missing other member’s more interesting contributions).

______________________________________

John,

I agree with your assessment of Mr. Gratz and Ms. Foster. Not only does seeing their names so often on the ends of so many threads on the "front page" turn me off from checking to see if there are any recent postings on those threads by other members, but I suspect that it discourages many other people from even joining the forum.

IMHO, Thomas

______________________________________

To me this whole debate is a major distraction from the truth: the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos show convincing evidence for a conspiracy.

____________________________________

As does practically everything else surrounding the case...

____________________________________

You might be interested in this article by Peter Kornbluh , JFK & Castro: The Secret Quest For Accommodation (October 1999)

[...]

Unbeknownst to all but his brother and a handful of advisers, however, in 1963 John Kennedy began pursuing an alternative script on Cuba: a secret dialogue toward an actual rapprochement with Castro. To a policy built upon "overt and covert nastiness," as Top Secret White House memoranda characterized U.S. operations against Cuba, was added "the sweet approach," meaning the possibility of "quietly enticing Castro over to us." National Security Council officials referred to this multitrack policy as "simil-opting"--the use of disparate methods toward the goal of moving Cuba out of the Soviet orbit... [...]

_______________________________________

Sounds like the good old "carrot and stick" approach to me.

_______________________________________

Tim,

Why are you trying to monopolize this forum?

It's about 2 AM (Thursday, December 8) here in San Diego. I just now logged on and I see the name "TIM GRATZ" 10 times-- 3 times as the starter of a particular topic/thread and SEVEN times as the most recent poster to a particular "thread." Jeez Tim, give us a break... (Please?) We already know what you believe to be true. (Talk about "beating a dead horse")...

IMHO, Thomas

P.S. Do you get up at 4:30 every morning just so you can have more posts visible on the "front page" than any other member of the Forum? (Or do just stay up all night, like me?)

This seems to be a growing problem. Especially for the man who thinks he employs Tim. His productivity must be very poor. Mind you, his mate George Bush, is another one who does not believe in working very hard for his money.

The main problem is the one identified by Bill Kelly this morning. Tim often posts to redirect the thread. He does this by making silly jokes or by posting something about his theory that Castro/KGB did it. I feel it is time I stopped Tim from doing this. Therefore I will be deleting his postings if I feel it is an attempt to hamper the discussion that is taking place.

______________________________________

Gosh, it looks like Mr. Gratz is finally winding it down a bit. (It's now 03:55 here in San Diego and he's NOT logged onto the forum at the moment and he's the last member to respond to a particular topic only on SIX different topics/threads on the "front page"!) I can hardly believe my eyes.

Sorry. I just checked again. Make that SEVEN.

______________________________________

I will state my belief, for the final time on Castro, that if Castro knew all about the plots against him, he didn't have to do anything about it, because he would also know about any plot against Kennedy involving Cuban exiles. He may have known the day and the hour. But he had to do zilch.

___________________________________

Ron,

Excellent point.

Thomas

___________________________________

DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away, while still setting up the patsy.

__________________________________

I get it! If the Secret Service or local Law Enforcement (including Chief Curry, who turned the limo left at Houston and Main on the "practice run") had just realized that DP was such an "excellent killing zone" (not just because a former Marine who had "defected" to Russia was working in the same TSBD building that the open top limo would be passing by in a Reinhard Heydrich-type hairpin turn), and if the SS and the local LE had just realized that the layout and terrain and structures, etc in and around Dealy Plaza would make it so easy for an assassin or assassins to "walk away" after the hit, and that regardless of all of that, DP was just such a darn good killing zone because "it made the hit fairly easy," then maybe the local LE would have put more people on the ground in and around Dealy Plaza to prevent any such attempted hit, that is of course if they had realized that DP was such an excellent killing zone.

__________________________________

Thomas, you really are a doubting Thomas now, aren't you?

______________________________________

You're absolutely right, Mr. Gratz. For example, I remember having some very serious doubts about you the very first time I logged on to this forum.

Since you seem to be ignoring the point I'm trying to make about your MO, guess what--- I give up.

It's all yours, Mr. Gratz. Carry on.

______________________________________

The question before the house is not my credibility, nor John's, bu Wheaton's.

______________________________________

Then why, in your 05:37 AM post today on this thread, did you cast doubt on John's integrity? (Very sneakily, of course.)

I noticed it and, obviously, so did he.

______________________________________

Thomas, as I said, I think it is an example how intelligent people can hear the same thing and yet report it differently.

And that is one of the reasons the law contains a hearsay rule.

Assume we on the Forum were jury members.

If hearsay rules did not apply, we would listen to John's version; and then listen to Debra's, Stu's and Larry's, and have to determine which was reporting it correctly--not that anyone was being deliberately dishonest.

Far better if we could hear Wheaton himself.

Of course, the hearsay rule also means the person making the statement can be cross-examined.

Clearly we cannot cross-examine Wheaton thru John, Debra, Stu or Larry.

I will add that John raised a very good point: his recollection of what Wheaton said in the interview is consistent with what Wheaton apparently said to the AARB investigator ten years ago.

Of course, I still have great concerns over what Wheaton said. He has info that could solve the crime of the century and he sits on it for ten years? Aw. come on! (Which of course is the first question i'd ask Wheaton if he was being cross-examined.) If he truly had such information, his sitting on it was potentially letting the President's killers die as free men. Moreover, he could have made a million dollar book deal for himself. (And Gerry states he was selling information to Sheehan.)

I remain skeptical of Mr. Wheaton's story, I'm afraid. John would argue I am skeptical because I do not want to believe the CIA did it. I would say the reverse is true: John accepts a rather dubious story because he wants to believe the CIA did it.

Even absent a grand jury investigation, a Dallas "cold case" detective could haul Wheaton in and cross-examine him. Would it not be fitting if today's DPD could solve the case it's predecessor botched forty-two years ago?

___________________________________________

Dear Mr. Gratz,

I'm afraid you missed my point, so let me give you a "dose of your own medicine" :

Tim, I am loathe to accuse you of being stubborn, stupid, sneaky, etc...

Thomas

Get it, Mr. Gratz?

___________________________________________

John, [...]

(I am loathe to accuse you of dishonesty), [...]

______________________________________

Gee, Mr Gratz, I think you just have, in a very sneaky sort of way, "have you not?"

______________________________________

Why do you think Larry's book is so good? Because he is so through.

_________________________________________

As far as I can tell, Larry is thorough through-and-through!

_________________________________________

Thomas, I was not refering to "fights" here.

Nor did I mean "deadly" literally, of course.

But my point is when I (on behalf of a client) got involved in a substantial legal fight where I knew the other side was going to "pull no punches" I would not withhold my best evidence against it (obviously).

Is that that hard to understand?

Another example: many people are dubious of Russo's claims against Shaw because when he was first interviewed about his knowledge about Shaw, he never mentioned the most damning thing he later claimed to know: that he had heard Shaw and Ferrie discussing plans to kill JFK.

When someone's story gets more sensationak over time, it is not unreasonable to bring some heavy skepticism to the newest revelations.

Is there anything about this point you do not understand?

_________________________________________

Gosh, Mr. Gratz,

Thanks for settin' me straight on that!

(Actually I was commenting on your overall style or modus operandi in dealing with people who don't agree with you...) And as for the Russo "case," maybe he had his own damn reasons for not divulging all of his information "when he was first interviewed."

_________________________________________

Believe me, if I get in a "deadly" legal fight with someone, I ain't going to be pulling any punches! I'm going to use all the ammunition I have!

________________________________________

Problem is, Mr. Gratz, you seem to think that you're involved in so many deadly legal fights here on this forum.

________________________________________

(7) Although Jenkins mentioned these names in this interview [...]

_______________________________________

John,

I think you meant to write Wheaton here.

Thomas

_______________________________________

Thomas, it may not be procedurally proper to answer a question with a question, but nonetheless, your posts suggests a good point from the opposite direction.

What evidence do you or any other Forum member have that Jenkins was so utterly depraved and morally corrupt that he would engage in a rogue plot to murder the President of the United States? It does seem to me that absent any such evidence Wheaton's claim that Jenkins confessed to his involvement in the assassination must be considered suspect.

Since you restrained me from commenting on my other points, and you yourself did not, can I assume that you agree that those points are good (at least to the extent of casting some doubt on Wheaton's story)?

___________________________________________

Of course you're right in a perverse sort of way, Mr. Gratz (as you occasionally are; a way of arguing you learned in law school, perhaps?). Jenkins probably wasn't "utterly depraved and morally corrupt." He may have been just an upright member of the community who truly believed that it was his "Patriotic Duty" to help (permanently) eliminate someone he perceived to be a serious threat to our "national security" : that "notorious Commie Sympathizer and Traitor"--- JFK!

FWIW, Thomas

(I am hereby editing my original post.)

___________________________________________