Duke Lane

As I recall, Duke ... you had your conclusions drawn even before reading Ed's book. Ed was committing to his story from day one, which is telling in itself. If you should ever find evidence that Ed was seen somewhere else during JFK's assassination, then I would like to hear it. Until then I do not buy into your position. You recall close to correctly: I simply didn't believe Ed's story. I hadn't "drawn conclusions." Ed's book did nothing to convince me otherwise. Research proved my disbelief correct, and Ed's story completely incredible. That Ed made up a story and "improved" upon it as years went by (prediction: the next book will tell all about the roadblock, which Ed "didn't think was important," and hence didn't mention it) does not make it more true. You're so hooked on the story, you believe it in spite of evidence to the contrary, and simply call for more - and more difficult - proofs, which if found, will probably come from a xxxx or other unreliable source. You - and Ed - have none; he, at least, admits it. Until you prove who - by name - shot JFK and from where, then I guess it must've been Lee Oswald, by your measure. So why are we having all these conversations? Why does this forum even exist, and why do you waste your time researching this stuff? The whole point of my message, which you missed but have nevertheless proven, was only ever simply this: If Ed's story is true (quote) based on what - you merely saying it to be so? Despite having nothing to support what you have said? (unquote), then you have absolutely no business chiding anyone else for living up - or down - to your own standards. It's your petard, you've claimed it as your own, and hoisted yourself upon it.

I don't know where anybody else wants to go. But under the Constitution of the United States evidence and witnesses to homicides are brought before a Grand Jury. As suggested since the demise of the ARRB, the next step for the JFK assassination research is to generate NEW, SWORN testimony, under oath in a court of law or Congress. Towards that end COPA and its members have been trying to get Congress to hold oversight hearings on the JFK Act and obtain the sworn testimony of those who have knowledge of records that have been destroyed, illegally with held and are missing. Those hearings are not concerned with the evidence of conspiracy or crimes other than those crimes connected to government records. ... I tend to agree with Tosh. Is there anyone, any group, any organization that's not part of The Grand Conspiracy? Will we prove this conspiracy by proving that there were others, unrelated if as equally sinister? Will proving beyond even any doubt that there are missing, hidden or destroyed documents tell us who shot Jack? Can we even speculate that those missing documents must necessarily contain that Great Secret? We can only hope to delay any possible certainty into years beyond years as Congress, in theory, actually investigates that documents were withheld by any means, then debates what to do about it, and then (maybe) spends many more years suing for their return, disclosure, declassification or whatnot ... while many among us continue to decry the ongoing conspiracy of silence, another failed investigation, yet one more debacle for which we'd once held such high hopes? There will be books about that, too, I'm sure. If the Grand Jury Project, which is not new, has yet to convince a court of competent jurisdiction to even consider convening a grand jury, its likelihood of ever doing so dwindles with each passing day - nay, each passing year, of which there have already been too many - until it reaches zero ... if it ever reached higher, if it ever held any hope of actually achieving its stated purpose. And after so many years with so many suspects, each with only so many years to live (assuming, that is, that they're actual people and not institutions), after so much talk and so little actual action, it is a fair question to ask if the stated purpose is the actual purpose, or if that is really just the perpetuation of the assassination industry cult of conspiracy. Were someone to post a list of the approaches that have been made, the concerted efforts toward actually convincing a district attorney or judge to even look seriously at masses of evidence that have been brought to their attention even if the DA has rejected it all out of hand, we could maybe actually believe that someone really does want to do something rather than simply to remain respected and "famous" for calling out for something to be done. 'Cuz y'know, if something ever is done, and we ever do find out who shot Jack, then there won't be anymore books, no more conferences, lectures, guest appearances, documentaries and railing against the Establishment from atop the grassy knoll, and nobody even selling cheesy newspaper there anymore. One wonders: are answers, finally nailing the perp or perps, actually antithetical to our <ahem!> stated purposes? What are we going to do then?!?

Based on what - you merely saying it to be so???? ... But even if you were correct despite having nothing to support what you have said ... If the roles were reversed, Miller would be squawking "foul!" at being called for "proof." Witness his attitude about Ed Hoffman, who "must've" been where he'd said he was despite Miller's having absolutely nothing to support it and his continued ignoring of what completely disproves it. He can have his pet theories - even disproven ones! - but nobody else can, not even relatively meaningless little ones without getting a piece of Miller's mind. This is maybe a side benefit of getting "JFK awards" (besides having a long sililoquy as a "signature" to tell everyone how cool and well-qualified (and more so than you!) that he actually is.

[emphasis added by Thomas G.]... What we got here is a triple negative. I guess what you're trying to say is that Tippit was the only cop not dispatched to DP. If that's what you mean, then "cool, daddy-o." Beam me up, Scotty, I think I've was accidentally transported to The Grammar Forum! Thanks, Thomas. Actually, the second "not" doesn't belong there, hence: It is not true that Tippit was the only cop not dispatched to DP. That is, saying that Tippit was the only cop not dispatched to DP is a false statement.

I'm going solely by what was described to me by Bill "Lumpy" Lumpkin. Otherwise, I wouldn't know one from the other. It strikes me offhand that Steve Ellis told a different story for later "reminisces" than he did in other circumstances. "Lumpy" told me that he had to "remind" other officers what they really did as opposed to what they later "remembered." According to official reports, Ellis remained at the top of the entrance ramp, even while he later reminisced that he was part of the lead group going to Parkland. Unfortunately, both Ellis and Chaney are deceased as I recall, and cannot clear up this question. All I can say is to "go ahead with what I'd said," as it came from the sole surviving member of this cordon of officers. If there are particular questions, let me know via email, and I'll attempt to clear them up with Lumpkin. Also let me know via email what the "new discovery regarding Chaney" entails, and I'll see if I can't get some insight into that.

Well there is some reason why Tippit was one of the few cops, if not the only cop, not dispatched to Dealey Plaza that day. That fact alone makes it seem like he was being set up. I also find it interesting that Ruby is quoted as having jumped up and said "I know him! I know him!" after hearing about Tippit's death on the radio. It implies to me that Tippit wasn't in on the plot, though I realize it's not exactly rock solid evidence. Myra, I think it has been established that Ruby knew a different Tippit. Nor did I understand how Tippit was being "set up" just because he wasn't dispatched to DP. Is it possible to evaluate the Tippit murder without speculating? I don't know. It is not true that Tippit was not the only cop not dispatched to DP; in fact, the only general call was to "all downtown units," which in fact resulted in all but a small handful of patrol districts responding to DP. None outside of downtown were specifically directed to DP. The map below, adapted from a Commission Exhibit (don't have the reference offhand) shows who did and didn't respond downtown. As you can see from the yellow and red areas (those in white didn't apparently file reports, at least not that I'd found as of the time of putting the map together some years ago), most of Dallas was without police presence, the officers there assigned having responded to the "Signal 19" call. That being the case, it raises the question why alone of all of those emptied districts, "central Oak Cliff" was singled out for an officer - Tippit - being assigned to that area. Why was there no call for someone to cover, say, patrol districts 24, 25, 43 and 44 to the north of downtown? Of all the districts that were "short of resources" (as Murray Jackson likes to explain it), why was Oak Cliff the only one that needed to have someone assigned special to it? This is a particularly apropos question when one considers that there were two cops already in Oak Cliff: one, the regularly assigned officer W.D. Mentzel, who was the only on-duty patrol officer in the entire city of Dallas taking lunch during the motorcade, at the Luby's Cafeterial just down the street; and and another officer at least 10 miles from his regular patrol distict who radioed his location on "East Jefferson" - which is only in Oak Cliff - less than 30 seconds before Tippit was assigned to report to this "empty" district. More interesting is that this second officer had been in his district earlier in the morning, and had last reported being in that district dealing with the aftermath of an accident. There were no further radio communications between him and dispatch until shortly after the shooting, when the dispatcher asked, "has anyone seen 56?" and to which there was no response. One wonders why dispatch is concerned at all about anyone "seeing" an officer who was assigned to a beat all the way out by Garland and Mesquite. There is no response to that query. Several minutes later, 56 calls in to report that he is "out [of his car] for five [minutes]," at which point dispatch asks his location; he is on "East Jefferson," 56 says; dispatch responds "10-4," acknowledging the transmission and 56's location. Thirty seconds later, JD Tippit is assigned to go to "central Oak Cliff," where 56 already is, according to his own transmission, which is acknowledge by the dispatcher! Tell us again how Oak Cliff is "short of resources" and why Tippit was needed there. (56, incidentally, is not heard from the rest of the afternoon through 2:00 or so, does not participate in the manhunt for the cop-killer, and filed a report that he remained in his district to conduct "roadblocks.") There is much more to the story than this but let us move on to Ray Carroll's inquiry: Did McDonald invent the "misfire" to make himself look like a hero? That inference could be drawn from the expert testimony of Cortland Cunningham. Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Officer McDonald's statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges. I don't believe that McDonald - usually assigned to a patrol district adjacent to Mentzel's; I don't recall specifically which, but I'm thinking 94, a white area indicating that no report was filed regarding that officer's activities following the "Signal 19" call - was witting to his failed shooting (it would not be necessary that he be killed for LHO to be gunned down, tho' it would certainly seem preferable that he was, in case he recognized someone else's hand having held the gun), and it is indeed possible that the misfire was caused by the web of his hand between the thumb and index finger, as he'd related and, I believe, testified. That the pistol did not misfire the "numerous times" that Cortland Cunningham personally fired it, and "at no time" he or others had attempted to fire it did it misfire, operating "excellently" and having fired "every time we have tried to fire it," does not prove that the weapon never misfired for any reason, such as the skin between McDonald's fingers keeping it from doing so. McDonald was not alone in testifying to the primer mark; it just happened to "grow out" by the time it got to the WC, it seems. Interestingly, an officer who was behind Oswald during the scuffle in the theater was handcuffed during the melee, a point that Captain Westbrook - no fan of this officer's - recalled to the WC as "a funny thing" that happened, and which the officer himself has related, publicly and on film, more recently. That self-same officer - sometimes described as looking like "a fireplug with legs" - inserted himself into the middle front seat of the police cruiser that transported Oswald downtown; one wonders why such a big guy would do that until you consider that the weapon was handed back to him by the officer who eventually possessed it and had it in the small of his back (and who drove said cruiser), whereupon the first officer manhandled it to the point of removing the shells from the gun, looking at each one of them, replacing them into the cylinder, and putting it in his pocket. Might that maneuver have served to explain his fingerprints being on the weapon, which they would not have been had LHO drawn the gun from his pants and tried to shoot McDonald before McDonald pulled the gun from the hand that had it, put it out behind his own back, and had removed from his hand by another cop? Might it also have served to obliterate anyone else's fingerprints as well? Two things are worthy of note in this regard: first, that the first officer had an opportunity to obtain the weapon from someone else while in the area of 10th and Patton, specifically at the Abundant Life Temple that he claims to have entered - alone - and come out of without searching, thereafter to lean against the "car" assigned to an officer whom he identified, but who was actually downtown on a three-wheeler arresting a drunk by some railroad tracks at the time. The second thing is that, while Oswald was in the interrogation room in the custody of a uniformed officer - who testified that "I had [Oswald's] gun" with him in that room - the first officer had "Oswald's gun" with him elsewhere in the building. Two pistols attributed to Oswald? Great trick. The question remains where the other one went. No, McDonald was just lucky. If he hadn't have been, there'd have been no reason for another cop - whom I believe to have been acting as a "lookout" for Tippit's arrival into Oak Cliff - to have to cajole Jack Ruby into shooting Oswald later that night in a parking lot, then marrying his girlfriend so she couldn't testify against him, if it ever came to that (which it hasn't). "Speculation?" No, recorded evidence.

Excerpting very briefly from the soon-to-be-published book: "........Interpreters unfamiliar with the details of Ed's story often mistranslate plurals for singular. Most nouns in American Sign Language do not have a distinct plural form. "Man" and "men" are signed identically. At one meeting where Ed was telling his story, he referred to the police officer standing by the railroad bridge, the interpreter voiced "policemen" for Ed's singular "policeman." Sometimes translation errors occur when there is a similarity between a standard sign and an unusual body gesture. For example, Ed described how he wanted to get the attention of the officer on the railroad bridge, but was frightened by the Secret Service agent pointing the rifle. Ed demonstrated how he quickly lowered his arms and the interpreter misunderstood and voiced, "They turned off the light."........" Virtually all problems with perceptions of Ed's story relate to unintentional misinterpretations by well-meaning translators. Publication of the book will be announced soon. Although I'm fairly confident that this will be "explained" in the book (since I know that the authors have seen "Freeway Man"), what one must most wonder are two things: 1) why Ed wanted to get the attention of a "lone" officer on the railroad bridge (there were two) when there were a dozen cops on motorcycles on the highway forming a barricade to hold back traffic for the motorcade's progress - and kept it stopped for no less than 15 minutes and, as I recall, quite a bit longer - yet Ed did not attempt to get any of their attention, but ran by them all and took off in his car; and 2) why all of these officers, involved in the security of the presidential motorcade, would allow a man to run down the highway waving his arms, run directly by them (and not halt, as he was probably ordered to do ... if he was there, which he wasn't), and continue to his car to speed off in apparent pursuit of the motorcade, yet not one of them saw fit to concern themselves with him in the least. Should we assume that DPD, knowing that the President had just been shot, saw a twenty- or thirty-something year old guy running along the highway and realized that there was no way that he could've had anything to do with the shooting and, when Ed didn't respond to their orders to stop, knew that Ed was just a harmless deaf-mute? Did Ed perhaps think that the cops on motorcycles were too busy holding traffic to chase after his gunmen, and instead that the cop on top of the railroad bridge had perhaps a little more time on his hands? The motorcycle cops didn't react to Ed simply because he wasn't there, and Ed didn't try to get their attention because he didn't know - until I researched and wrote "Freeway Man" - that they were even there. Otherwise, they would've been in his story - because they'd had to have been - and Ed would probably have an "investigatory witness" arrest report at DPD just like Ken Wilson did in Fort Worth ... despite his report having "mysteriously disappeared." Burying his head in the sand doesn't save the ostrich from the lion's assault, and yours won't ever put Ed on the highway. Virtually all the problems with the story lie with people who are intent on believing it no matter what the facts are, and perpetuating it at any cost, including that of The Truth (our "only client?" Well, I suppose if the WC could ignore it, so can we, eh?). In the end, it's all about "the book," and continuing the conspiracy of commercialism. After all, some people still would like to believe that Ken Wilson was really David Atlee Phillips (tho' it doesn't seem as if First Hand Knowledge is still in circulation).

... As indeed it has. Ed blames it on other people's "misinterpretation." Ed's memory has simply "gotten better over time" as new information "corroborates" him and is added to his story as further "proof" of its veracity. Read the linked "Freeway Man" article and feel free to refute any of the evidence that proves Ed saw nothing on November 22, 1963. At best, I'll allow that Ed was in the traffic jam, or passed it going the other way. "What traffic jam," you ask? Read the story. The real one. Nobody made up the circumstances to refute Ed's story before it even came to light.

Are you suggesting that this information is true?!? This putting a blanket over the body ranks right up - or down - there with "I saw Oswald on the elevator with a gun, he smiled at me" story, and has absolutely no probative value. It amazes me the people who'll tell a story - like ol' Detective Bob with the hat down on DP ("I was undercover as a beatnik ... and was part of the officers arresting Oswald in the theater") - that sounds plausible enough, but relies entirely upon the audience's unfamiliarity with the facts. Looks like everybody - Jack Tatum included - missed that there coupe. My guess is cuz it wernt there. Just like the disappearing blanket.

No, I definitely don't see the preparational exchanges going down anything like, "OK, JD, you go over to Oak Cliff when we tell you, and Bob will be along shortly to kill you." "Uh, yeah, sure, Jim. Now what time do you figure I should be there?" "Hey, don't sweat it. Wait till ol' Park's in position - he'll radio it in, then ol' Jack'll send you in, and 15 minutes later, well, you won't feel a thing." "Sure, Jim, you can count on me!" ... Someone unwitting can hardly be called a "probable conspirator," and there's no evidence to suggest, much less prove, that JD was sent into Oak Cliff to "do" anything but die, no call to "pretend" anything simply for the sake of pretending. Getting LHO "out of town to the Redbird airport" is pure speculation, as is that LHO was walking to Jack Ruby's apartment (why do that when he was going to get a ride?) to grab enough pocket change to spend a lifetime in Mexico. JD was a "part of the conspiracy" only inasmuch as the conspirators' plans called for killing a cop to get the rest of DPD out of Dealey Plaza, for no other crime could have diverted the Department's attention - exactly as Tippit's shooting did - than killing a cop. The shooting (if not murder) of a second cop in the theater was supposed to be LHO's death sentence, but unfortunately (tho' not for Nick McDonald), it misfired ... while in another cop's grip.

It is indeed quite pertinent that W.D. Mentzel was the only DPD patrol officer who was assigned to be on duty that day was also the only DPD officer assigned to be on duty who was at lunch in the same patrol district where a fellow officer was gunned down, and which fellow officer was in Mentzel's patrol district (supposedly) precisely because Mentzel was not available and DPD was "short of resources" in Oak Cliff at the time and hence had to call Tippit from his patrol district to cover for Mentzel, uh, in the event an assassin fled south out of downtown. (Incidentally, is anyone aware of an officer being assigned to "remain at large" anywhere north, east or west of downtown in case an assassin decided to flee in one of those directions, or in case "any emergency [might] come in?") Truth is, if one examines the transcripts of Channel One, Mentzel was indeed sent to investigate an accident in approximately the same location of Davis as he stated ... but was ordered to do so after the "citizen" call by T.F. Bowley had already been made; that is, "officer down in Oak Cliff" ... "officer here in Oak Cliff" ... "officer in Oak Cliff, go investigate an accident instead." 10-4. Of course, we still have yet to mention that there was another DPD patrol in Oak Cliff immediately before the Tippit shooting who not only did NOT later report that he had been in that section of town, but also did not apparently respond to the Tippit shooting, and would have been highly suspect for having done so since his patrol area was some 10 miles away, and he did report that he never left his district and spent the aftermath conducting a "roadblock," which one supposes Mentzell might've been ordered to do (or done on his own, since nobody else was apparently ordered to do so either). That third officer was last heard of as he reported being in Oak Cliff less than 30 seconds before Tippit himself was assigned to go there because DPD was "short of resources" in that area. Thanks for the doc, Robert; I'd never seen that before. Self-serving prevarication, if you ask me. Mentzell is, I understand, deceased at this time, and fully intends to remain so.

Congratulations on the change of heart. You must've been reading up on my old posts, and decided that I wasn't nuts after all. The shootings are not attributable to one killer as far as can be ascertained. If you've got more than pure guesswork to suggest that they are, I'm reasonably confident that there is a grand jury out there - even of one's own making, if that could be accomplished - that would be willing to entertain it.

Thomas, I have to disagree with your interpretation of George's hypothesis, in which he posits that Tippit was part of the plot, etc., and I don't see where he posited "killing two birds with one stone," although I certainly recall that I have made that suggestion. This scenario is rife with other issues, some of which I'd pointed out, and while I'd typically be wont to point them out, I have neither the time nor inclination to do that at this very moment. But let it be said that there is plenty of evidence to suggest - if not actually prove - that the "killing two birds with one stone" scenario is, at the very least, plausible if not entirely factual. I don't believe Tippit was cognizent of it in any way at all.

Actually, I was referring to what you said in your original post: Duke : Quote: ""So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown. "" Here you go Duke........below......Bev's ankles and Babuska's......... No photos, no ankles. Did it not post? Were there no such images?

She did not tell me anything, and I didn't say that she did. Misquoting the living is fairly common, too, it seems. Mary made this statement at that meeting in full view and hearing of everyone there. If anyone made a recording, your proof will be there; if not, it doesn't exist other than in the memories of those who witnessed it ... or not. I remember it so vividly because up to that point, I'd never paid any attention to anyone's ankles, ever; since then, I've always been curious about the difference or similarities between BO's ankles and TBL's, if any. Mary, you will recall, had had her doubts - that is, she was not 100% convinced - about BO being TBL. She even related the story of BO coming to her house the first time - I'm thinking in the company of Larry Howard and Gary Shaw. It was that night that she declared herself "convinced" - or at least no longer in so much doubt. Had that not been the case, there'd have been no reason to parade her out to make a statement that everyone would've known about anyway, right? You and I are the only people who post here who were at that deal. Anyone else who may have an opinion about it (e.g., Mack and Aynesworth) I'm sure is not to be trusted, ergo if my memory squares with theirs, you must be right because everyone else is wrong and a "CIA plant." As if. I won't withdraw any "allegation" because I was there and witnessed it. While you claim to have known Mary much better than I, you will recall that no less a personage than Harry Livingstone stated in print that I was "one of Mary Ferrell's people" (KTT, 536 ... I think; check the index), a distinction not heaped often upon you. What's that mean? Well, probably about as much as the fact that Posner cited some of my work too. So?

Here you go Duke........below......Bev's ankles and Babuska's......... Now here's my challenge, Gary Mack's name was Lawrence Dunkel..... I would like to see, a comparison of two photos.......one of Gary Mack's Ankles and another of Lawrence Dunkel's.... Let's compare them......They're also either the same or they're not...so For a positive ID that Gary is Larry, and Larry is Gary....it's ..Time to show their ankles.... Thank you ever so..... B........ ROFLMAO! Touche! But where's the ankle photo? I don't think that Mack has ever shied from his legal (or birth) name, any more so than I have from mine. Latest I recall - correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not thinking he claims to be a witness to anything that is affected by what he's called, any more than I am when it comes to who wrote that book: my name is on my birth certificate; the author's name is not on his, so what's the point?

Having been one of the attendees at said BBQ joint for such "debate," let me add a few comments.As I, too, recall, it was indeed Larry Howard who put together the deal, although he sat in the audience rather than on the dais, brandishing a file folder with Gary Mack's birth name emblazoned on it as if it was somehow a crime that someone would use a name other than their own, like Kidd Craddick does on another Dallas-area radio station. "Kidd?" C'mon, I'd imagine his parents were a little more imaginative than that!! I don't recall that Aynesworth sat with Perry, but I suppose it's possible: I've slept since then. It would've meant he was also sitting with me, which i don't think was the case. That was after I'd given him a particularly hard time at a "Marrs Meeting" (which you might recall; I'm fairly certain John Armstrong would since he was there and we talked extensively afterward. I don't imagine Hugh would've thought of me as any kind of an ally at that point. No matter. The "debate" was heavily weighed against anyone who didn't buy into the Beverly-as-Babushka Lady story. One might do well to recall that, up until that evening, Mary Ferrell also didn't think that the two were one and the same. Although I remember Mary's exact rationale for finally accepting the possibility - more on that momentarily - the rest of the "debate" centered around Beverly being a good Christian woman whose husband is a preacher, so why would she of all people in the world lie? The photo you put in your message, added here because it was quite a number of posts (and replies with full posts quoted in them) back, is perhaps instructive. The arrow, unintended for the purpose I'm going to note, goes to the heart of the matter. Mary Ferrell's disbelief of Beverly being the Babushka Lady centered on the women's ankles. Mary noted - as only a woman could - that a woman's ankle's never change shape. A young lady with slender ankles will have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60; likewise, a woman with wide ankles will not have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60. (Not being an "ankle man" myself, I'd never noticed such a thing until that night, but have much more so since then, and I have to say her analysis was right on the money.) Unfortunately, if someone had this photo or a similar one at the BBQ joint that night, I didn't see it and thus could not have compared Beverly's ankles with Babushka's; when I've seen Beverly, I haven't had such a photo, and haven't seen Beverly when I had a photo handy. So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown. Having a pair of shoes doesn't mean a thing. You can have several pairs of shoes, some that look like others, but you can only have one set of ankles. I've also never given a lot of credence to her "experimental camera" story either, but one thing at a time, eh?

Here's the question that has always intrigued me, brought to the fore by this thread and redoubled. Here we've got a guy - Files - who's confessed to killing Kennedy, who alleges in turn that another man who appears in a photo with Files (I can't imagine how utterly stupid that must've would've been if Files had been apprehended) is a cop-killer. While certainly a dead bird in the hand is worth at least one living in a bush, why is nobody interested in this man? Should we believe that DPD is content to believe that they got their man, and - even if this guy was only an accomplice - they are likewise content to let him walk free and unhindered? Nobody on DPD today was serving then and probably didn't know JD, but cripes, the man's grandson is now a Dallas cop and even he doesn't care? Not even a little tiny bit interested? It seems reasonably clear that Files has some form of immunity from death or prosecution, if only because he could have done such a thing as "Confession of an Assassin" and remain uncharged. Nobody he's saying was behind the killing - a Mob hit, it would seem ... and they therefore must've been who was behind Files' own compensation for his part in the deed - even seems to lose sleep over Files' continued existence. Is it that "omerta" doesn't apply because he's not Sicilian? Not even Italian? It would seem, then, that someone would be interested in nailing the guy who killed Tippit, an innocent cop who just happened to pull over the wrong guy (which seems fairly close to the truth, but not in this light). Interested enough, anyway, to at least sweat Files over his identity. Has this occurred? I could perhaps understand that the FBI probably wouldn't get involved in this, a local cop-killing not being within their jurisdiction (tho' the question of it maybe being a "hate crime" or some other new form of aggravation could leverage that), but what's up with DPD? Don't any of the cops even care? There is no statute of limitations on murder, and one jurisdiction - even within state and federal prisions - will usually cooperate with another, at least to the extent of accompanying an out-of-towner to interview an unincarcerated suspect, and certainly to allowing said out-of-towners to interview their incarcerated prisoner. Has it happened? Even ADA Bill Alexander has been quoted as saying he didn't think Oswald did it alone ... but nobody's interested. Why is that? At the very least, wouldn't Files suddenly find himself able to tell who it was after the guy is mysteriously beaten to death in his sleep by unknown assailants - presumably ticked off cops anyway - leaving Files with nothing and nobody to protect? Or is DPD simply happy to have had a hero that day, albeit a dead one? Is it all just simply to perpetuate the great cover-up? "Ah, let him walk, we charged someone, and isn't that all that counts?" I just don't get it. Maybe someone could explain?

...AMY GOODMAN: You also talk about the language, like the Department of Homeland Security. NAOMI WOLF: That is where I, as a social critic and a student of language, get really scared. It's scary enough to see these ten steps, but what is terrifying to me personally is how many actual phrases are being recycled, and tactics. "Homeland security"—"heimat"—became popularized by the National Socialists. ... Fascinating. And here I'd begun to think I was the only one who'd noticed!

From said article: Now, notice that no one in the mainstream press is screaming, "Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory!" in response to the suspicion that Pakistani intelligence agencies might have been behind the Bhutto killing. On the contrary, the mainstream press is actually treating such a conspiracy as a viable possibility. Yet, whenever someone suggests that U.S. intelligence agencies might have been involved in the JFK killing, the immediate attitude of the U.S. mainstream press is exactly the opposite: "Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory!" The difference, of course, is that Pakistan is a "banana republic;" the USA is not. QED.

Ja. Es wurde ein freundliches Gespräch genannt! (Here is where the ad for dictionary.com goes!)

Alone the word "Homeland" scared me when it was first used, with its un-American kinship to the words related to two of the world's recent and substantially more "vile" dictatorships, "Fatherland" (Nazi Germany) and "Motherland" (Soviet Russia). I don't know why the department couldn't have been called "Civil Defense" or "National Security" or something of a less strident nature. George Orwell was thinking a few years in advance of the reality.

... which probably goes a long way in explaining why so many Britishers prefer to use the word with the long-I sound, yearning for the days of Empire?!?

Pamela, I've always wondered in which state(s) it is that the felony crime of murder has a statute of limitations. If there are none, one wonders at the lunacy of someone who'd say "hey, it was me! Give me the needle!" It likewise astounds me that someone might discover that "wow, I've found a murderer," and would feel that the better course is to write a book - and hopefully make a buck - about the crime rather than turn the perpetrator in to authorities. The only way that I can reconcile these issues is [a] if the purported perp knows full well there is no evidence other than "a work of fiction" that can convict him, and if the author knows full well that there is no basis to the claims, that there's nothing prosecutable really going on, but that it makes a good read anyway (as in "people will buy anything!"). Speaking as the author, intimately involved with a person claiming to have perpetrated a felonious murder, can you provide some insight into the thinking that the commission of such a crime is more of a commercial than a criminal venture, and that having published his story, the supposed perp is not - and need not worry about being - subject to prosecution? If authorities have, in fact, examined Files' claims and found them to be without sufficient merit to warrant prosecution, how and why would the general public have any cause to believe that he actually did what he claimed? If he's been exonerated by virtue of such investigations, why is he screaming out that, really, no matter what they say, I really did commit murder, and can prove that I should be prosecuted? Does the man have a death wish ... or a sure knowledge that he'll not face that consequence as a result of his confession? What were the reactions not only of the authorities whose attention you first brought this to (and were they competent jurisdications), but also of the AuthorHouse folks under whose aegis you've published and who may thus share in whatever criminal liabilities there may be for your having aided this admitted murderer in the "promotion" of his crime? I'm not concerned with whether you believe Files' guilt in this - any more than I'm concerned a lawyer needs believe in his client's innocence (even if an author doesn't share the attorney's immunity) - but with how it came to pass that a criminal confession is set to be a published novel. Your comments are greatly appreciated.

Thankfully, this appears to be the complete and exhaustive list of all the questions that there are about JFK's murder. It's a toss-up whether to buy the book or invest the time and energy to look into each of these questions. If my time's not worth $24.95, then I can't afford the book, so how should I handle this?!? Actually, as I remember, there was one more question about this whole thing, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Does anyone else remember what it was? PS - I failed the quiz above. Will answers be posted soon?