Duke Lane

Thanks, Andy, but as others have attested, this problem is ONLY appearing on the Ed Forum ... and it ONLY happens when I arrive there as a "guest," i.e., before I sign in. If you'll send me a private message or (preferably) an email, I'll return the URLs to you to check into.I have got SpyBot, MS Defender, AdAware and SpyWareBlaster installed in addition to McAfee Security Suite. It concerns me that I've had no problems elsewhere, and this attack seems sophisticated enough to be able to rip down my firewalls - I'm behind two software and one hardware 'walls. It is emanating from 169.254.1.67 and 169.254.1.257 and 169.254.1.58 from the NameServer BLACKHOLE-x.IANA.ORG, supposedly the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, with an "OrgAbuseName" of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number, i.e., ICANN, phone +1-310-301-5820 (Marina Del Ray, CA), tech phone +1-310-301-5820, attempting to come through my ports 21302 and 27971. HackerWatch calls it a "'NewTear' attack," for which I can't seem to find much in the way of identification. Hope this helps! ... Incidentally, I'm using IE7.0 beta, and the attacks started - or at least are on my current logs - on 10 May. Here's an interesting tidbit: the only thing I changed on the date the attacks started was "Definition Update 1.14.1452.3 for BETA Windows Defender (KB915597)!"

... and a small matter of gunfire and someone wanting to kill him with it.

When the "sniper's nest" boxes were checked for fingerprints, a number of "unidentified" (as differs from "unidentifiable?") prints turned up on the boxes. The FBI requested that all TSBD employees submit fingerprint samples (presumably for elimination purposes), which they did. Roy Truly, however, who was not kindly disposed toward this evidence-gathering from innocent people, declined to allow two employees to be printed. I had presumed those to have been himself and his boss, but am not confident of that. Does anyone know /a/ which of the 75 TSBD employees were not fingerprinted, /b/ what the disposition of those prints collected was (i.e., became CEs, CDs, FBI files, etc.), /c/ if that data is available today and, if so, from where (file IDs helpful), and /d/ what data (images) exists of ALL of the prints found on the boxes, whether identified, identifiable, eliminated or not, and if so, where they can be obtained. Along those lines - although not the primary purpose I'm interested in this info for - does anyone know where one might obtain the print supposedly belonging to Mac Wallace, and/or Wallace's own prints?

I'm curious if anyone else is having this problem: You go to the Education Forum login page and suddenly a new instance of your browser is showing up with an address of snipernet.com. When you close it, a System Doctor ad pops up. If you attempt to close out any of the windows or dialogs, SystemDoctor attempts to scan your system. If that isn't PITA enough, I always have on a full suite of blocking tools including McAfee Internet Security (I don't use pop-up blockers, for a very specific reason). I have even BANNED the addresses these ads come from, and they have apparently managed to figure out how to disable my McAfee. Is this sanctioned by Ed Forum? Are y'all even aware of it? Am I the only one having this problem?

Have you ever noticed that those pesky little smilies never seem to have blushing cheeks when you really need 'em? All I can say is ... "2:49 a.m."!!! Could be that I needed another cuppa java??!!??... and speaking of late nights, here one is again! Gonna cut it short this time before my face needs saving once again!!

Interesting information. Could it be that Schmidt was working as a FBI agent at the University of Miami? It is also strange that he should leave the job as editor of the Culver City Citizen to rejoin the army. He of course served under General Walker in Germany. After leaving the army in October, 1962, he moves to Dallas. Schmidt's brother then becomes Walker's chauffeur and general aide. Schmidt invited Bernard Weissman to Dallas. Weissman later told the Warren Commission that Schmidt argued: "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage of the publicity, and at least become known among these various right-wingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich." Weissman arrived in Dallas on 4th November, 1963. Soon afterwards Schmidt got Weissman to join the Young Americans for Freedom. Schmidt also introduced Weissman to Joe Grinnan of the John Birch Society. Grinnan was involved in organizing protests against the visit of JFK. Grinnan seemed to know about the visit before it was officially announced to the public. Grinnan suggested that they should place a black-bordered advert in the Dallas Morning News on 22nd November, 1963. The advert cost $1,465. Grinnan supplied the money. He claimed that some of this came from Nelson Bunker Hunt, the son of Haroldson L. Hunt. Weissman was given the task of signing the advert and taking it to the newspaper office. Do you know what job Schmidt did in Dallas? If his brother was Walker's general aide, what did Larrie do? Have you got the date of this interview with the FBI? I thought the Warren Report said the FBI could not find Schmidt after the assassination (along with Weissman he fled from Dallas). Sorry John... should have searched for this thread before posting.Schmidt was interviewed by the FBI in Dallas on the 5th of Dec, '63. He worked as an insurance salesman for Mutual of New York through the office at 2595 Turtle Creek. Walker lived at 4011. 3505 Turtle Creek was somehow associated with Sam Bloom, advertising guru, a power in the Dallas Citizen's Council, and major force behind the building of the Dallas Trade Mart. Found in Ruby's apartment were some "Vote the Conservative Democratic Slate" cards - written on the back of one card was: "Sam Bloom - turtle 3505 Turtle Creek Luke RI 7-6965 Times Herald Weissman denied they served directly under Walker in Germany. Mr. JENNER. Who was the overall commander in Germany at that time? Mr. WEISSMAN. The overall commander? Mr. JENNER. Was General Walker one of the commanders at that time? Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he had been removed at that time. In any case, he would have been about 60 or 70 miles--he was based in Landshut, Germany. Weissman did leave Dallas on the Wednesday following the assassination, and I believe Schmidt did go into hiding for a while, but within Dallas. Yes, I think it's possible he was working for the FBI in Miami - though nil evidence I know of to support it. Weissman and Burley were employed on a strictly commission basis with the Carpet Engineers at 1002 South Beckley. By his own admission, neither he nor Burley sold any carpet during this employment. Asked how they survived, he claimed they lived of $200 in savings, and a credit card supplied by Schmidt. Some comments and questions: Weissman denied they served directly under Walker in Germany. Mr. JENNER. Who was the overall commander in Germany at that time? Mr. WEISSMAN. The overall commander? Mr. JENNER. Was General Walker one of the commanders at that time? Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he had been removed at that time. In any case, he would have been about 60 or 70 miles--he was based in Landshut, Germany. Greg, you posted a timeline of Walker's career, or at least some of its later years, in another thread, to wit: So it appears that Weissman, if not also Schmidt, served in Germany at the same time Walker did. I consider it disingenuous to suggest that because the "overall commander in Germany" was 60 or 70 miles away that troops in other parts of Germany did not serve "under" him. It is noteworthy that Weissman seemed to know where Walker "would have been" if he'd served under him (I don't know German geography well enough to know how distant Landshut is from Augsburg; does anybody else?). To even know that Walker had been "removed" suggests a certain familiarity with the man's career if not the man himself. It is not necessarily usual among grunts to know about even the commander who led immediately prior to one's own assignment (unless perhaps Walker ranked right up there with Eisenhower and Patton at the time?). Hmmm ... any guesses as to how far apart, exactly, 1002 South Beckley and 1024 South Beckley are?FWIW, Weissman seemed genuinely and distinctly uncomfortable testifying the first time before the WC, although he opened up quite a bit the second time around. One wonders if he and partner Schmidt - or at least young Bernie - didn't find themselves (or himself) "outclassed" by Grinnan, Hunt and company; Schmidt, the "politician" of the two with his grand plans and perception of himself being "at the center" of all things right-wing in Dallas, may not have, or else may have taken an even harder fall than pal Bernie when he realized that they'd been used ... and that only assuming that he didn't, himself, have a part in using Bernie. Once again we see the apparent manipulation of a "lone Jew" to achieve someone else's ends. Surely, it's all coincidence, tho', don't you think?

Thanks, Greg! Duke, please see Walker Letter writing Campaign thread for the answer. Aye.And I noted that, with respect to the meeting including General Walker and Mister Hunt, so there was one Larrie Schmidt, head of "Conservatism USA," who was personally reponsible for attracting his old army buddy to Dallas to further "the cause." Said buddy Bernie Weissman was the "lone nut Jew" who signed the Wanted for Treason poster, only going to show who was really antagonistic toward JFK! Should be clear as day, shouldn't it?

Larrie being the "idea man" and "political driving force" behind "Conservatism USA" (CUSA), who enlisted the assistance - initially from afar by letter, later in person by persuading them to come to Dallas - of his old Army buddies, Bernie and Bill in furthering the cause of "uniting the right wing" under his banner (shades of Bob Mathews and his Silent Brotherhood!)On October 29, 1963, he wrote to Bernie and Bill that the Dallas City Council's official apology over "STEVENSON incident" (sic ... and emphasis in the original) "has aroused the scorn and anger of all Dallasites, the overwhelming majority of whom are right-wingers." He added: "This town is a battleground and that is no joke. Never before have Dallas conservatives from the GOP to the John Birch Society ever been so strongly united. And in the middle of it is myself." Bernie joined Larrie in Dallas, and Bernie's name, of course, was prominent on Friday, November 22, 1963 signed, as it was - without his even converting to Christianity as he was exhorted to do: Weissman, a Jew like Rubenstein - at the bottom of a "Wanted for Treason" ad paid for by a "prominent Dallas businessman" ... a conservative "strongly united" with "the man in the middle," Larrie Schmidt? Bernie Weissman: more "proof" that it was all done by lone Communists and Jews? Who in the world would ever try to get people to believe that?!? (Other than, of course, someone who did do it and was neither Communist nor Jew ...?)

Just cuz I'm really a nice guy (believe it or not!), when I get back from my trip over the weekend, I'll send you an email that might help. Hoover seemed to know the scenario which was layed out before the event played out. ... Regardless of what you say, Oswald, who did not have a rifle at his mother's house, (or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned) could not have been the person Hoover was speaking of. Hoover also said that it was a woman named a. hidell who got the rifle through the mail. ... Are you suggesting that Hoover pulled his data from "his hat"? It would be nice if he had cited the sources of his information, but, seeing as he was the director of the FBI, I believe his sources had to be somewhat reliable. The point here is that you were, in my mind anyway, trying to minimalize the evidence, that Hoover provided, that the assassin stored the rifle at his mother's house. The point I was making was that Oswald was not that person. Then you stated Hoover could not be relied upon, ergo, his statement about the assassin, even though obviously not Oswald, could be ignored. Words to that effect, anyway. The point that I was trying to make - and apparently failed at - is that JEH was too informed, and many of the statements he'd made could even be construed to suggest that he just hadn't gotten the story completely straight yet. After all, he was 68 years old at the time (born in 1895, as I recall)."America's top cop" had solved the whole crime from his office within a matter of hours. Yes, he had sources - FBI agents - in Dallas, but even they could not have known all the facts so quickly. One example is the number and direction of the shots: there were people reporting as many as six, making claims of bullets striking the pavement, there were cracks and holes in the limo windshield (that was quickly flown out of town, so who's going to say which Dallas agent(s) did or didn't see them?), people claiming to have seen men with guns in the WEST window, seen smoke from the grassy knoll, etc., etc. Yet, given this information, JEH apparently decided - without having heard anything in Dealey Plaza himself (nor did but a couple of his agents) - that there were ONLY three shots, they only came from ONE direction, that TWO hit Kennedy and ONE hit Connally (oops!), and the ONLY person involved - who not only denied shooting anyone, but also hinted at others' involvement - was "a Communist" (JEH's favorite bogeyman!). Were his sources reliable? I'd have to say 'yes' ... because they probably knew beforehand how this was going to go down. JEH had all the "facts," he just hadn't internalized them yet and misspoke a few of them, got his perps mixed up and other assorted slips that - had he been anyone else - probably would have landed him on the "prime suspects" list. Was the actual fact that JEH "knew" that the rifle was kept at the house where his wife was staying, and he merely made a slip? A woman is a woman, after all: mother, wife, protector of wife (mother-figure), sister ...? Who knows? Reading the supplemental report, it says that LMR told Stovall that BWF was at Parkland visiting Pop. He and Rose checked with Parkland and found that pops wasn't there, so they apparently started calling around and "finally located Dave Williams [the step-father] at Irving Professional Center" (IPC) at Irving, one town to the southwest. They called Irving PD (IPD) and one of their detectives (McCabe) apparently drove over there, found Frazier and brought him back to IPD, whereupon McCabe called Rose & Stovall to say that he had BWF in custody.Here's what I get out of that: There is no indication of how much time elapsed between their getting LMR's info and finally locating pops somewhere else, nor how long it took it took McCabe to get there, locate BWF (presumably with pops) and bring him back to the station. Since the report doesn't give the address of IPC, and there is no phone listing for them today, I can't begin to guesstimate even how far IPC was from IPD. So one of three things seems apparent at this point: either (1) LMR made a mistake (this was the afternoon of 11/22, and the news reports were full of "Parkland," so it would almost seem natural that she'd just say that without thinking); (2) LMR told R&S that pops was at "the hospital" and THEY assumed that it meant Parkland for very similar reasons as above; meaning in either case that BWF was never at Parkland to begin with, or else (3) BWF was at Parkland and LMR somehow managed to get ahold of him there (but not through the extension in pops' room, which wasn't there) quickly enough that BWF had time to get over to IPC before McCabe arrived in search of him. Regardless of where IPC was, you can reach most places in Irving from others within about 10 mins, especially if you're a cop with the lights flashing (and presuming the siren - if IPD even had them; Fort Worth did not - was not going). The phone call was instantaneous, and presumably McCabe bolted out the door and hurried - Code 2 or 3 - over to IPC to nab BWF. I don't know how many hospitals were operating around the area back then, but even today I can't imagine that it would take two cops working the phones more than an hour to call the main desk of each of them - working their way out from where the subject lived - much more than an hour, maybe two, to find out where pops really was. Even still, that doesn't leave a lot of time for LMR to get in contact with her brother in an era before cell phones, or for BWF with certainty to contact his sister (unless they were on a coordinated call-home-for-updates schedule, like "call every 30 minutes"), and since pops wasn't at Parkland, she couldn't have called her brother in pops' room there, so how did he know to hurry on up over to IPC before IPD got there? If LMR sent them on a "wild goose chase" (as Antti suggested), she must have known that the cops would eventually try to track him down at Parkland, not find pops registered there, and eventually get wise to the fact that he was somewhere else, and either get there themselves or send someone over in their stead (she may not have been wise to jurisdictional issues ... and is it in any way significant or meaningful that R&S did not rush over to IPC at the same time as IPD was going there instead of waiting to hear back from McCabe before leaving DPD? After all, it was only important that IPD was there, not that they were there alone, with plenty of time to figure out what room pops was in, transport BWF back to IPD HQ, etc.). Otherwise, why send 'em on a wild goose chase in the first place? According to Yahoo maps, it takes (only?) about 15-20 minutes to drive from the center of Irving (825 W Irving Blvd, where city hall is located today) the 10.5 miles to downtown Dallas (the geographical center of Dallas is not many blocks from Dealey Plaza or the old City Hall), so they could have left to go there right after they'd contacted McCabe. If so, they'd have been there probably pretty close to the time McCabe had found pops' room with BWF in it. Instead, they waited until McCabe called back with BWF already in custody, and then drove the 15 minutes out to IPD (I'm presuming they knew exactly where it was and didn't drive around looking for it). Then, they went back to IPC and searched BWF's car, finding nothing of import. If they'd gone out there in the first place, they'd have saved at least 30 minutes (time for McCabe to get back to his car with BWF, drive back to IPD, put BWF in lockup -?- and call R&S back with the news, plus the time to get BWF back out of lockup and drive back to IPC). After five - ten? fifteen? - minutes of searching the car, they then went over to LMR's house and ... Wait! I was going to say "search it," but they only stated one reason for having gone there (even if there were others), and that was to have BWF show them "where he kept his .303 cal rifle & box of ammo." Leaving aside the fact that this was at his own house - actually, his sister's - where mom was but staying while pops was in the hospital, that is, that BWF did not "store his rifle at his mother's house," one now has to wonder why they were in search of BWF in the first place, and the answer seems to be to check out his rifle. Who told them about the rifle, or did they have some other reason for thinking he had one? Interesting .... In any case, they then waited (?) for LMR to come home ("to the location," the address which coincided with her own address) and then took them to the Homicide Bureau where they took their statements before bringing them back home (no mention of how Buell got his car back to the house). Any idea offhand of what time they took the pair's affidavits? My guess is that it wasn't but two, three or four hours after they'd called LMR to ask about bro, during which a fair shake of things transpired, further limiting the time that they spent on a "wild goose chase," and lacking a need to send them on one, why would LMR lie about her brother's whereabouts? It minimizes the time available, also, for her to reach him and for him to scurry out to IPC before McCabe got there. So, as to the question: ... I think this goes a long way in suggesting that BWF was not at Parkland but was always at IPC with pops, if only because he'd have had a difficult-as-hell time getting to IPC before the cops showed up ... which, if he was up to no good, actually happened probably long before anyone would have suspected that they would glom onto the ruse and manage to track down pops' real location.Why would anyone - especially the cops - "change the story so that Frazier could not be placed at Parkland?" Why would him not being there be important, and if he was there, why would he have been? Outside of (R&S' understand of?) LMR's saying her brother was at Parkland, what else suggests he might have been to make you question why he was there? I'm not being obtuse, I'm only trying to figure out the motivations for all of this. It is not making sense to me. I am also going to check for any new posts or edits before I post this ... which, incidentally, has taken me until 7:10 to put together, so a lot could have happened, eh? Nope, didn't see any, so here goes ...!

Chuck & Mark, All right, I'm backing off here, starting over. In my defense, I did not see your edited post until well after I'd replied to the original one, that is, until about 3:30 p.m. today, Thursday, June 1. The reply window was probably on my screen for several hours as I went between it and other things that I was doing. As to the links, I didn't make the linkage between "DPD and Frazier" and a series of "Frazier's Statement" links with what Linnie Mae had to say to anyone. I think, in retrospect, that it would have been much easier to say "see Mark's links for the info" rather than just telling me to "go look it up" without at least an indication of where to start, or telling me to "spend more time reading the thousands of pages like [you] had to." You were right: your original post was antagonistic. I was antagonized, and responded in kind. I can't help the timing between my reading it and your editing it; we were probably in edit mode at the same time. I glanced at a couple of the links - mostly "Frazier's Statement to DPD" pages - but did not happen to click the one about "DPD and Frazier," simply because I was looking for information about "DPD and Randle." In any case, my apologies as well to both of you. Let's get past this and move on, shall we? I was asking what I thought were legitimate questions; I was NOT trying to clone alt.conspiracy.jfk onto this forum, as I've apparently succeeded in doing ... and for that, I apologize to John Simpkin and everyone else in the known world!! I'll respond/inquire on the other points in a separate post. Right now, I've got to figure out why one of my computers isn't working ... and will probably end up trying to do two things at once again! More later ....

I'd suggest putting away your attitude, it doesn't befit you well and does not lead toward reasonable discussion. I only noticed question marks in my note, so why would you think they are anything other than questions? Are you used to being ridiculed, is that the problem? Believe me, if I wanted to pooh-pooh something, I would and could do it a whole lot more effectively than my earlier post, if that was what it had been intended to do. It wasn't.Since you are posting from memory, why am I supposed to be confident that your memory is absolutely accurate? If it is wrong, am I supposed to keep searching and searching until I (don't) find what you're referring to? You are the one who made the statement, and it is your responsibility to back it up when asked rather than sending someone off on what, for all anyone knows, could be a wild goose chase. If your memory is so accurate, am I being presumptious to think that you might also remember where you read what you cite? If so, it is common courtesy to point someone to a particular location instead of telling them to look through everything they can find until they locate what you're referring to ... if it even exists! I often post from memory myself and occasionally misremember something; I imagine you could possibly be as fallable as I am. Unless, of course, maybe you're J. Edgar Hoover? In this case, there are so many details that nobody could possibly know each and every one of them. I think I know as much as most people and more than some. If you know more, please shower me with your pearls of wisdom instead of raining down your disdain. I'd like to think I'd extend you the same courtesy ... even if only to show off my knowledge and prove I'm not just talking through my hat! Forgive me, I'm new to this. There are thousands of pages to read? Ah, no wonder it's so difficult to provide a citation! You're right: if I'd read all that you have, then I'd probably know exactly where to look! Again, can you steer me toward this "related post," or do I have to search the entire forum? Hoover seemed to know the scenario which was layed out before the event played out. Just because he is dead now does not mean that we should forget the content of his earlier statements and recorded conversations. I think that the former was my point, and I never suggested any different than the latter. I am searching my post and don't find where I "said" any such thing. Please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be). Yes, that might explain it. Now, then, what is so significant in your mind about Linnie Mae saying "Parkland" instead of naming the hospital or clinic where he actually was? Why in your opinion was it a "wild goose chase" and not just a simple misstatement? Why would anyone have "chased" the "fact" of Pop being in Parkland versus anywhere else?

Regarding the "plenty of reasons in a related post," which is that "related post?" It's not leaping out at me, and none of the keyword searches I've made have turned anything up by you.As to Hoover's comments, as quoted above and otherwise: having died in 1972, we can now ascertain with reasonable certainty that Hoover was not God. Whence, then, his omniscience? He "knew" that "three shots were fired" before anyone had investigated the reports of several more, that "it was a Communist" who shot JFK even in the face of LHO's denials and intimations of naming others, before his FBI usurped jurisdiction (well, to be fair, DPD abandoned it), all from 1000+ miles away, how could that have been so? How, then, did he "know" enough to report to LBJ that "the assassin kept his rifle at his mother's house?" His mother, I recall, was living with him and his sister during that period. I've never been certain if it was a temporary arrangement, if mom and pop had a home of their own elsewhere, as opposed, say, to an apartment that they stopped renting for the duration of dad's illness, and the stay with Linnie Mae was more long-term. With pop being in the hospital, why is BWF's visiting him a reason to be suspicious? Parkland has literally thousands of beds, so what's significant about the fact that a TSBD employee's father occupied one of them? Clearly, he had to be somewhere if he had to be in a hospital at all, and I'm fairly confident that your not suggesting that pop's ailment was "part of the plot" (e.g., if the bullet didn't kill JFK, pop could always slip into his room and strangle him). Personally, I've always thought it interesting that LHO was a "lone-nut Communist" while Ruby was a "lone-nut Jew." Unfortunately, I just can't seem to think of anyone that would want to put the heat on both Communists and Jews for killing a Yankee liberal ... at least, not in Dallas in 1963. If I could, it would be that rock that I'd be looking under. The biggest trouble is that your neighbor - or even your parents! - could be among that ilk, and you'd have no way of knowing .... Got a cite on that comment about Frazier's visiting pop?

Okay, I'll rephrase the question: Is there any evidence or suggestion that the reason JFK's limousine braked is because Curry braked the car in front of it, forcing Greer to either ram the cop car or make JFK a better target ... or are the limo brake lights only the result of Greer turning around and his left foot applying pressure to the brake pedal after the head shot?

It is amazing to me to read some of the writings of "responsible" people, "loyal Americans" all, in the early '60s, especially those of Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver, a member of the 30-man Council of the John Birch Society, and in particular his Marksmanship in Dallas article that appeared in the Society's "American Opinion" magazine of February 1964 and written "around" Christmas 1963.Here is a noteworthy excerpt to provide some insight into the perspective of some of America's leading citizens, from the highly-educated and erudite - even genteel - mind of Professor Oliver: The maxim, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, has long been a favorite dictum of Anglo-Saxons (for some reason, it is seldom cited on the continent of Europe). Reference books usually attribute it to one of the Seven Sages, Chilo, who lived in the early part of the Sixth Century B.C.; but that is a mistake. In his precepts for prudent conduct, roughly similar to Benjamin Franklin's, Chilo urges us not to malign the dead (ton tethnekota me kakologeîn). He was interested in our own integrity, not the comfort or reputation of the deceased, and the precept is on a par with his advice that we should not utter idle threats in a quarrel because that is womanish. Whatever the source of the phrase so glibly and frequently quoted these days, the notion that one should speak only good of the departed is compounded of various sentiments. It undoubtedly had its origin in man's deep-seated and primitive fear of the dead — a fear lest the Manes may somehow hear what we say and, if angered, use their mysterious powers to work harm upon us. That residual awe is supplemented by our infinite pity for the dead, and our hope that after life's fitful fever they sleep well. Pity is reinforced by the strong impulse toward generosity and kindness that, although biologically inexplicable, is found in all decent men. And that kindness is directed in part toward the living, for even the most odious and despicable beings may be survived by someone who grieves for them. Even Nero had one concubine who loved him. Acte wept for him and saw to it that his body was decently buried. And we honor her for it. The dictum has become a fixed convention. We all know the story of the old men in a rural community who attend the funeral of one of their contemporaries. Having known the old reprobate all his life, they stand silently in a circle, tongue-tied, uneasily shuffling their feet, eyeing one another and searching their memories, until one is at last able to say, "Well, when Jake was a boy, he was mighty nigh the best speller in the sixth grade." As an expression of courtesy and personal kindness, the dictum is unexceptionable. In politics and history it is utter nonsense — and everyone knows that it is. Were the dictum taken seriously, history would be impossible, for no page of it can be written without recording the follies and the crimes of the dead. Not even the sentimental innocents who now, under expert stimulation, blubber over the "martyred President" believe in the dictum de mortuis — at least, I have yet to hear one of them utter a lament for Adolf Hitler, although Adolf is certainly as defunct as Jack and therefore presumably as much entitled to post-mortem consideration. Taboos are for barbarians, who indulge in tribal howling and gashing of cheeks and breast whenever a big chief dies or an eclipse portends the end of the world. We are a civilized race. In memoriam aeternam Rational men will understand that, far from sobbing over the deceased or lying to placate his vengeful ghost, it behooves us to speak of him with complete candor and historical objectivity. Jack was not sanctified by a bullet. The defunct Kennedy is the John F. Kennedy who procured his election by peddling boob-bait to the suckers, including a cynical pledge to destroy the Communist base in Cuba. He is the John F. Kennedy with whose blessing and support the Central Intelligence Agency staged a fake "invasion" of Cuba designed to strengthen our mortal enemies there and to disgrace us — disgrace us not only by ignominious failure, but by the inhuman crime of having lured brave men into a trap and sent them to suffering and death. He is the John F. Kennedy who, in close collaboration with Khrushchev, staged the phony "embargo" that was improvised both to befuddle the suckers on election day in 1962 and to provide for several months a cover for the steady and rapid transfer of Soviet troops and Soviet weapons to Cuba for eventual use against us. He is the John F. Kennedy who installed and maintained in power the unspeakable Yarmolinsky-McNamara gang in the Pentagon to demoralize and subvert our armed forces and to sabotage our military installations and equipment. He is the John F. Kennedy who, by shameless intimidation, bribery, and blackmail, induced weaklings in Congress to approve treasonable acts designed to disarm us and to make us the helpless prey of the affiliated criminals and savages of the "United Nations." I have mentioned but a few of the hundred reasons why we shall never forget John F. Kennedy. So long as their are Americans, his memory will be cherished with execration and loathing. If the United States is saved by the desperate exertions of patriots, we may have a future of true greatness and glory — but we will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963. And if the international vermin succeed in completing their occupation of our country, Americans will remember Kennedy while they live, and will curse him as they face the firing squads or toil in brutish degradation that leaves no hope for anything but a speedy death. Professor Oliver was deposed before Warren Commission counsel Albert Jenner to learn more of the evidence cited in his "Marksmanship" article, which Oliver freely admits is little more than "reasonable inferences drawn by reasonable men," based upon statements substantiated simply by dint of being in print or spoken by some notoriety. The deference and high-minded debate offered to Oliver by Jenner is singular indeed. One can almost see the smoke dissipating in the mirrors, none of which is evident in Oliver's writings or speeches of the period: it is spoken as pure, unadulterated and certain fact, by a man of such high credentials (higher, certainly, than the average man or woman, Bircher or not) who "must know" the things of which he speaks with such conviction and sincerity. One only wonders what had taken the ubermenschen of the International Communist Conspiracy so long in reaching their goal of world domination (and most importantly, that of the USA) while their ever-so-obvious machinations (to the likes of Oliver et cie.) were superbly - and successfully! - orchestrated, undetected and masterfully hidden from virtually everyone else. Since nobody else as intelligent and educated as Oliver had detected them, clearly they, too, were "part of the plot." That is, almost everyone out there but them. (Oddly, LBJ was not seen as a continuation of the same undermining of American values, or at least not identified as such.) We are reminded that these are the same people who lambasted both Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower as "witting and willing tools of the International Communist Conspiracy" (yet whose later tepid endorsement JBS was able to secure for its circularized "The John Birch Society: A Report" that appeared also in 64/65). John Kennedy compared with Adolph Hitler, JFK's memory to be "cherished with execration and loathing" by all who called themselves "American" (a narrow few, to be sure!), who was - even as he breathed his last - planning to sell out America lock, stock and barrel to Mother Russia, and thus better off dead, the only regret seeming to be that a "Communist" accomplished it instead of a true and upright Patriot. ... And still the question is posed: "Who Shot JFK?"

It's general knowledge (or should I say "generally accepted?") that the Presidential limousine's brake lights came on as the vehicle approached the Triple Underpass just before the head shot(s). It is also general knowledge that the limo passed the police lead car beneath the bridge, emerging onto Stemmons Freeway ahead of that vehicle, which eventually overtook it on the flight to Parkland. The question is whether there is any certain indication that the lead car also braked approaching the TU and, if so, was it before the limo's brake lights came on and, again if so, how far - in time or distance - before? Is there an indication of how slow the lead car slowed to? At what point did the limo actually pass the lead car, and how slow was the lead car going at that point? Is any such braking supported by photographic/video evidence and/or testimony of any of the motorcade participants or bystanding witnesses? Like many other aspects of this crime, focus is often drawn to primary events (e.g., the limo slowing, important because the President was in it and he got shot) while often the secondary events (in this case, the lead car braking first, causing the limo to have to slow in response) get lost in the blur. Other good fer-instances are: two cops coming down from the upper floors of the TSBD before any other cops other than Marrion Baker had gotten upstairs, and an "idle" patrol cop arriving in Oak Cliff just before JD Tippit became "needed" there (not to mention the regular beat cop being at lunch in the district). I'm just wondering if this is another one of those ....?

Gosh, that looks an awful lot like Jerry Garcia!!I think this work can be traced back to whomever put the face of the Man on the Moon, pulled the "Old Man of the Mountain" trick, and decided that the constellations look like bears, bow-hunters and other artifacts that are best viewed through the judicious use of lysergic acid dithalymide. "What a long, strange trip it's been!"

My experience comes from having been the leader of a land search and rescue team with the Civil Air Patrol, a fact that I very nearly hesitate to mention here(!). It was not in Louisiana, and it wasn't during the '50s, so don't even ask the other questions!! That the gunman was unloading as he left the scene (note that I didn't use the word "fled") is not actually debatable since (1) one of the Davis girls (I always get them confused) said she watched it from very close by and (2) later retrieved one or more of the shells he'd dropped (I'm thinking that th, as well as (3) Ted Callaway describing the very same action - the gun raised in his right (shooting) hand and his left hand "going to the gun" (for what reason other than unloading or loading?) - which he saw from a distance away. That the casings were found a distance farther away than they would or could be ejected from an automatic is merely incident to the other fact. I don't think in his testimony that Jerry Hill gave any reason for having said the gun was an automatic ... I don't even remember the subject coming up. All the rest - this included! - is mere guesswork. The only question is who might be guessing correctly, and if it's not based on what we know to be facts, then whatever else it may be, it ain't right.As Ray Carroll said, I also believe that it was one of the Davises who found a shell (or shells ... but I think it was singular) on the west side of the house, and then well after the police had left the scene (they had to dispatch someone to go get it); the other shells were found by Donnie Benavides and put in the cigarette cellophane wrapper and turned over to Poe. Those, I recall, were found in front of the house, or at least along 10th (being very particular in defining 'in front of' as 'directly within the limits of the edges of the house'). See Dave Perry's site for more information about all of this, including the actual bullets. As to what really went through Jerry's mind when he reported "shells from an automatic rather than a pistol," I'll bet not that not even he knows ...!

I believe Callaway saw the gunman come through the hedge at the southeast corner of 10th and Patton, which would be the northwest corner of the Davis' dwelling. This is a quote from Callaway: When I saw him jump through that hedge, he had his pistol in a raised position and his left hand going to the pistol. This was 'on 10th' if the observer was on 10th, and 'on Patton' if the observer was on Patton. Such is the nature of street corners .... This is exactly my point regarding "shells at the scene". The shells were actually found on the west side of the building the Davis' lived, which ran along Patton. This is more than 100 feet away from the shooting site AND around the corner. If the "scene" is the entire area/block/intersection, then technically, they could be "at the scene", but there is NO way they were seen at the site of the shooting. Once again trusting to memory, one of the Davis girls testified that the shooter ran past their front door, smiling at them and "shaking the bullets loose from the gun," or words to that effect, meaning that he was in the process of emptying the shells. If Callaway saw him with "his pistol in a raised position and his left hand going to the pistol" as he cleared the hedgerow, he seems to be describing the shooter with the gun in his right hand while his left "went to" the pistol, since it's very difficult for your left hand to "go to" where your left hand already is. Had he said that the shooter "had the gun in his left hand," it would have been an entirely different thing.So what Callaway and the girls seem to be describing is a man running from the scene while emptying his pistol as he ran by the Davises' door, but having to use his left hand "going to the gun" - probably to get the last shell or two out of the chamber - as he cleared the hedge. If so, they are consistent descriptions. Accordingly, depending upon when Davis first noticed the man "shaking the bullets loose" (or whatever her exact words were), shells could have been being deposited on the ground even before he'd cleared the front door of the home. The door unquestionably faced 10th. Am I not also remember correctly someone's description that the shooter was "throwing" or "tossing" the shells as he ran? If so, that would be consistent with the need for his hand to be "going to the gun" to get the last shell(s) out and then throwing them away (over his shoulder, back over the hedge, along the west side of the house?); even on its own, Callaway's description could be describing that as well since ... what do you do with the shells you pull out of the gun after you've pulled them out? In any case, I'm not entirely certain why the exact position of the shells after they'd been removed from the gun is important to the price of ammo in Dallas. The actions of the gunman are adequately described, and I can't seem to imagine that where they'd landed within a few yards any direction would matter to anyone not a fan of CSI shows: after all, since they weren't ejected from the weapon, but rather dropped, shaken, pulled or otherwise removed from it while the perp was on the run, their location can't pinpoint anything at all about the shooting itself. But then again ...? You've got me curious now.

Did Callaway see the shooter come through the hedge at the northeast corner from his position near the southwest corner, some yards away, or merely see him running down Patton on the opposite side of the street, after he had long since cleared the hedge? I believe Callaway saw the gunman come through the hedge at the southeast corner of 10th and Patton, which would be the northwest corner of the Davis' dwelling. This is a quote from Callaway:"When I saw him jump through that hedge, he had his pistol in a raised position and his left hand going to the pistol." This was 'on 10th' if the observer was on 10th, and 'on Patton' if the observer was on Patton. Such is the nature of street corners .... This is exactly my point regarding "shells at the scene". The shells were actually found on the west side of the building the Davis' lived, which ran along Patton. This is more than 100 feet away from the shooting site AND around the corner. If the "scene" is the entire area/block/intersection, then technically, they could be "at the scene", but there is NO way they were seen at the site of the shooting. Cigarette wrapper. You think they coordinated the story? I think not. Donnie Benavides wasn't up to the task, not then, not 40 years later. I don't think they coordinated the story at all. Hill says that he took the last cigarette out of the package and placed the shells in there. Benavides says he used a stick and put them in his cigarette package of his own. Hill later says that Poe shows him a cigarette package with 3 shells in it, that a citizen had given to Poe. Then even later, Hill states that Benavides showed him and Poe the location of the shells, but that Benavides never touched them and only he and Poe picked them up and put them in his cigarette package.No, I don't think any of the stories make sense, and that the first story of Benavides was the correct version. No shell 'near the body' because there was no body. All the shells, according to the Davis sisters-in-law and Benavides, were found off of the street in the Davis' front/side/corner yard. Side yard, yes. Never found anything regarding the front yard. The only reference I found to "corner" was the "window on the northwest corner of the house", which was actually on the west side of the house. I think your first difficulty should be cleared up by expanding your use of the concept of a "crime scene." Your comment - "The shells were actually found on the west side of the building the Davis' lived, which ran along Patton. This is more than 100 feet away from the shooting site AND around the corner. If the "scene" is the entire area / block / intersection, then technically, they could be "at the scene", but there is NO way they were seen at the site of the shooting" - suggests that the "scene" of Oswald's arrest extended no further than the actual chair he was seated in (which, by extension, could be moved completely out of Dallas, Texas and the United States by the auction of said chair!). The "scene" of an airplane crash, for example, extends backward to where the plane first scraped the tops of trees and extends forwards and sideways to the final resting point of any portion of the plane and/or its occupants. A crime scene extends to the farthest point at which there is anything of evidentiary value, and - for the purposes of security - both examples could have an additional perimeter of a distance open to the discretion of the investigators. The noun "site" is equally pliable. Now, if someone had said "we found the shells within inches of where the body was," then they're dealing with a much greater degree of exactitude than either "scene" or "site" are. Unless someone is referring to a very finite point in space - which a decent interrogator will ascertain, such as by asking "by 'site' you are referring to the place where the body fell at the time of the shooting, and not where it was at the time you found the shells [which would have been Presbyterian Hospital using my quote above!], is that correct?" - or unless you have a very specific reason for thinking that a seemingly general reference is being so specific, it is best to give latitude to the speaker whom, in most cases, you have no way of questioning for clarification. At least the same degree of latitude - and probably much more! - should be granted non-professional witnesses in their verbal and unclarified descriptions. It would otherwise be like calling an officer who was photographed in front of the Texas Theater a "xxxx" because he testified that he (1) was at the 'scene' of Oswald's arrest and (2) never actually stepped into the theater lobby, much less the seating area proper. This is especially true in the case of Hill's deposition, which could more accurately be termed a "narrative" or "discussion" rather than "testimony" because it was one of the very few such departures from the usual question-and-answer format the vast majority of witnesses were subject to. It was as if Joe Ball had said, "Hi, Jerry, I'm with the Warren Commission, why don't you tell us your story? If I have any questions, I'll let you know." Hill carried on so long between Ball's interjections that any number of questions and clarifications could have been made, but weren't. It was more of a casual conversation than a deposition except that Hill was under oath. For as little as that really mattered .... It should also be pointed out that Hill was not an investigator, but was merely a patrol officer conveniently wearing civilian clothes while being temporarily assigned to the personnel division, thus being mistaken for a real detective during the primary investigation (the one and only reason Poe even thought to give the shells to him). He was so "visible" during the assassination weekend not because of his authority or expertise, but because prior to becoming a police officer, he was a media person ... "one of our own" to the reporters in Dallas that weekend, a "sympathetic mouthpiece" as it were. As to your saying that "the events surrounding the Tippit murder are of GREAT interest to me," so should they be to ALL of us. It is, after all, the Rosetta Stone of the assassination ... David Belin's bland assertion to 'prove' a different point notwithstanding.

Can you provide the source(s) for this statement? R. A. Davenport & W. R. Bardin were the officers who filled out the report.Curiously, the time of 1:15 is typed over what appears to be a time of 1:00. If I knew how to remove my other posts images I could post the doc. for you all. Chuck Good catch on this one, Chuck. Maybe you can just post the link, or provide the box no., assuming it is in the Dallas archive. Hill made two trips to the crime scene. On his first trip he radiod in the information that the murder weapon appeared to be an automatic (based on the fact that there was a shell were shells at the scene). In his Warren Commission testimony, Hill denied that it was he who made that call to the dispatcher. My guess is that he was embarrased by his faux pas. He has since recanted.On his second trip, some time later, Benavides showed him two shells in a cigarette package. It was only then that Hill actually examined the shells. I repeat that there is no evidence, as far as I know, that Hill had actually examined a shell or shells at the time he made the inference that the murder weapon was an automatic. Going strictly from memory, I recall that Hill lectured (none dare call it 'testimony!') that he was shown the shells in a cellophane cigarette pack wrapper by Poe, and that he told Poe to hang onto them 'to preserve the chain of evidence.' Tho' we can't be absolutely certain (going as we are from testimony and such given some months after the event), it doesn't seem to me that Hill ever 'examined' the shells, but merely deduced that they were automatics because they were at the scene - as opposed to 'near the body' because the body had been removed before any police had responded, thanks to Mrs Wright's phone call immediately after the incident occurred - and therefore could be presumed to have been ejected, as only an automatic would do. Who, after all, would consider a perp to empty shells onto the ground, potentially with his fingerprints (did somebody say 'fingerprints?' What did 'Oswald' do with his gloves anyway? Surely he must have used them to ensure he left no prints ...?) on them at the scene? This only makes sense if the perp knows that his prints won't be found .... Did Callaway see the shooter come through the hedge at the northeast corner from his position near the southwest corner, some yards away, or merely see him running down Patton on the opposite side of the street, after he had long since cleared the hedge? Already noted above. This was 'on 10th' if the observer was on 10th, and 'on Patton' if the observer was on Patton. Such is the nature of street corners .... Cigarette wrapper. You think they coordinated the story? I think not. Donnie Benavides wasn't up to the task, not then, not 40 years later. No shell 'near the body' because there was no body. All the shells, according to the Davis sisters-in-law and Benavides, were found off of the street in the Davis' front/side/corner yard.

Isn't that what research is, in part: initiative? No kudos necessary, it's hardly the first time. Still working on the James Worrell story, too ... and that's just a couple of current projects. In no particular order: Olds learned of Cohen's "investigation" the other night. I will trust that what he said is true and he's not pulling my leg. This underscores my point about "official" investigations: not only did Cohen not tell Olds and the Board about it within the two weeks between Cohen's interview and Olds', but he apparently never told them about it in any way. The term "investigation" implies something more in-depth than mere "asking around" - which is my guess about what Cohen did ... so far, anyway - or "making inquiries," which is about all the FBI or anyone would credit you or me with doing; it implies much greater thoroughness and credence, which did not necessarily apply here. That is all I'd hoped that this inquiry had cleared up for you. Olds didn't "dismiss" the findings of Cohen's "asking around" or "inquiry," he just never knew about it. As to the WC's failure to question him ...? I dunno yet. And as for Cohen's current whereabouts, I've got some places to look, but nothing definitive yet. As far as Greg knows, Barry's still alive (in his 70s). Which "for same" are you referring to in your last question? For going to the ACLU meeting ("DCLU" as Olds calls it: Dallas Civil Liberties Union, the "A" apparently being reserved for the national organization), or for supposedly shooting Kennedy? You will recall that in addition to seeing or not seeing LHO at the DCLU meeting, Olds also went to DPD on both Friday and Saturday with DCLU attorneys (and told that LHO "did not request counsel") as well as to the Six Flags Motel to check up on Marina and company that weekend. That he followed the Oswald saga in the papers should be no surprise. Greg Olds says the following (and at some point, he may post here directly ...?): Hi, Duke — After your call, I checked what I had written from that period [GO is a journalist by profession - DL]. I find it was Michael Paine who brought Oswald to the Friday, Oct. 25, DCLU meeting. I don't mention whether Ruth Paine was there but am all but sure she was not. I have it that Michael Paine explained later (to someone who then told me) that he had brought Oswald to the DCLU meeting because Oswald had expressed interest in public affairs and Paine liked the ACLU's principles. Oswald rose during discussion that night (after a movie had been shown) to say that he had heard both anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic statements at a U.S. Day rally two nights before. I guess this was the Birch Society gathering. This was in reply to a DCLU member having just said that, although the Birch Society attracted anti-Semites it was not necessarily anti-Semitic. I recalled someone at the meeting saying he had gone to both the Stephenson speech and the US Day gathering the previous two nights as an observer. The person saying this was later identified to me as Oswald. And Michael Paine was quoted to me as having said he thought Oswald had gone to those two meetings to confirm his suspicion that people would be there who represented "the worst kind of America." Paine explained that antipathy to ultraconservatism was the only thing in which he and Oswald agreed. In a subsequent email, he wrote: I know what you mean about "manufactured memory." Until I read my notes after your call, I didn't know just how I "knew" it was Oswald at the Friday ACLU meeting. I also find, after reading some of what I wrote around 1990, from notes made in late '63 and early '64, that I must not ever have spoken with Michael Paine, except perhaps to have shaken hands at a meeting or such. I was told about him and what he had to say by several people, DCLU members, after 11/22. Finally (all I've got time for tonight), regarding your "funny" comment about civil libertarians deigning to suggest to other what to think, it's my experience - through several organizations - that anyone who's not a dead-in-the-middle-of-the-road moderate is almost always willing to tell others how to think: like they do! Until and unless GO decides to join in our discussion, I'll pass along question and answers to and from him as appropriate. Good night for now!

It's true, and the source was probably an alias, someone claiming to be an "investigator from Waco," possibly - but by no means certainly - associated somehow with the Garrison deal. Email me if you need more details (not that I've got a lot more than that).

Holy batxxxx. Are we talking about the small Dallas branch of the very democratic ACLU, or the Kremlin? Even the head office in New York wasn't that rigid in structure. Your argument thus far: it had to be a formal investigation authorised by Olds, or it had no merit. No doubt, Cohen had to hand in a report in triplicate, as well - a mere verbal report not being worth the paper it's written on! Okay....Having just gotten off of the phone with Mr Olds about half an hour ago, I will concede that Barry Cohen - who had an "inquiring mind," as Olds put it - conducted his own "inquiries" into the whole Oswald thing, unbeknownst to the president or other members of the ACLU board. Cohen was apparently the treasurer of the Dallas ACLU chapter, and apparently made these inquiries on his own, and never reported the results of any such investigation to anyone other than the FBI. (Funny that a guy who was concerned with "civil liberties" would run directly to the cops, but that's the way it works sometimes, I guess.) Olds also said that he knew Michael Paine and Ruth "quite well" prior to the assassination, hence his notice of Oswald - or someone - having been with MP at the October 25 meeting. "I can even recall where they sat," he said, emphasizing that his memory of that period is "quite vivid" (in response to my query if his memory had "changed" in the past 40 years). So that part's cleared up, I hope to your satisfaction as well as mine. I've email the link to this forum and this thread to Mr. Olds, so anything else he cares to add (or correct!), I guess he can do himself if he chooses. If not, he's at least invited me to call him back whenever convenient. That's all I've got time for right now, but some of your other commentary deserves comment. Read the testimony of Dr Rivilo Pendleton Oliver (15H709-744) to see where I'll be going ....

Forgive me: I'm new to this particular line of inquiry, so may not have all of my facts straight, but here are some of the facts I've been able to discern so far: First, that Greg Olds was the President of the ACLU Dallas chapter and was at the meeting in question on Friday, October 25 (a night, incidentally, that LHO normally spent with Marina and June at Ruth's ... from whom Michael was separated). He said that it he could not recall whom it was who'd said Oswald had been at the meeting, not that he couldn't recall who'd said Michael Paine was there. He volunteered his "belief" (the FBI's word) that Paine had brought Oswald to the meeting, if in fact Oswald was there at all. Barry Cohen was not at the meeting, so he had no personal knowledge of either Oswald or Paine - Michael or Ruth - having been there, but had only learned, as a result of his "investigation," that Ruth had invited Oswald there. Cohen was a member of the ACLU (albeit a "very active" one), but did not claim to have been an officer of the organization, and thus had no authority to conduct a formal investigation into the matter. He also did not claim to have been requested to conduct an investigation, nor to have reported (or to have been requested to report) his findings to anyone in authority. Olds, who did have that authority, stated that he did not "undertake" an investigation, which means not only did he not do so personally, but as President, did not apparently authorize, request or condone such an investigation: any investigation would have been "his" regardless of who did the actual legwork. Olds was interviewed fifteen days after Cohen was interviewed (December 19 vice December 4), and not only did not mention or refer to Cohen's investigation, but also specifically denied that one had been undertaken by his authority. These are facts, all referenced in the preceding discussion (as well as CE1151 and CE1388). Further, then, to your comment "It is difficult to imagine Cohen was misinformed, or in some other way, screwed up this simple assignment:" on the contrary, it is very easy, to me, to imagine that Cohen was misinformed - that is, given wrong information - and more importantly, there is no evidence at all to suggest Cohen's "investigation" was in any way an "assignment," simple or otherwise. Otherwise, if Cohen was the "unrecalled" source of the information that Olds cited, we must then believe that Olds "couldn't remember" whom he had "assigned" to the "investigation" he denied having undertaken. The clear inference, then, is this: Cohen's "investigation" was personal, informal and without bearing. It was, in sum, hearsay and guesswork. And he kept it to himself (and the FBI). Second, while it may seem that in the period leading up to the October 25 ACLU meeting, there were two others, respectively, of the "Walker group" (possibly on Wednesday, October 23) and the JBS "recruiting meeting" meeting MP had gone to on the night of the spit-a-thon (Thursday, October 24). The facts do not support that in full. Paine did not (in his initial testimony anyway) specify the date of the ACLU meeting, nor its date relationship to the ACLU meeting, nor the ACLU's meeting relative to when Adlai had his "unhappy incident," which was on October 24. The ACLU meeting was on the 25th; the meeting Paine had attended was also on the 24th. Paine noted that LHO had been to a meeting "a night or two before" the ACLU meeting, noting only that that meeting was of "the right-wing group" where there were "people on the platform speaking for the Birch Society." That would also be an adequate - and expected! - description of the JBS "recruiting" meeting that Mike had attended the night before. His description of the meeting LHO had attended "a night or two before" certainly encompasses "the night before," wouldn't you agree? This is called tap-dancing. Mike simply didn't want to say that he'd taken Lee to a right-wing meeting and a "left-wing" meeting too. It was Krystinik who said that "a night or two nights before" the ACLU meeting, Oswald had attended "the General Walker meeting." His time frame is the same as Mike's except, of course, that neither of them mention Mike as having been at the JBS meeting the night before, and Mike didn't mention Walker being at the meeting he'd attended, implying instead (if only by omission) that LHO had gone on his own. While I agree that "the Walker group" and JBS were often considered separate, Walker, you will recall, did not claim affiliation with any particular group and was, in fact, a champion of the right-wing movement in general (in his testimony before WC counsel, he was only asked about - and disclaimed - membership in the Minutemen): he supported The Cause, and didn't have to be - and could truthfully disavow being - a "member" of any one of the various organizations that formed it. Generals, after all, lead armies ... they don't "belong" to batallions! Walker was a high-ranking, widely-respected and popular speaker at events for several groups, all of whom were happy to claim him as one of their own even if he did not reciprocate. There is absolutely no reason, therefore, to think either that Walker was not welcome at - nor that he would not attend - a JBS meeting, or that he could not have attended the Thursday JBS meeting that Mike was at because he was too busy spitting at the Senator. Generals - especially those who are West Pointers, as Walker was (and as too were both his father and son) - just don't do that sort of thing. The inference and reasonable conclusion, then, is that Walker was at the JBS meeting on Thursday, October 24, while Adlai was busy being a target ... and so were both Mike Paine and Lee Oswald. A big question, then, is why Mike didn't want to make this fact plain and instead chose to dance around it ... just as he did under oath more specifically when confronted with Marina's testimony that said the same thing that I concluded above: that the two of them had gone to a meeting at which Walker was present. Why? (I said that "the facts don't support the three-meeting scenario in full:" it remains possible, however, that there was a Wednesday "Walker group" meeting that was a "pep rally" for the anti-Stevenson demonstration ... but I don't think that was really necessary: it only became a "big" incident as a result of spontaneity, and wasn't - until after the fact - anything that a general needed to organize or attend. The other mitigating factor is LHO's CPUSA letter talking of the October 23 meeting ... but we all know Lee was pretty dyslexic about dates and spellings, so ...?) Finally, as to Helligas, he stated only that he "recognized" Oswald from TV coverage after the assassination as someone he'd spoken with almost a month before, that conversation so un-noteworthy as to be unrecalled other than "something ... about the projector ... some comment about how the projector worked." In sum, Oswald was someone he'd "recognized" only as a result of his sudden infamy and consequent news coverage. We will recall that Howard Brennan, William Whaley and numerous other November 22 witnesses "remembered" Oswald after he'd been on TV, as had several other people who'd "seen him" at places like rifle ranges, car dealerships, gun and furniture shops, barber shops and more ... places he apparently never been. Why should Helligas' memory be more accurate? Or, for that matter, why should the person he'd claim to have seen been Oswald more so than the rest? According to Krystinik, they were more than just work associates, Duke. Mr. LIEBELER. You are a friend of Michael Paine's? Mr. KRYSTINIK. I would like to consider myself a friend of his... He makes no note of other social engagements between them other than having MP, separated from Ruth, to dinner at his house. That he would "like to consider" himself a friend, that is his perception or wish alone. Mike only called Frank "an associate from work." Some friend, eh?You also said: ... but you never ascribed one. Care to elaborate?

... and let's not forget, while we're at it, that Earl Warren was the governor of California during WWII and strongly supported - and indeed, implemented - the detention of Japanese-Americans during that period. One very nearly gets the impression that he understood the word "expedience," and the phrase "for the greater good." One also wonders, in that light, what it was that LBJ might have said that supposedly brought tears to his eyes, and what pressures the President might have brought to bear on the ex-governor during the week following the assassination of his predecessor.