Duke Lane

Fascinating, indeed, tho' there is one other possibility with respect to where the info came from, and that is DPD Intelligence (which is not necessarily an oxymoron!). Recall the case of Joe Molina, another TSBD employee who was investigated - some would say "harassed" - by investigators after the assassination. They kept tabs on him because of his membership in something called the "GI Forum." It was akin to a VFW or American Legion, though aimed more toward Mexican-American veterans; the biggest achievement they claimed - and it may still be their true crowning glory - was in having veterans benefits extended to those of Mexican descent who served. Molina was apparently like many "V" members are today: proud to be a veteran, and glad to exchange war stories over a beer or two. Joe was interested for the social aspects of the group, and did not appear (or claim) to be interested in the "political" functions the Forum pursued. Whether this means he liked to practice 12-ounce curls after work, or whether it's where he took his wife to dance on Saturday nights, your guess is as good as mine. Nevertheless, Molina was considered a "subversive" (and, in fact, somewhere on this forum, someone suggested the possibility, however remote, that LHO had been hired into the TSBD to "keep his eye on" Molina), as were most left-leaning organizations, ones far to the right of anything like CPUSA; even the ACLU was considered worthy of infiltration. Some writers (from outside of Texas) considered "radical right" to be "middle of the road" in Dallas! Thus to suggest that DPD was well aware of LHO does not seem a large stretch. Only a few years before, he'd been headlined as a defector, and only a short while before noted to have returned. At one point, as memory serves, he attended an ACLU meeting or rally with none other than Michael Paine, whom some people consider to be much farther to the right than attending anything ACLU-related would seem to suggest. His "Soviet" background, his Russian wife, his pro-Castro activities in N'Orleans, his attendance at an ACLU event ... how is he likely to have escaped their radar if Molina and his bunch of Mexican US Service Veterans were caught square within it? I also don't think it a far stretch for LE and military types in and around Dallas to have unofficially exchanged information about what they were doing and who they were keeping tabs on, even if they didn't do so officially. Hoover, we know, was also very much to the right of center, and sympathetic (it would seem) to Walker and his JBS/Minutemen cohorts: witness both Walker and Hoover's regular use of the name "Rubenstein" even though Jack's name had legally been "Ruby" for years! While his stricture to his agents was to get as much information from the locals as possible while giving as little as possible in return, there is always a quid pro quo when it comes to exchanging information. How much is "too much?" No, "DPD Intelligence" is not an oxymoron, and frankly, I think the "Keystone Kops" rep they gained after the assassination has served them well.

Jim, the Sixth Floor Museum has a "Walker Collection," papers deposited with them by Walkers former personal secretary. I don't know what the difference, if any, is between what you're referring to v. what 6FM's got. At some point in the near future, I'm planning on going there to peruse what is there; Gary says it's mostly news clippings and such, but I'll see if I can't give you some sort of synopsis based on my own observation. They may also have a catalog or something available, and if so, I'll manage to get you a copy. If I recall correctly, a friend of mine has copies of the original police report of the April 9 Walker shooting, which states, among other things, that the slug found embedded in his wall was a "steel jacketed .38-cal bullet." Somewhat along the lines of the MSC are the "(White) Citizens Councils" formed in many Southern cities, which Dallas likewise had (tho' they didn't use the "white" imprimatur). A book entitled The Decision Makers: The Power Structure of Dallas (Carol Estes Thometz; SMU Press, Dallas, November 1963) takes a pretty interesting look at it and sort-of "names names" inasmuch as it identifies the individuals by profession, but not specifically by name. Its membership is a matter of public record, and may even be available online. One of their chief functions was "picking" the mayor and city council. The Decision Makers was referred to extensively in an article entitled "Tussle in Texas" by Saul Friedman in The Nation (Feb 3 1964, pp 114-117), a copy of which can be read on this forum here. A more readable copy can be found on Ken Rahn's site, The Academic JFK Assassination Site, the basic thrust of which is "if you think scientifically and critically, you can only reach the same conclusions I have," or the more succinct version: "I am right, you are wrong." This is why all scientists agree with evolution. I mean, with intelligent design. No, no, I mean creationism. Well, you know what I mean that they all agree on!

"Won't get fooled again" was definitely The Who! The other quote is "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!"

Ron, Use "Andrews AFB, MD" in the "city,state or zip" field and you'll get it. Then click on the "From Here" link at the upper left of the map picture and enter in either of the two addresses you've got for Walter Reed and Bethesda. While the maps we looked at gave the entry to Bethesda from whatever US Hwy that was, that hardly means that is the only possible way into the compound. In a place as relatively small as the Dallas VAMC, there are at least five, possibly six entrances from three different streets.

Robin, best I could do, no longer living there. These things aren't perfect, but the point is nevertheless made. Yahoo maps. Hope the link works!

Thanks, Tim. I've always assumed there was a logical explanation behind it, and I'm glad to see that it's been cleared up and the CIA is now investigating it. Under DCI Goss, I would expect nothing less than a full public apology, and a full-scale attempt at recovering as much of this valuable information as humanly possible. FYI, not long ago, the story was going around that it had something to do with the "Red Act," but research yielded the fact that it had either been repealed some years ago, or else had never been passed into law. (This is a matter of continuing inquiry. I will provide updates as necessary.) Frankly, I didn't expect you to post this given that the author is a rather obscure fellow, and especially with your reputation as an excoriator of all things right of center. Shows good balance, keep it up!

[deleted - added to 1st post]

They won't? You sure? It's kinda what I'd hoped for! Damn! Well, if they ain't, there ain't no sense hangin' 'round no more! Please ignore all previous posts if you haven't already!!

Okay, so I lied ... but I got your attention, didn't I? And since I've got it, let me ask why, if Lynne Foster bothers everybody so much, everybody continues to reply to her? Weren't you ever a kid? Didn't your mother tell you that the monsters under the bed (and the school bully) would go away if you'd just ignore them? Your continued replies perpetuate her posts, give her something to reply to (and you again in turn), and take up a lot of real estate, detracting from whatever the topic is at hand. The language (which doesn't make me blush) sometimes leaves something to be desired as well. Enough already, okay? Sheesh! [Added:] Thanks to Adam's post (see below), you can make this happen: Is this cool or what?

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security." On 11/22/63, DPD was "the men on the ground," the "tactical squad" if you will. There were many more doings that they had sole control over, and looking closely at some of those will tell a lot about how some of the "tactical" aspects of the murder(s) were accomplished. Think "Tippit killing" here, too, and "the Oswald in the basement trick." I do not fault the DPD on the assassination although the issues of allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass was poor judgement or miscommunication, regardless, it should not have happened. The DPD were stretched very thin.... DPD major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident. It should have been shut down and it would not have been difficult to do as it was already shut down to vehiclular traffic and with the DCSO manpower standing around a block away, they could have sealed it off from pedestrians going in and preventing wits from going out. If only the simple measures raised by Al Carrier had been taken, many of the questions with which we still wrestle would be long-ago answered. What if we had the identification of the men who appeared to assemble at Houston and Main Streets? I do have some difficulty with reports of policemen confronting self-proclaimed Secret Service agents and not being a bit more tenacious about examining the identifications. Imagine the historical difference if just one Secret Service imposter had been caught up in the kind of quickly established cordon described by Al. ... Further to my last(?) response, who knew enough that USSS agents were not in the Plaza to be so supremely confident in impersonating one? Did cops actually expect there to be (i.e., were they briefed as to their anticipated presence)? In the heat of the moment, and given the urgency of the situation, chances are most cops are not going to "grill" others who at least appear to be cops, especially federal. Had the situation been different - i.e., the guy with USSS creds actually was USSS - and a local detained him such that killers were allowed to escape, we'd probably be vilifying that poor, stupid cop who kept the USSS agent from doing his job! I'm certain the USSS has been berating themselves with "if only ..." scenarios for 42 years. I think it was probably only a matter of time before many of the cops in the plaza, with little else to do, would have started searching vehicles, trying to open trunks (boots), etc., and I'd say it's pretty much a certainty that nobody would have been driving out of the parking lots without having their vehicles searched. But fortuitously (which is distinct from "fortunately!"), a cop got killed and those who felt their duties in the plaza weren't critical (most of them) went chasing the cop killer. That is how anyone hiding in the parking lot got away: as soon as the cops took off, so did the assassins. That is also why JD Tippit died: if the cops had stuck around long enough to actually find someone in a trunk with a rifle, people higher on the food chain would've been twisting in the wind. As to a list of license plates, I suspect this would have gone the way of the list of people present in the Texas Theater.

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security." ... Duke, I do not fault the DPD on the assassination although the issues of allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass was poor judgement or miscommunication, regardless, it should not have happened. The DPD were stretched very thin as the motorcade route was long and tedius as it covered a long route of slow movement with an open limo. Dallas was not the first time this occurred, but it was an ideal killing zone throughout the motorcade for a sniper. Because of the availability of the target with the terrain afforded throughout, there was little anyone could have done to prevent a successful attempt on the life of the president. Where it became ingenious was the ability to pull it off and escape. DPD major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident. It should have been shut down and it would not have been difficult to do as it was already shut down to vehiclular traffic and with the DCSO manpower standing around a block away, they could have sealed it off from pedestrians going in and preventing wits from going out. Al So whom do you fault? You asked what group had the power to "call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect," and you got your answer. The SS was not on the ground in DP or anywhere along the parade route; the cops were. DPD was the on-the-ground security, they assigned jobs to each and every officer along the route including in DP. They were the ones who opened the crime scene - that they alone were in charge of - to traffic, who did not secure any of the buildings around the plaza (not just including TSBD) ... the list goes on, right down to how many motorcycles flanked the VIP cars in the motorcade! If you want to consider them screw-ups, fine. Certainly, if the Dallas cops were dumb enough not only to lose a President - under their protection, in their town - but also lose his supposed assassin - in their custody, in their headquarters - then perhaps they were too stupid to do anything right ... except, of course, identify the sole assassin long before the vaunted FBI did! DPD "had the power to call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect" because they were the security. Nobody else. Full stop. Perhaps the problem lies here: We can't use today's standards to evaluate the performance of the USSS 42 years ago. What they do today, they do in many respects largely due to the events of Friday, November 22. Have you ever seen a US President in a convertible since then? Before that, it was commonplace. Presidents used to actually walk in public, and in fact, one or two almost died because of it, and one did. What "usual security precautions are always in effect – by law – whenever a President travels" today were not always in effect ... and frankly, I don't think that Congress enacted any such law as to how the USSS will protect the president. I think that is a matter of internal regulation and procedure.

While Bill Drenas is a good buddy of mine and a very diligent researcher, I have difficulties with this report that he seems to accept so readily (see my post above: does it have anything to do with "injection?"). Here are some of them: The above map shows the immediate area where all these events took place that Friday afternoon. The intersection of 10th and Patton can be seen near the upper right, and the Top Ten Record Shop is located just east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Jefferson and Bishop, on the south side of Jefferson. By the Top Ten account, Tippit was parked on Bishop, drove across Jefferson and one block north, then turned right, going out of sight. You can see that Sunset "tees" at Beckley (that's the heavy-lined street going north-south immediately to the east of Zang(s) Blvd). You will also notice that the dividing line between "East" and "West" streets is Beckley as well, and that W 10th is the street running east-west immediately to the north of Sunset (sorry, the "10th W" doesn't appear on this portion of the map). This means that Tippit took off eastward toward his "final" destination, then drove north somewhere along Sunset (or maybe at Zangs or Beckley), then sped westward away from his final destination, pulled Andrews over somewhere around or between Adams and Llewellyn, acted like a maniac on a mission, jumped back into his car, speeding off westward again away from where he eventually ended up. We "next" encounter Tippit cruising slowly along East 10th, which means he turned north onto Llewellyn, east onto W 9th, crossed Zangs and Beckley (both fairly major intersections), turned south on Storey, then east on E 10th (or maybe he drove south on Beckley and turned off on Cumberland?). This is not a straight drive, but a someone circuitous route at best. If he was "on a mission" (my words), then it only involved 10th St; if he was a "speeding maniac" (mine again) on W 10th, what changed his demeanor so drastically by the time he got a few blocks away? Whether or not you choose to believe Helen Markham's "real friendly like," the fact remains that nobody said anything that even remotely suggested the same kind of manic behavior described by Andrews. Most importantly, why go speeding westward so you can cruise slowly eastward? Something just doesn't jibe here. Another thing is that Andrews apparently got "perplexed" the moment he stopped. I mean, put yourself in his shoes: a cop car cuts you off, cop jumps out of his car, runs back to yours, doesn't say a word as he looks into your car, then he turns around and runs back to his car and speeds away. I'd say "perplexed" came after the cop would've already gone back to his car, as in "wow, wasn't that strange! I wonder what it was all about?" Too late, in other words, to read his name badge. Prior to that, what would your reaction be to a cop doing to you what Tippit supposedly did to Andrews? Wouldn't you be a bit afraid, perhaps, when a cop pulls something like that? I know I would be. In fact, I'd be downright freaked out. Read his name badge? Ha! Not until I knew he wasn't going to drag me out of the car right away and handcuff me for some unknown reason or maybe even shoot me! By then, he was already running back to his car. Actually, the only thing that convinces me that Tippit might've stopped in the Top Ten store is that he didn't answer a radio call, and may well have been away from the radio. After all, hadn't he just been told to be "at large" in case an emergency came in? "At large" means "patrol at will, we've got nothing for you right now." What even made him go running into the record shop? With all this excitement he was apparently going through, why do you suppose he didn't jump out of his cruiser and tackle the guy walking along 10th?? Either something changed drastically between W 10th and E 10th, or the stuff on the west side didn't happen ... at least, not the way it's described.

Some clarifications: unbeknownst to many people, myself included until just a couple of weeks ago, is that behind the houses on that block of 10th Street are ... other houses! That's right, there is one house on the lot facing 10th and accessed by 10th, and there are other houses facing and accessed by the alleyway (the sole exception in this immediate area being 400 E 10th)! The homes that are there right now are not new, but I don't know how old (20? 30? 40? 50? years old?? I'll attempt to verify this when I'm over that way next), and the driveways of the older homes do not go completely through, at least not anymore. The neighborhood is undergoing a lot of renovation right now - very few older homes left on the 400 block - and I've got the name of the builder, so I will see what additional information I can gather on this. More importantly, Tippit's car was not "in front of the [10th] Street entrance" as the driveway was to the east of the home. Recall Charlie Davis' testimony: "he was shot in front of the hedgerow between the house next door and the one he lives in." They don't plant hedgerows in driveways! That is as my memory serves: one of the contemporaneous photos showing the location would be a better record, but I do recall bushes rather than a driveway being beside the car. Finally - and less importantly - the statement that "the man in the driveway was apparently also seen by others" is not supported by the comment "a resident of the neighborhood ... told Prof Pulte ... that he had heard about a man in the driveway who approached Tippit's car..." (my emphasis). We don't know the source of the story this anonymous person merely heard, and it could have been third- or fourth-hand originating with Mrs. Holan (if it was ever even true in 1963)! FWIW, I have run across people around who feel it necessary, for some reason, to inject themselves into the story. Most recently it was a retired cop who was hanging out at Dealey Plaza this last November 22. His story was that, in 1963, he was an undercover cop investigating drug deals. He had, he said, long hair and a beard. He also said that he was "one of two officers" who handcuffed Oswald. His name is not referenced anywhere in the reports discussing Oswald's arrest, nor in any of the "theater" officers' testimonies, but (you'd think) that's because he was undercover and they wouldn't want him to somehow be identified, right? But has anyone ever seen a long-haired cop in any of the photographs taken in the theater, or do you suppose someone has artfully cropped him out to preserve his cover? This is an observation, and not necessarily a reflection on Mrs. Holan.

1. Soft Drink Bottlers convention in Dallas on 11/21/63, thereby making the "best" location for a Presidential visit non-available, which of course also completely affected potential motorcade route. 2. Soft Drink Bottlers convention organized by Pepsi-Cola 3. Richard M. Nixon, guest speaker at convention 4. Richard M. Nixon, lawyer, representing Pepsi-Cola 5. Pepsi-Cola and direct relationship to various CIA endeavors. 6. Klein's Sporting Goods actually owned by Pepsi-Cola The "best" location for Kennedy's speech was the Women's Building, so determined by the USSS. If memory serves, that was not where the bottlers' convention was held. As to Klein's, you have evidence of that? This is perceptive, but unfortunately does not reflect much knowledge of the convention industry. First, no convention can be scheduled on short notice, not even small ones. One issue, of course, is the venue: other groups will want to use it, so you've got to have the space reserved well in advance (call the Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau - 214-571-1301 - and ask them when the next available date for a convention of about 500 people will be, with, say, 75 vendors also having wares and services to display). Other issues involve getting speakers, participants and vendors: guys (and gals) who run bottling operations are by no means your average blue-collar worker, nor entrepreneurs struggling to build a small business. Consequently, their time is valuable, and cannot (on a scale large enough to create a "convention") be co-opted on short notice because of a meeting that has to be held on the day the President is driving through town. The same holds true of the speakers - there would have to be many more than just Nixon if you're going to call this a "convention" (otherwise, it was a bottler's junket just to hear Nixon speak? I think not) - as well as the vendors ... and there are always vendors at any trade convention: the fees they pay to exhibit their goods and services offset a very large portion of the rental costs! Even a convention of relational database (software) manufacturers, wholesales and users (both corporate and consultive), of which I would bet there are no more of these guys than there were (or are) soft drink bottlers (we're talking bottlers here, not manufacturers), more than a year to put an event together. The November 1963 bottlers' convention was not put together in very much, if any, less time. Second, no convention creates a situation where the police force of any but the smallest towns (that wouldn't be able to host a convention anyway) are "drawn quite thin." This was not a demonstration by potentially unruly people, and even today at a reasonably large convention, there are generally not more than a half-dozen to a dozen cops assigned to it, and most often they are off-duty officers hired by the convention organizers; I'd be quite surprised if there were even that many at the bottlers' convention. What was the need? Furthermore, a look at police assignments for November 22 shows that, where officers were reassigned from their regular duties, it was because they were assigned to assist with the Presidential visit. There is no indication whatsoever that any officers were assigned to the bottlers' convention in lieu of their regular duties. If the presence of the bottlers' convention "set the stage" for anything, it did so well in advance of anyone ever planning the Presidential trip and motorcade, and was likely no more than a small "blip on the screen" when it came to planning anything.

Actually, it is an interesting and fairly well-balanced discussion. I think Morley's most perceptive comment, however, is: Stone's critics in the mainstream media would enhance their credibility with the conspiracy-minded public if they demanded that the government obey the JFK Records Act with the same vehemence that they denounce Stone.

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security." On 11/22/63, DPD was "the men on the ground," the "tactical squad" if you will. There were many more doings that they had sole control over, and looking closely at some of those will tell a lot about how some of the "tactical" aspects of the murder(s) were accomplished. Think "Tippit killing" here, too, and "the Oswald in the basement trick." Ruby's comments should be paid attention to because he did have a clue, tho' he probably couldn't have named many names, and then not very high up on the food chain.

See AlienZoo Conspiracy Theory for more info in an account by Jim Marrs. A synopsis: Raymond Lee Harvey was a "grubby transient" who the SS noticed "acting nervous" as Carter's appearance was approaching. They were found to have a .22-cal 8-shot revolver and 60 rounds of blank ammunition, a "cap gun" in other words. A Secret Service spokesman called it "as nothing as these things get." Apparently, Harvey fingered 21-year-old Osvaldo Espinoza-Ortiz as a "co-conspirator," the two of them "local street people" supposedly hired by a couple of Mexican "hit men" to create a diversion while the Mexicans killed Carter. They took authorities to a nearby hotel where they found an empty rifle case and three(!) rounds of live ammo. The room was rented under the name of Umberto Camacho, who had checked out on the day of the Carter visit. Elsewhere on the net, in the Vanderbilt Television News Archives, we find that Walter Cronkite devoted two full minutes to this episode on May 11, six days after it occurred. On May 29, Cronkite gave it another 20 seconds' coverage noting that a federal prosecutor in Louisiana was seeking dismissal of the charges against the pair due to "insufficient evidence." It strikes me that if someone wants to take the time (someone who lives nearby, that is), they should be able to visit LAPD or other court/law enforcement archives and get more in-depth information on this. The SS is who took these guys into custody, so info may also be available at NARA. The SS considered it a "nothing" event, and it might well have been just that: nothing. A warning, or more likely a prank? I think it odd that any "hit men" would tell "street people" what it is they ultimately planned to do; more likely, they'd have just recruited them to shoot off the blanks with no real idea why they were doing it. They even let these "street people" know where they were staying - not just the hotel, but the particular room! This does not seem to be a good practice for anyone really planning anything of the sort: what would have prevented the "decoys" from running right to the cops? And why would someone leave behind a rifle case? So they could carry a rifle out in plain public view? And then what, after they'd hit Carter? Have nothing in which to conceal a weapon in the area where the President was just killed? (Well, I suppose it has happened before, eh?) The empty rifle case - which is not a weapon, of course - and the three live rounds is pretty allusional, don't you think, tho', especially when coupled with the names of these guys (which, if they were street people, were probably fictional, and they probably didn't have ID as is the case with most of them). But then, who knows? Rather than speculation, some hard data would be useful and probably more instructive. We can't just assume that since nobody's produced it, it therefore doesn't exist. Any takers?

Yo! Duke, and hello Deb, If we have to wait on the State of Texas for justice, it'll never happend. That's why we have the busiest execution chamber in the nation! I will remember never to argue law with you, then!! But seriously, isn't homicide the only one of them that doesn't have a statute of limitations? Or because the primary crime is murder, do the rest of them attach even still? I agree re the Pinkerton doctrine (not the famous Pinkerton of Secret Service fame!), but I have no idea whether it applies over any time period.

Duke and folks, What the ARRB could have done is to pass on the information to a researcher. There are quite a few that were working closely with the various staffers to have done this. The failure of ANY followup on this is baffling. Unquestionably, it could have done, but one question would be "to which one?" Who would have decided what researcher (or author) was "qualified" to pass it on to, or should it have been sent out to all researchers and authors? Would having "favored" one over another constituted some sort of "endorsement," or provided an exclusive source of income (publishing a book based on "exclusive" evidence, or evidence given to me "exclusively")? No, I think the ARRB did exactly the right thing: filed it along with the rest of their stuff, to be found by ...? Yeah, it could be dangerous! I mean, after all, if these guys killed a president ...!?! What, they'd be nervous about offing someone who wrote a book? That's why I'd bring it to the authorities (whomever that might be), so I'd be safe. I was there (tho' not officially 'in attendance'): I bought Ian Griggs' book ... from you! I appreciate the invite ... but isn't the conference over?!?

Pat, many thanks. Sometimes it sucks living in Dallas because you can't just up and get away from the rest of life when something big or interesting (or both) comes to town! I'm not sure what ARRB could've or would've done since their mandate was quite limited: they didn't investigate, they didn't prosecute, they merely gathered documents. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that I'm not sure how they could have "acted upon" this information. Something to consider in the event any evidence is found: the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a state felony, it was not and is not a federal crime. The law enacted that made presidential assassinations a federal offense could not be applied retroactively, so the only "authorities" that exist are here in the State of Texas. We have already seen with the Roscoe White affair (among others) that the Texas AG takes these things fairly seriously ... if there's anything of substance to them. Mayhaps I'll find something more on the Lancer forum about this stuff(?).

The first question that pops to mind is: are either or both of these guys (Jenkins and/or Quintero) still alive? Good candidates to be involved in JFK's assassination or not, it's easy to point fingers at dead men who (1) don't point back, (2) don't shoot back, (3) will neither confirm nor deny, ergo (4) cannot provide further information or proofs, e.g., as to higher-ups (you can't assume it was done at the "operative" level or even with "field management"), (5) cannot defend themselves, (6) cannot sue, and (7) cannot be prosecuted. Accusing dead people of stuff - even if true, which requires some pretty stiff (no pun intended) proofs in my mind - is how we got bogged down in the Roscoe White business for so long (and some people still can't deal with the fact that it's BS because they don't like the messenger ... or perhaps they just like to believe all of the theories out there?). The second question that pops to mind is: what is anybody doing about it, if these guys are alive? Are they writing a book or going to the authorities? Why would Wheaton tell Law and Sobel about the others' involvement? If he wanted it known and had proof, one would think that he would go to the authorities. After all, is this a crime we're dealing with here, or merely an interesting soap opera? If Wheaton didn't want to go to the authorities for some reason, why would he tell someone who might either do just that or (more likely?) write a book about it, in any case not be quiet about it? Either because it isn't true, or that it is and he figured anyone who could do anything about it wouldn't believe a couple of "conspiracy buffs" anyway? Or perhaps another reason (like maybe they will write a book and he'll share in the royalties)? What suss you?

It looks like the thing to do is to be sure you've joined the JFK Lancer forum: Greg left a message there that he's "giving $10 per year" [subscriptions?] to JFK Lancer forum members. I can risk $10, tho' I'm not so sure about $119 or even $10 per month charged to my CC ...!

I have long been of the opinion that it would be nearly impossible - if not entirely so - to identify and, more importantly, indict any of the "top echelon" conspirators since if they had half a brain - as even anyone on this forum does, without any kind of training - they would have been cautious not to leave any incriminating evidence or connections (or, some might add, witnesses!) behind. Hell, this is what people who hire "contract killers" (who usually end up being cops ... at least in those instances that we hear about!) to kill their wives or husbands for insurance money are out to do. Some undoubtedly succeed. Those, like CIA's lament about their successful ops, we don't hear about; only the unsuccessful ones. If (some of) those people can get away with murder (quite literally), why should we not suppose that anyone "higher on the food chain" of a Kennedy hit would not do the same, only better and more successfully? Indeed, some of them (such as a J. Edgar Hoover) were so respected in their time that they would never have come under suspicion anyway, and if someone pointed the finger at them, they'd be laughed out of court. (Of course, in Hoover's case, that might no longer be the case ... but then, you'd still have to prove his involvement, right?) If - and I consider this to be a relatively large "if" - someone were able to identify the functionaries, the guys working the deal at the "street" level, and came up with a case that at least warranted official investigation, then perhaps that would lead to them identifying someone - or several someones - who had a "higher" hand in it. The trouble with that, of course, is that so many people want to be the Grassy Knoll Gunman or want to claim that someone else was (we have several examples of that even now ... it's their fifteen minutes of fame, I guess), and their stories are so full of holes if not patently false that it would be hard, I think, to get any "official" attention to the matter after all of this "crying wolf." Or, at least, harder than it may have been without these flakes: few people are aware, for example, that the Texas Attorney General's office actually began an investigation into the Roscoe White affair. That it led nowhere is, according to far too many people, a result of "the continuing cover-up" rather than the fact that evidence to the contrary outweighed the (non-existant) evidence of his guilt. As to Johnson, while again there would likely be nothing left behind with his fingerprints on it, while I've always kind-of thought of his visage in the photo taken of him behind and to the right of JFK talking in Fort Worth outside the hotel as having some sort of sinister cast to it (like "you'll be dead in a couple of hours!"), what has more struck me as odd is the photo taken of him with Harold Byrd sometime after his presidency was over: you'd think a wise politician who only attained his high office as a result of his predecessor's death would have a little more couth than to be seen - and photographed - publicly with the man who'd owned the building his predecessor was supposedly shot from! Nevertheless, absent some other form of evidence, es machts nichts. Still: to believe Lee Oswald did it by his lonesome, alone and unaided ...? Sorry, folks, but I've got a "reasonable doubt," and so would have to vote to acquit.

As Jerry Rose said, Jack Lawrence shouldn't have the last word on Jack Lawrence. I by no means intend by this to suggest that his story is a crock of bull, but rather that the denial of a "suspect" doesn't exonerate said suspect: if that were the case, every murderer who said he didn't do it would have to be set free, and the cops would have to go looking for someone else! Even incensed complaints such as Lawrence's to Inkol should be given some weight, so too should it be checked out. I'd imagine someone who was a "retired Colonel" in 1963 would no longer be with us (he'd have been at least middle aged at retirement ... or even at attaining the rank of colonel!), it remains possible that someone else was at the time of Inkol's article, or even still is today. It was honorable for Inkol to back off of his accusation after hearing from Lawrence, but perhaps a little irresponsible to assume his denial was as accurate as his earlier sources were. I can't see how looking further into it after Lawrence's denial would have irritated him further, especially given the possibility (if not the probability) that others would have corroborated his story, completely exonerating him. One of the problems "we" have in this "research community" - and I probably am affected by it to one degree or another myself - is what I call the "'if' theorem," which holds that by stringing together enough "ifs" and speculating upon what all of them together could mean, we are eventually able to reach a "conclusion of fact" based upon mere ifs. For example: If I had ever lived in Paris, and If I had firearms training, and If I had forged my birth certificate, and If I was really born in 1928 instead of 1958, and If I had left-leaning tendencies, Then: Clearly, I could have been anti-deGaulle, and I could have been familiar with some of the OAS folks who kept trying to kill him, and I could have been one of the shooters, so therefore I should be arrested, shot and hung (not necessarily in that order). Now that we have reached this dubious conclusion, it can now be cited that "Duke Lane said, in his post on the Education Forum, that he ...," and now that that has been cited as a "source of information," we can now accept it as established fact. Such is the case made, in effect, by someone else in this thread who cited Crossfire, which in turn cited High Treason ... and without bothering to look it up (and why would we need to with two citations already?), who knows what citation Livingstone and Groden gave it? (Citing Crossfire in the first place is absurd, especially since Marrs' first words were "don't believe this book!") Blind in one eye at 11 yet accepted into the armed services at 17 or 18? Highly unlikely, IMHO. Bad vision ("'blind' as a bat")? Much more possible. As Main goes west under the Triple Underpass, it merges with Commerce and is named Commerce from that point westward.

I wonder sometimes if the "back door Oswald" wasn't Johnny Calvin Brewer, who opened the back door for the police when they arrived, and apparently got a little bit toussled before he was able to convince them he was "one of the good guys?" A complete (as possible) description from each of these guys as to what they saw/experienced might help to clear this up, but after all these years ...? And, of course, one must also wonder if it is not a case of someone injecting themselves into the story to get their 15 minutes of fame.