Don Jeffries

Lee,

You are way off base here. Jim DiEugenio has produced some invaluable research over the years. To lump him in together with Gary Mack is ridiculous. Greg Parker and I have clashed at times, but I always read his posts and don't believe he's any kind of "disinfo" agent.

Seamus Coogan, like too many in the research community, has an abrasive online personality. I've certainly had my disagreements with him, but again you are irresponsible to just cavalierly label him some kind "disinfo" agent. I think John Hankey has done great research on the JFK, Jr. death, but his Bush II video was full of inaccuracies. But I don't think he's "disinfo" either.

We are all too quick to label those we disagree with as being some kind of undercover operatives. Maybe, like Jim D, I'm "covering up" for Bush, too, but I think the most powerful forces in our society came together to assassinate JFK. In 1963, George H.W. Bush was hardly that powerful.

I've been researching a slew of scandals and politcial events from the past fifty years. It is astounding that, with all the truly huge instances of abuse of power and corruption, the relatively minor scandal known as Watergate has drawn such attention. For the first and only time in my life, the mainstream media actually appeared to do its job during Watergate, with what has historically been one of the least curious organs-The Washington Post-leading the way. That ought to tell us something.

Watergate is only interesting to me in that powerful players like Helms and Hunt were involved. Considering how the press usually rolls over and plays dead during significant scandals, the fact they were so tenacious this time indicates to me that someone was indeed out to "get" Nixon and remove him from office, for whatever reason.

Len,

The testimony from Sirhan's "trial" is not at issue here. He did not have competent legal representation, much like James Earl Ray. An attorney interested in truly defending his client would have utilized the FBI and LAPD reports from witnesses reporting where Sirhan was in relation to RFK, as well as Noguchi's conclusions regarding the point of entry for RFK's fatal wound.

Unlike Oswald, Sirhan was firing a gun that night. However, the strong evidence that a bullet or bullets were found in the pantry room divider, in conjunction with the other ballistic evidence indicating more shots were fired than Sirhan's gun could hold, would have convinced reasonable people that there was another shooter. That doesn't mean a jury still wouldn't have convicted Sirhan, given their own preconceptions, but a real defense team would have helped immeasurably.

Shockingly, I am firmly convinced there was a conspiracy here.

Len,

You're playing semantic games here. Noguchi's medical report concluded that the fatal shot came from point blank range and from behind. Every witness placed Sirhan in front of RFK at all times, and never close enough to fire a point blank shot. Trying to argue that Noguchi didn't literally testify to this fact at the trial is ridiculous. The forensic evidence was crucial, and in this case it proved there had to have been a second shooter.

I thought you claimed to believe in a conspiracy?

Bernice, you are a really special person. Beautiful post.

Not only do you provide invaluable links to us all at the drop of a hat, but you may very well be the only poster on a JFK forum I've ever seen who seems respected and liked by everyone else.

Evan,

It takes a big man to defend someone who is your ideological opposite. Not only that, but someone who has said some unkind things about you in the past. I seldom agree with you about anything either, but I admire you for your magnanimous posture.

Jim Fetzer's style is grating, and he manages to sound pompous no matter what he says. I cringe every time he uses the word "egad!" However, until recently (and yes, I agree it is sad to see how tenaciously he clings to Cinque's uncredible photo interpretations), his substance has usually been impressive. It's not like he's claiming JFK survived the shooting or something. Extreme? Certainly. Outlandish. To most of us, yes. But I don't think it warrants the kind of blanket condemnation he's received from nearly everyone.

Fetzer refuses to give up, will not back down, and won't admit he's wrong. However, why do so many here keep arguing with him, when you know what the response is going to be? The same thing with Cinque; I didn't understand what he was seeing in the photos, but I did defend his right to air his opinion. I also think he made some good points, on the rare occasions he strayed from his film interpretations. In my view, there are more than reasonable doubts about the identity of the figure in the doorway. I hope that the circus sideshow surrounding Cinque's theories don't create a false consensus that this issue has been settled.

Kathy,

Did you read Tom's post? He clearly began it with "Steve Cearfoss," indicating it was directed at him, not you. Why are you still thinking he was talking to you? He posted a reply to the thread which you started, which Tom unapproved because of his photo.

Thanks for this interesting analysis, David. I think you were referring to me when you said "Don Thomas." I do wonder about the odds of Oswald having a co-worker who physically resembled him so closely, especially in view of the fact there were other "Oswalds" running around in an apparent attempt to frame him before the assassination.

Your question of why Lovelady was where he was, at that time, is a very good one. If Lovelady was in the doorway, he was not an especially important witness in any sense of the word, so the DPD bringing him in at that early stage is rather baffling.

If Oswald was supposed to be killed in the TSBD, I think that notion is contradicted by the fact he was seen getting into a Rambler shortly after the shooting, by several unconnected witnesses. Who was supposed to kill him, since those who picked him up in the Rambler would presumably have been part of the conspiracy?

Anyhow, you've provided some great food for thought here.

Thanks, Jean, I appreciate your continued interest in this important subject. I couldn't go any further than the main page you linked to, as it wouldn't permit me to "enter" as a teacher, student or parent. But judging by the look of the page, I'd say it mirrored the efforts we commonly see in the U.S.

Which brings us to another problem, as I see it. Virtually all anti-bullying campaigns in the U.S. are conducted either exclusvely by schools, or at the very least by working with the schools. No one seems to understand that, by virtue of their entrenched social hierarchical systems, the schools are a huge part of the problem. I would suggest that what is needed is a truly indepedent force to examine the entire issue from outside the walls of the schools, and to be willing to take the schools to task when appropriate. We all seem to understand that kids who are socially awkward, or overweight, or have a physical disability, are at a substantial greater risk of being bullied, but we seem unwilling to address the reality that it is the power imbalance that really causes the problem. A system which places such undue value on being the quarterback or the head cheerleader, and creates such peer ostracism for physical imperfections, is the true culprit here.

With the American culture's love of competitive sports, and the crucial role that plays in the perpetuation of the social hierarchy in schools, I don't believe the situation can or will improve. This isn't meant to criticize sports; I have been a huge fan all my life, and think it's important to play sports. However, there is little question that organized sports play a far too important role in our civilization. The underlying cause of bullying in schools must at least be identified before the problem can ever be solved. In my view, the vast majority of bullying cases in schools are caused by the collective notion of what constitutes "popularity," and the converse effects this has on those at the opposite end of the social spectrum.

In Amercia, we have a whole host of curious traditions like the voting of prom kings and queens, homecoming queens, special events like Powderpuff football and donkey basketball, which are well organized and designed exclusively to reward the most "popular" students in that given school with more acclaim and ego gratification. Little if any productive purpose, at least that I can see, is served by these events beyond that. College fraternities and sororities, with their equally curious initiation rituals, extend the high school social hierarchy idea for another four years.

The idea that middle aged men still get worked up into a frenzy over the fortunes of their old college's football and basketball teams ought to make us all pause for reflection. Powerful alums control the corrupt NCAA to a great degree, and reinforce the "tradition" that, even in institutions supposedly devoted to higher learning, superficial games played with a ball must be given first priority. In college, however, it seems that the name of the team, and the entire community inexpicably devoted to worshiping it, are more important than the individual parts of the team itself. Pep rallies and large alumni contributions seem very similar to patriotism. This differs from high school, of course, where the "popular" individuals in effect are the school's "celebrities."

While some of this may not seem to have anything to do with bullying, I think it's all directly associated. The realities of social inclusion and exclusion, ingrained in every high school student's mind through the social hierarchical sytem, lead logically to initiation rituals and outright hazing, corrupt alumni support, and a wharped set of social and financial priorities at every level of the educational system. Bullying may be found outside of this system, but when respected institutions empower some, and disable others, in such a disproportionate way, it certainly becomes easier.

Tom,

I think you're doing a great job. Don't let the criticism bother you.

Lee,

It's a good thing I checked this thread. Whether your realize it or not, you share much in common with Jim Fetzer, David Lifton, Ralph Cinque, etc. You ruin the good research and sound reasoning you often share with a combative, take no prisoners type of attitude. Most posters here have a "voice" that is recognizable. Yours is usually nasty, almost bullying.

I know my "Can't we all just get along" posts probably sound corny and sanctimonious to you. Maybe they sound that way to others. However, you are way off base in accusing me of ever commiting the same offenses I lament in others. When have I ever called another poster a name, or even snidely referred to them by their last name or a childish nickname (Glennie, Jimbo, etc.)? When have I ever attacked any other poster personally? I try to practice what I preach. I'm not perfect, but I pride myself on posting in a civil manner at all times.

Tom and I, along with the rest of the moderators, are inundated with complaints, and demands that others be moderated or banned, on an almost daily basis. Too many posters here have an impulse to censor those they disagree with. We could be censored far more heavily, like Lancer, or be like DPF, and allow a restricted level of debate. If you prefer that, those forums provide a different experience. I'm not criticizing them, as I've been a long time member of Lancer and belong to DPF as well.

I have never demanded that any member of any form be moderated or banned, with the sole exception of John Bevilaqua, when I discovered he was posting untrue information about me on another forum, and had posted untrue personal information about Bill Kelly as well. I don't understand this kind of mindset. I will probably never agree with Craig Lamson, David Von Pein or Tom Purvis about much of anything, but I have no desire to see them banned or moderated (unless they go way over the line, in either personally attacking someone or using especially awful language). If you notice, I don't spend much time debating someone if I realize from past experience that there is no way I'm going to convert them to my point of view. You might want to think about doing that.

Why are you associating me with Lew Rockwell? I have some libertarian impulses, but I'm primarily a populist. I merely complimented Ralph on getting his article published there- it is a big web site. I have never claimed to be persuaded by his photo interpretations. I suspected Oswald was the figure in the doorway long before I heard of Ralph Cinque (or Jim Fetzer for that matter). There are numerous reasons to doubt that Lovelady was the figure in the doorway, as I've stated, outside of any of Ralph's arguments. However, unlike Ralph or Jim, I am not going to definitively declare it IS Oswald.

You are interpreting Oswald's "I work in the building" comment literally. When taken in context, he was being grilled by reporters as if his presence there immediately implicated him in the murder. I think he was responding in that way; "hey, i WORK there," and not establishing that he was IN the building, as opposed to standing in the doorway (which, of course, could also reasonably be said to be IN the building as well). If he was trying to give reporters his exact location at the time of the shooting, why didn't he just say, "Hey, I was in the lunchroom?"

I have been saying the same thing for years, regarding most of the "evidence" in this entire case. We don't know for certainty what Oswald was saying in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. There is no reason to trust anything about the official timeline regarding his post (or even pre) assassination movements. His few public statements belie a calm but confused young man, who was steadfast in maintaining his innocence, but other than that was primarily concerned with getting a lawyer.

We've established with certainty that you think Ralph Cinque is ridiculous. Okay. How many times can you say that, in how many different posts?

Greg,

You are WAY over the line here. Cinque's alleged past associations have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. What else are you doing, other than trying to assassinate his character?

Lee,

Your debating style on this thread mirrors the way you debated David Lifton regarding the Mary Bledsoe/Oswald on the bus issue. As you recall, I strongly agreed with you about the credibility of Bledsoe and the likelihood Oswald was on that bus. It's one thing to passionately argue your points- it's another to refuse to accept that you can't persuade your opponent to change his mind. You have an extreme sense of your own perspective's inviolate truth- you remind me of the people who insist "This song IS better than that one." Ralph Cinque's theories may very well be "crap." But what is the point of saying they are, over and over again? You've been persuasive here, as you usually are. But you are simply not going to influence Cinque to bow his head and proclaim that you've proven him wrong.

You also make the thinly veiled inference that Cinque (and Fetzer) are "disinfo" agents. This is a charge thrown around recklessly by too many researchers, against those they disagree with. I understand how intelligence agencies work, and have no doubts that the research community has seen more than its share of undercover operatives. Cass Sunstein literally admitted this last year. But you can't just accuse people of something like that. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I don"t agree with the lone nutters like Lamson and DVP here, but I don't therefore charge them with working for the government in order to undermine discussions on internet forums. I also wouldn't work myself up into a lather over why they won't accept the impossibility of the SBT, or some other ridiculous part of the official story. Seek to influence those you can, with solid arguments and information. You're quite capable of doing that very well.

What is with the tragic story about the child being starved to death? Unless I missed something, how does that connect to Cinque? Also, what is Greg Parker talking about in his last post? Land deals? The "Church?" HGH? This sure seems like an attack on Cinque's character. I know nothing about Cinque, other than his posts about the man in the doorway, but he certainly seems to attract an inordinate amount of abuse. Others have posted much kookier stuff, without this kind of vitriol directed against them, by good, intelligent researchers. I value the input of Greg Parker and Lee Farley, and Greg "Monk" Burnham has been one of the favorite posters for many years. However, I simply don't understand why this is such a big deal.

The nature of mainstream historians is to reinforce the consensus view. The establishment permits the promulgation of no conspiracy theories, unless of course they are promulgated by officialdom (various "terrorist" conspiracies, for example).

Thus, it is hardly surprising that Caro would find it unthinkable for LBJ to have been involved in the assassination of his predecessor. The establishment has too much invested in the "Oswald acted alone" conclusion, and simply is not going to contradict their dogma.

LBJ's behavior following the assassination was not indicative of a grieving, forlorn political ally. He simply couldn't hide his giddiness at finally being where he'd always wanted to be. I think it's obvious he had advance knowledge JFK was going to be assassinated, although I don't think he was the driving force behind the conspiracy.

I think Cliff is right to focus on the untainted evidence of the holes in JFK's clothing. There are questions about every aspect of the autopsy, to the extent that David Lifton was able to formulate a viable body alteration theory. I don't know why anyone would maintain the photos and x-rays are genuine at this point. If they are genuine, then every medical person in Dallas was imcomptent beyond all belief; the huge hole in the back of the head they described is nowhere to be seen on the "official" evidence.

We know from Stringer that the Secret Service confiscated his film, and purposefully ruined the film Riebe took. We don't definitively know exactly who was at the autopsy, and obviously Humes and Boswell failed to perform rudimentary tasks that are routinely performed at the autopsies of non-Presidents of the United States.

I'm not dismissing James' and Pat's contributions, but I see no reason to go with the higher back wound, simply because of what the "official" photos show. Part of the reason we know there was a conspiracy is because of the nature of the autopsy; clearly, everyone should have been interested in being thorough and leaving no questions unanswered. Instead, of course, there were nothing but questions left, as JFK was given what Harold Weisberg called "an autopsy unfit for a bowery bum."

Most of the evidence in this case is unreliable, due to chain of posssession problems alone. The medical evidence is probably the most murky area of all. Thus, I think Cliff's emphasis on the clothing is sound; JFK's clothing is one of the few items in this case that was not, to my knowledge, ever tampered with.

Like Tom, I also wonder why Ralph Cinque has not applied for membership here. It would be a lot easier for everyone to trace his thoughts if he posted himself.

Leaving aside Ralph Cinque's contentions or style, how many here think it's possible that Oswald is the figure in the doorway? I think it's quite possible. I object to the idea that somehow it's been "proven" definitively that Lovelady is the figure.

I'm looking for a quote I remember; I'm pretty certain it was in Robert Sam Anson's "They've Killed the President" book. It's from Fidel Castro, and he derides the lone assassin fairy tale, saying something like "that does not happen in even your worst Hollywood movies."

Does anybody have a copy of the book handy, or remember this quote in full? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

Oops...obviously a typo when I wrote Greer made money from a book. Hill is now clearly making money, and inventing an entirely new story in the process for his new book. Heretofore, we had heard nothing about the dramatic scene he now describes at Bethesda, when he was shown the rear "neck" wound that matched up to an "exit" wound in the throat.

Exactly what is there to defend about JFK's Secret Service detail?

Why did the Secret Service confiscate and/or destroy autopsy film and x-rays? As late as the 1990s, why did they destroy records requested by the AARB?

If the first shot had killed JFK, no one could blame the Secret Service agents for not reacting in time. Obviously, no one can respond instanteously to a shot that isn't being anticipated. However, after that first shot, the expectation was that those whose job depended on lighting quick reflexes in just such situations, and who had certainly been trained continuously for assassination scenarios, would have done more than clulessly look around them for 6-7 seconds. As Ralph Yarborough noted, a man can run fifty yards in less time than that.

Because the first shot wasn't fatal, the failure of Kellerman and the Secret Service agents on the follow up car to quickly push JFK down and shield him contributed directly to his death. The failure of driver Greer to follow proper procedure and hit the accelerator after the first shot contributed directly to his death as well. 6-7 seconds was plenty of time to cover the short distance between the cars, and obviously enough time for Kellerman to jump back and throw his body over Kennedy.

I have never understood the tendency on the part of CTers to absolve the Secret Service from responsiblity in the assassination. In an honest investigation, they would have been the first to be grilled over their conduct. Unlike shadowy assassins on the grassy knoll or elsewhere, we know exactly who it was that slowed the car down (if not stopped it) and stared at JFK. We know exactly who was sitting next to the driver in the car, and who was riding on the follow up car. The fact that first Blaine, and now Greer, are distorting historical truth and making money off of what should have been the most shameful moment of their professional careers-if not their lives-makes my feelings even stronger.

Hi Mark,

It's an honor to have you here. We all appreciate you taking the time to answer our questions.

I don't know if you recognize my name- I was a teenage volunteer for your Citizens Committee of Inquiry back in the mid-1970s. I spent a memorable afternoon at your Washington, D.C. office, when you received a long distance call from comedian Freddie Prinze. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Also, I exchanged emails with Norman Similas some years ago, and he told me he had "60 hours" of telephone conversations with you and that you had "proved everything" he told you was the truth. Again, I'd love to get your input on that.

If you prefer, you can send me a private message to reply.

Thanks!

The JFK assassination represented a unique opportunity for everyone to analyze the performance of those whose job it was to protect the President. Because JFK was obviously wounded, but not fatally, several seconds before the head shot, the Secret Service agents had far more time than they would likely have in most assassination scenarios in which to react.

Greer had enough time to slow (or, as some believe, stop) the limousine, and turn around and look at the President. Obviously he heard gunfire, realized JFK was shot, but instead of hitting the accelerator, he violated every precept of common sense, and ignored what he'd been trained to do. He alone could have saved JFK by stepping on the gas. How long does it take to do that?

The Secret Service surely instructs its agents that there will never be more than a few seconds in which to respond to gunfire. If we are to accept that no one could have reacted fast enough to save JFK in Dallas, then what is the purpose of Secret Service agents? Why are they trained to react instantly to gunfire, if they know a gun can be fired faster than they can move?

Regular people like us could be expected to be shocked by gunfire and to be confused for a lot longer than 6-8 seconds. No one would blame a typical motorist if he didn't accelerate instantly away from trouble. These men were well paid professionals, who were employed for the express purpose of reacting far faster than mere mortals to potential trouble. I'm certain that they were especially trained to know what gunfire sounded like, and to immediately throw themselves over the President in such a situation.

We will almost certainly never know the actual shooters' names, or find memos delineating the hierarchy of the conspiratorial planning tree. Therefore, the inexplicable, quite visible non-response on the part of JFK's Secret Service detail is the best evidence we have of identifiable individuals whose actions (or inactions) contributed to the success of the crime.

In any honest investigation of the assassination, those Secret Service agents would have been grilled relentlessly about their curious behavior. Instead, there was an effort then to absolve them of responsibility and to make Clint Hill some kind of hero. Too many CTers still, imho, cling to the belief that it's somehow "wrong" to point fingers at the Secret Service.

The Secret Service's "performance" in Dallas cannot be excused. IF the first or second shot to hit JFK had been fatal, then I'd agree they couldn't have done anything. However, JFK would have survived his other wounds; the agents heard gunfire, and had about 6 seconds to respond before the fatal head shot. They did absolutely nothing.

I don't believe "turn around and look at the target" was in Greer's instruction manual, as an acceptable response to the sound of gunfire. Kellerman only had to leap over the middle seat to get to JFK- he heard shots, why didn't he shelter his boss with his body, as he was trained to do? Ready, Hill and any other agent on the follow up car was close enough to jump off and get there before the head shot.

Hill reacted- after it was too late. He is showing what kind of character he has now by completely inventing a new element to his testimony. How can he think anyone who's researched this case will accept he never told anyone, for nearly fifty years, that the doctors at Parkland showed him the "neck" wound in the rear and matched it up conveniently for him with the "exit" wound in the throat? Surely he's aware there has been just a bit of controversy about those wounds, and about this case, for decades. And yet, in all his previous statements on the subject, he just neglected to mention it. In my book, Hill has lost whatever shred of integrity he had.

The most obvious suspects in enabling the assassination were the agents on JFK's Secret Service detail.

Thanks for the excerpts, Bernice. Either Hill is no longer in control of his faculties, or he has chosen to add entirely new, hightly contradictory testimony at this late stage, which shockingly just happens to buttress the lone assassin nonsense. Yeah, I'm sure we all believe that they took the time to explain the wounds to a Secret Service agent. And isn't that high "neck" wound in the rear convenient?

It's despicable for Hill to have something like this published in his name. Does he really think none of us are aware of the historical record?

Jim,

The quotes from Rodriguez are telling- he was a liberal Democrat and certainly didn't go into his investigation with a bias against Clinton. He's the one that said the FBI controlled all the investigations. He was there, looking at the evidence.

Have you seen the Secret Service memo, that describes Foster's body being found IN his car? How would they make a crucial mistake like that? The original witness who found Foster's body, whose identity was never revealed (and he was in fear for his life) swore that Foster didn't have a gun in his hand, as the official story maintains. He testified (as "CW" for confidential witness) before Congress to this effect. The first medical technician on the scene testified that the gun was an automatic pistol, not the 80 year old revolver the authorities claimed Foster used.

There were five homes within 500 yards of the spot where his body was allegedly found in Ft. Marcy Park, but no one heard a shot? Then again, none of them were questioned until months after the fact. The X-Rays of Foster's skull are either missing or were never taken. The paramedics saw no exit wound in the back of Foster's head. The bullet was never found, and neither were any fragments. The suicide note was found torn into 28 pieces- the missing piece was where the signature would have been. Foster's fingerprints weren't found on it. Three experts determined the note was a forgery, but when they called a press conference to announce their findings, the mainstream press didn't bother to show up. How clear an indication do you want?

Witness Patrick Knowlton was in Ft. Marcy Park, and didn't see Foster's car there. He saw another car, with a menacing figure inside glaring at him. Knowlton was harrassed for years, and several reporters witnessed him being followed first hand. FBI agents called him in the middle of the night, and once knocked on his door at 3 a.m. He wasn't being harrassed because a depressed guy decided to end his life. The photos of Foster's body in the original condition it was in when discovered have, like the X-Rays of his skull, disappeared.

As I said before, I've communicated with Linda Ives herself. She was apolitical, certainly not out to get Clinton. Jerry Parks really was shot while driving, after telling everyone he was a dead man. How does that happen innocently? This isn't similar to JFK, where one uncredible witness (Exner) emerged years after the fact, and the story was peddled by disreputable "journalists" like Heymann.

The sheer number of unnatural deaths of those connected to the Clintons is staggering. Unnatural deaths just simply aren't that common, especially to upper class people who presumably should be nearly immune from death by gunshot, at least. Do you really think the guy they convicted for the Starbucks murder decided to kill those employees, while stealing nothing? He supposedly didn't know them, so what was the motive? He left a lot of money behind in the store. Again, those kinds of crimes don't happen- he wasn't about to get caught. If robbery was the motive (and clearly, what else could have been?), then you take the money.

Yes, Clinton's enemies had a vested interest in bringing him down. But who would you expect to try to publicize these stories, if not those who opposed him? Professional people, who were not Clinton enemies, really did see what looked like a bullet hole in Bon Brown's head. And then, shortly thereafter, a female worker in his office is found dead in her office of unknown causes? Wouldn't you wonder if something like that happened to two people in your office? Especially when for years there had been talk of a Clinton Body Count?

You owe it to yourself to look at the stories behind these deaths. Yes, some of them apparently weren't mysterious, but a great many were. The debunkers can't explain what happened to the boys on the tracks, or Jerry Parks, or the glaring holes in the Vince Foster case, to mention just a few. That's my take- you know I respect you a great deal.