Jonathan Cohen

The only "wrench" it has thrown is further polluting a subject already rife with ridiculous theories and evidence-free speculation. Promise?

You can't possibly spend your life being this needlessly litigious all the time, can you?

This thread has no further purpose here. Moderators, please move this baseless conspiracy speculation out of this section of the forum.

Aren't there members of Garrison's staff who are still alive and/or would have had in-person interactions with Ferrie?

Copyrighted by whom?

Right, like spending the past 20-plus years touting the absolutely laughable and absurd idea that Lee Oswald was part of a secret government doppelganger program along with his imaginary "brother," Harvey, or that virtually every piece of evidence in the Kennedy assassination has been faked or altered .. at least until you need these documents to be authentic to support your beliefs ...

Truer words have rarely been spoken on this forum. Thanks for at least trying to fight the good fight, Greg.

Uh, except that it has, by Roland Zavada: https://archive.org/stream/ZavadaReport/Zavada+Report_djvu.txt http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm It's incredible that you, as someone who seems to believe nearly every major piece of evidence in the case has been falsified or altered, jumps right in with both feet to trumpet the veracity of the "Lafitte datebook." A "coherent reason" would be to make money and insert one's self/selves into the JFK assassination case, which unfortunately has already happened with Judyth Baker. By the way, this forum is hardly made up of "an independent panel of experts" ...

My goodness, you are touchy. I'm not trying to "downplay" anything. In fact, I used your own words to describe what had happened to those three men.

So you believe that because Prouty did not experience the exact same "destruction" as Adams, Agee, and McGehee Jr., then he must have somehow been involved in the Kennedy assassination, even if it was just via a "limited hangout" ?

Then why do you keep pushing back every time someone on this forum accurately repeats the fact that the veracity of the datebook is in question?

I agree with your assessment of this book, Eddy. Mailer also made a cantankerous and entertaining appearance at the ASK Symposium in Dallas around the time of its release.

No, I’m not saying the “crime” would be solved. But a positive ID of Oswald on the steps would by definition prove a conspiracy and as such invalidate every “Oswald did it alone” argument which has persisted since 1963. That may not be enough for you, but it’s perfectly reasonable that it would be enough for many other researchers who have devoted decades to the subject. I truly don’t understand the implication that the research community should be in any way obligated to throw all their chips in on your version of events, particularly given the questionable veracity of the datebook upon which it rests.

Whether there is or isn't is, to me, irrelevant at this late date. Researchers, and the general public, rightly want DEFINITIVE proof ... not datebooks of unknown authenticity, not absurd theories about Lee Harvey Oswald doppelgangers, not a default position that all of the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza has been faked or altered. A definitive determination that Oswald was indeed standing in front of the TSBD during the assassination would end 60 years of debate in one fell swoop.

Leslie, do you honestly believe that these so-called "amateur researchers" who had their "attention seized" are now incapable of studying any other aspect of the Kennedy assassination besides the identity of Prayer Man? I also find it a bit odd that you are passing judgment on what topics people "should" be studying. For instance, should Jefferson Morley stop suing the government so he can instead devote his full time and attention to a datebook of unknown authenticity?

Tom, I have a hard time taking Marion Meharg's deposition seriously on this matter ... do you believe him, given all the circumstances?

Walking out of the Book Depository after helpfully directing a reporter to a phone, boarding a bus, exiting that bus, getting into a taxi, and arriving at his rooming house. To believe otherwise means every witness to those movements was lying or grossly mistaken, no?

They could be "accurate" in the sense that those people did make such statements, but that hardly means they're correct, and they in no way jive with Oswald's known movements from the time he left the Book Depository to the time he was arrested.

Mark Chapman murdered John Lennon - the end.

Nobody “ran” anything involving the tramps and there was no “purpose all along.” The only “diversion” was people like Bob Dylan trash-digger Alan Weberman claiming the men were secret CIA agents.

Ron, in my opinion, impossible-to-verify theories about shadows in photos do nothing to invalidate the arrest records and the actual 1992-era statements of two of the three men.

The three tramps are Gus Abrams, Harold Doyle, and John Gedney, and we have both their arrest records and their own post-LaFontaine confirmations to prove it.

Except that they aren't three different people and never have been...

This is a crucial point in my opinion, Larry. I have yet to see compelling evidence that Oswald was a voluntary asset of any intelligence organization, in the U.S. or otherwise.

Admiral Burkley, through his attorney, may have "attempted" to step forward to "debunk the WCR narrative," but it's quite unclear if he ever actually did. As such, he's not really a useful example per Paul's question. From the ARRB final report: The Review Board contacted the children of deceased Vice Admiral George G. Burkley, former military White House physician to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, to find out if their father had deposited his papers at any institution, or if they possessed any assassination records. The staff came up empty-handed. According to House Select Committee on Assassinations records, Burkley's personal attorney apparently told the HSCA that his client believed there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. Mr. Illig, Burkley's attorney, however, is now deceased. The Review Board staff asked Burkley's daughter, the executor of his estate, to sign a waiver allowing the Review Board access to papers at Illig's law firm, but she declined to sign and return the waiver.