Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,253 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
Would it also be accurate to say that the same "handicap" would NOT exist if she were a defendant (as opposed to being a witness)? Please answer freely, counselor, as you do not represent her, nor are you offering her or us legal advice--just an opinion.
----
Monk:
I hope I am understanding the question. If she was on trial for murder the only issue would be "was a murder(s) committed and did Judyth participate in the commission of the murder(s). Her statement could be introduced from TMWKK or any other interview or writings.. She would have to explain why it was incorrect or misinterpreted. Everything else, incliuding the Castro information, would unlikely be admissible as being irrelevant. BTW, I agree that Mark Lane would be a good person to offer his opinion and see if or where he disagrees with me.
Doug Weldon
Doug,
I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more...
This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case?
Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted?
Thanks.
-
GB said:Now, Jim--if it turns out you are correct--that there is insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonble doubt she goes free, but we still have the truth...or at least more truth than we have now--and that's what Judyth says she wants as well. Since you believe that there is no case--or at least an un-winnable case for the prosecution--in the end, her story is out in the open, it is irrefutable as it has been as fully vetted as possible in a public forum, and we have the information [TRUTH].
Not that this is necessarily a bad or a good thing, but we would probably end up with a situation similar to the Garrison trial, especially if the govt knows Judyth is telling the truth. Everything imaginable would be done to poison the well, taint the jury pool, etc. Nevertheless, with a proper defense, Judyth and truth might prevail. I wonder if Mark Lane would be interested?
[emphasis added]
Pamela,
My thoughts exactly!
-
Monk:
You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness."
I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out.
Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence.
Doug Weldon
Doug, would it be fair to say this:
In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless?
Monk:
Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently.
Best,
Doug
Would it also be accurate to say that the same "handicap" would NOT exist if she were a defendant (as opposed to being a witness)? Please answer freely, counselor, as you do not represent her, nor are you offering her or us legal advice--just an opinion.
-
Monk:
You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness."
I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out.
Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence.
Doug Weldon
Doug, would it be fair to say this:
In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless?
-
Jim:
If I was representing Judyth I would advise her to keep her mouth shut about this. I would not put this in a book. If she was ever charged no attorney would advise her to testify. In the offices of many defense attorneys they often have a fish on a plaque on their walls. On that plaque there is some writing. It states, "I wouldn't be here either if I kept my mouth shut."
The odds are in Judyth's favor that there is not going to be a corpus here for many reasons. However, if Judyth wishes to play Russian Roulette she is certainly free to do so. Next to the fish there might be another plaque with Judyth's picture.
Doug Weldon
Yes Doug, I suppose that if you were representing her you would tell her to shut up because you would have a fiduciary to do just that, but you ARE NOT representing Judyth! You have no obligation to protect her. In fact, you don't think she is telling the truth to begin with. Why does she need your advice (to remain silent) if she is fabricating her story and therefore has nothing to fear? Did something about her presentation on TMWKK strike you as possibly true? I'm confused.
-
Jim:
I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.
Doug Weldon
Doug & Jim,
For the sake of conversation, and perhaps more, I find this topic fascinating. Here's why: If Judyth is telling the truth, and if she believes that revealing the truth supercedes her own individual best interests, there might be an angle worth pursuing. From what I know of her--and from what Jim has presented--she certainly seems to place the importance of "sharing the truth" above her own best interests, as demonstrated by the many "trials and tribulations" she has willingly endured that she attributes to her having attempted to tell her story. If this claim is, in fact, true--it is quite admirable.
So, assuming her story really is true, she definitely seems to display characteristics consistent with being the "real deal" -- However, many have doubted that the "substance of her revelations" are real and have challenged, not the existence of her plight, but rather have challenged the assertion that her "trials and tribulations" are, in fact, further PROOF that her story is true and somehow a threat to those who may have something to lose if her story is believed.
Based on that, I have an idea.
Jim, I ask you to not act as her defense counsel because you are not qualified to act in that capacity, and second, because it is unnecessary at this juncture. Third, we'll need you in a different capacity. Also, I am not attacking her or suggesting she should be punished. I am thinking of something else.
Theoretically, if she were to reveal the name or names of the individuals who were victims of this program it would establish her credibility--without doubt--if same could be independently verified from public, medical, and/or law enforcement records. Moreover, if, based on this information, a DA chose to pursue charges against her, this would require a trial in which the power to subpoena relevant documents and witnesses, etc. would exist for both the DA and the Defense...including the documents in the possession of the federal, state, and/or local government. This would be stronger than any FOIA request could ever be.
Now, Jim--if it turns out you are correct--that there is insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonble doubt she goes free, but we still have the truth...or at least more truth than we have now--and that's what Judyth says she wants as well. Since you believe that there is no case--or at least an un-winnable case for the prosecution--in the end, her story is out in the open, it is irrefutable as it has been as fully vetted as possible in a public forum, and we have the information [TRUTH].
-
you must wade through a heck of a lot of garbage to get to it...sheesh...at times...b
Fortunately for us all, there are people like you who are willing to do the wading in order to uncover the gems. Sometimes no matter how much attention to detail we employ, we still find "germs" disguised as "gems" -- No worries.
Good work.
-
hi greg; couldn't find this earlier but did just now....no more revel articles until he attempts to get his info straight and honest.....
the bay of pigs
Hi Bernice,
There's nothing like getting the facts straight from someone, like Prouty, who was there.
-
Hunt opened up again in a 1974 interview with the New York Times explaining how he ran that division [CIA's Domestic Operation Divison] for four years beginning in 1962, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Hunt did not run that division. He worked in it. As I recall, he worked under Tracy Barnes.
Of course Hunt could have lied and told the NYT that he ran the division. But even then Revel should know Hunt was lying.
Ron,
According to the article:
"He [HUNT] told them [senate Watergate Committee] that he had served as the first Chief of Covert Action for the Domestic Operations Division of the Central Intelligence Agency."
So perhaps Revel was ambiguous in his usage of the word "Division" -- Apparently he was referring to the Covert Action Section of the Domestic Operations Division. I'll modify my post to reflect the correction.
-
Hunt opened up again in a 1974 interview with the New York Times explaining how he ran that division [CIA's Domestic Operation Divison] for four years beginning in 1962, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Hunt did not run that division. He worked in it. As I recall, he worked under Tracy Barnes.
Of course Hunt could have lied and told the NYT that he ran the division. But even then Revel should know Hunt was lying.
There are several "less than accurate" items in this piece. What is worse, not only does Revel quote dis or mis-information provided from Hunt, he provides some of his own!
-
Gary Revel:
"He [HUNT] told them [senate Watergate Committee] that he had served as the first Chief of Covert Action for the Domestic Operations Division of the Central Intelligence Agency."
"Hunt opened up again in a 1974 interview with the New York Times explaining how he ran that division for four years beginning in 1962, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco. “many men connected with that failure were shunted into the new domestic unit.” Hunt had admitted. He confessed to using the division to subsidize and manipulate news and publishing organizations for the entire 4 years.
"What he didn’t go into detail about was how these same men were some that had been hurt badly by President John Kennedy backing out of his promise to provide air support for the operation. This seemingly cowardly act had caused the failure of the entire Bay of Pigs Operation. It also caused the deaths of many of the CIA’s assets and valuable soldiers that were intending to free Cuba from Communism and Castro."
Oops. Somebody didn't do his homework before writing this drivel. IMO, a lot of what he says has merit. However, the above statement that Kennedy "backed out" of promised air support at the Bay of Pigs is totally bogus. Moreover, the immediate cause of the operational failure could therefore not be due to any fictional "backing out" of a non-existent promise. And Revel should know better.
The author could have advanced the case that he is trying to make much further had he known and/or reported the true history. He is ironically relying on a false cover story fabricated by the CIA themselves (to shift blame for the failure from them to JFK). The problem is...although the CIA cover story might have had some credibility back in the 60's, 70's, and even 80's--it was because much of the documentation thoroughly debunking such a notion had yet to be declassified. He is relying on several decades old "agency myth" in his opinion. Unfortunately, such dependence damages his own credibility, lessens the importance of his paper, and, ironically--the truth would have better served his purposes.
Most disappointing, erroneous facts (cited as premises) are often placed within a larger context to support the main point. This has the effect of causing the premises to be assumed as fact by the uninitiated reader, wherein the overall point might be questioned and weighed, but not the premises presented as fact. As such, these blunders only serve to continue to muddy the waters.
A pity.
-
I think any idea that factors in the eventual loss of free speech on the internet (happening now) is worth considering.
What? Did I read you right? Are you anti-free speech on the internet? If not, why would one "consider" such an idea? Perhaps it is a different usage of certain words in the language that confuses me? I know there are subtle and not so subtle changes in meaning from American English to Australian English and vice versa.
Many publications reached Australia through the Merchent Marines in the days when international transmission was hampered. Those who are interested in fighting Fascism (the last gasp of Capitalism) must build networks not beholden to the means controlled by the Status Quo.No, there's no mistaking your meaning this time! You really believe that Fascism is the "last gasp" of Capitalism? Oh my! How are you personally defining Capitalism?
-
I call this another case of IMplausible Deniability, wherein the Agency and the Administration attempt to blame each other when the proverbial **** hits the fan. Except nobody outside the inner loop knows which side to believe and ends up trusting neither.
I feel like an outsider here. I honestly don't know what you are all talking about.The CIA didn't make any mistakes in Iraq (well, at least not any major ones that I'm aware of).
The Bush administration is the entity that made the mistakes.
The Intelligence Community did NOT claim that Iraq had WMD or that Saddam posed a threat.
The Bush administration's appointees at the Pentagon are the ones that cooked the books, so to speak....
Please get your facts straight. In addition, Tim Weiner's book is a load of crap, missing many of the major problems that should have been highlighted. Weiner's an insider, so I expected no more and no less than a by-the-numbers rundown of what we already knew.
Have you read the article? This is the opening two paragraphs:
"Slam dunk.” George Tenet, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, later admitted that those were “the two dumbest words I ever said” when he had assured President George W. Bush in December 2002 that the CIA held solid proof of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. This monumental error led directly to the American decision to invade Iraq.
While the CIA's mistake on Iraq was arguably the most consequential in its history, it was certainly not the first. As Tim Weiner's compelling book, “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA,” makes clear, the U.S. has suffered serious intelligence failures from the CIA's earliest days.
It is clear that Bush and Blair selected the CIA and MI6 intelligence that encouraged the belief that Iraq had WMD. However, it is also clear that the CIA and MI6 went along with providing the information that the politicians were looking for.
-
Interesting email, John--and an interesting thread. Since I wasn't here when this topic started I didn't see the photos posted here (I don't think) either. That would be worthwhile.
-
Barb,
Sheesh--this is getting tedious, no? Going in circles isn't useful at all, except to get dizzy--and that's no fun. So, no that's not my purpose. However, sometimes folks "talk at each other" and don't make a connection for whatever reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that either side (of the debate) is disingenuous, cognitively impaired, ill informed, stupid... etc. Sometimes they just aren't "on the same page" so to speak. I'm trying to find out which "pages" everyone agrees to and which ones seem at odds--and go from there. So far, just finding that out is like pulling teeth!
This is ridiculous, Monk. Judyth and Lee were hired on the same day. She maintained his work and payroll records, which even have her initials on them. Doubting this is beyond the realm of reason.Try not to speak, my friend--it's not ridiculous--not yet. I'm still questioning this "witness" -- I would prefer to hear the witness answer the question. Barb seems to reject any evidence that you or Judyth provide. So that won't work by itself. But, perhaps she has an answer consistent with the evidence that she herself has discovered?
But, now that Jim has "opened the door" to this subject... Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why?
Greg,
I am not a "witness." But then you know that. I just replied to Fetzer's comment in his reply to you a few minutes ago. I commented on the time cards there. I don't know what he means by "work records" ... the credit report, perhaps? The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know.
I reject "evidence" that is really not evidence at all. Posting cyber reams of the claimant's excuses, explanations and additional claims does not substantiate the claim it's all being offered up for as "evidence" in the first place. But then I expect you realize that as well. :-)
But it does look like perhaps you enjoy going in circles.
Barb :-)
-
Well, what I am trying to determine is what value such evidence would really have for a skeptic? Jim asked you if you would concede that she was "the real deal" if the analysis panned out. And you, rightly IMO, replied that such confirmation would not make a believer out of you. So, my question is not directed at why Judyth (and/or Jim) should agree to this study, but why you have found it so important to suggest? It really seems, by your own admission, to have little value beyond supporting the least important of her claims! IOW: If all Judyth ever claimed was to have "known him" and even "had a fling" with him--would you even care? I wouldn't. I wouldn't even need proof. I would believe it or not--but who cares?
It is her other claims that are potentially important. However, you have already stated that the confirmation would not satisfy your burden of proof of those items. So, I don't think there is a point to it...at least not for your purposes. Unless you're trying to help Jim prove Judyth's case, I don't see your point--especially since, according to you, even a confirmation would prove very little, if anything.
Now, maybe you believe it would help prove her "wrong" or a xxxx if it did not pan out. Is that the point?
Greg,I think it is not unlikely that they had exchanged a courtesy nod, good morning, good evening type of thing ... after all, they worked in the same building. [snip]
Thanks Barb,
You employed a double negative. So for clarity sake then, you think it IS likely that their paths crossed. Since that is the most you would concede even if the handwriting analysis panned out, its hardly worth the effort.
Yeah, little weird construct there ... sorry. On your clarification .... no, that is not what I meant. I have no way of knowing whether it would have been "likely" .... but there is no reason it would have been unlikely (or unusual), given that they worked in the same place.
You keep asserting things I have not said. :-) If the handwriting is certified by a qualified professional to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald, then I think that would establish that she did know him. To what degree .... that won't tell us. But if the writing is his, then they obviously had more than a nodding courtesy fellow employee in passing knowledge of one another.
One could get the idea that you are trying to create a preemptive excuse for not having the analysis done.:-) I can't think of one valid reason a claimant, with an item in hand that could establish part of their claim ... and an important part ... would not be begging to have it analyzed.
Can you?
Bests,
Barb :-)
-
This is an interesting study, Chris. Good work! Perhaps Jack will weigh in on it and offer an opinion.
I hope everyone can now apply the approx 2 second rule to the extant Z film and understand all the other peculiarities.For instance,
The two gentleman a little further down the street who appear to be looking up the street and clapping as the limo has gone by, well, move the limo back up Elm approx 33 frames and picture them at that point, in relation to the limo.
Or the slip in the WC testimony about starting the frame numbering at 100, I believe from Shaneyfelt.
Or Tom Purvis supplying the WC document which states the last shot occurred down near Altgen's. The shot they got rid of, by moving the limo farther ahead.
It all will fit, just apply the rule.
chris
-
Yes, the Ralph Geb I researched died in 1989 at the age of 70. The reason I think that its the same guy is because J Harrison asked me to look him up as he thought Geb still lived in San Diego. This Geb did live in San Diego--but he was long dead before I even knew about him.
I don't know where "my" Ralph Geb fits in. The Ralph Geb described would be quite old or dead by now. The only one who knows is John Armstrong. I leave it in his hands.Kathy C
-
Greg,
I think it is not unlikely that they had exchanged a courtesy nod, good morning, good evening type of thing ... after all, they worked in the same building. [snip]
Thanks Barb,
You employed a double negative. So for clarity sake then, you think it IS likely that their paths crossed. Since that is the most you would concede even if the handwriting analysis panned out, its hardly worth the effort.
-
Thanks, b
-
Greg-
does this mean you don't accept judyth's claims concerning her work with ferrie at his apartment? do you accept any of her claims? just curious, kevin
Hi Kevin,
Well, for me, the proverbial "jury" is still out. As an example, it would be fallacious for me to conclude that ALL of her claims regarding research with Ferrie are false--if based only on my rejection of this single claim. Moreover, refusing to accept ANY of her claims (even those beyond Ferrie) if such refusal is based solely on rejection of this one claim, would also be fallacious.
I don't reject all of her claims. I simply don't know yet. I haven't checked them all out. I don't fault Jim for not having had the opportunity to provide irrefutable evidence of each and every one of her claims either. Let's face it, due to quantity alone, such a task could take hundreds of years, millions of dollars, and thousands of lives! Just kidding, but there certainly is a lot of ground to cover.
I will say this: She did NOT strike me as one who was a fabricator AT ALL when I met and "grilled" her myself 10 years ago.
-
In post #1795, I was talking about a transfer of the cancer research for a bio-weapon to Ft, Dietrick, not AIDS.
This is a nice example of the kind of collaborative effort that can benefit the research community. Good work!
Thanks Jim. However, all bio-weapons, AIDS related or not (including cancer), are based on COMPLEX (non-linear) systems. This is not easily accomplished--indeed it is not easily ATTEMPTED credibly--even at a MAJOR facility sponsored by the US Government and administered by the US Intelligence/National Security Apparatus! Let alone at a "home laboratory" --
This claim seems, to me, to be over the top.
Now, I will grant this as a possibility: David Ferrie was stone cold NUTS! One crazy a** lunatic! Just look at him! And Judyth was about 19--as HEMMING commented to me about her: "Monk, did you know sh*t from shinola at 19? Well, she's a broad--that thought she was in love on top of that! ..."
So, maybe Ferrie was convinced in his own mind that he was working on this cancer weapon stuff--and maybe he convinced others to help him. But--the evidence is REALLY, REALLY thin--if not ridiculous, IMHO.
-
I find it interesting that you quote Haslam as saying " a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie".
Of course this goes back to Haslam's FATHER BEING EMPLOYED BY OSCHNER. Dr. Ed Haslam worked at the Oschner
Clinic. Is this information relevant to (author) Ed Haslam's investigation? Is he trying to discover whether his father
played some role in the creation of the AIDS virus? Or is his motive something else?
It is not out of the realm of possibility that "trivializing" the AIDS virus as being created by some amateurs in
New Orleans is an orchestrated effort to deflect attention AWAY FROM THE BIOWARFARE GOONS AT FORT DETRICK.
Jack
Jack,
Colonel Prouty was beyond being "absolutely convinced" that HIV/AIDS was the product of Fort Detrick. He treated that subject (as he treated every subject with which he was in a position to know) with the "quiet demeanor" afforded those who are certain. Why would he be so certain? He was there.
At one point, Fletch was given a desk within the Pentagon, specifically in the Unconventional Warfare Division of the USAF Directorate of Plans. This was in the same immediate section as the CIA's Lt. Colonel James Monroe. Prouty said: "His [Monroe's] activities covered this area of bio-warfare and the support of CIA activities in that area. During this time I became well aware of those activities and Fort Detrick was mentioned frequently. During my own work with the CIA, I attended many meetings in which such activity was the subject, and the function of Fort Detrick was a common discussion."
The year was 1955--which pre-dates NOLA 1963. Judyth was what, 11 years old at the time?
Rather than me transcribe everything here, suffice to say, Fletch made similar comments many times to me privately, but also is on record with them. The above comment was referring specifically to the 1969 Hearing Records of the testimony of Doctor Donald MacArthur at the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations. MacArthur was mking a case for $10 million dollars to be funded to create a "new infective micro-organism". Prouty said that within those hearing records we "find what most certainly may be considered as the locus of the origin of AIDS."
I encourage anyone further interested in the origin of HIV/AIDS and/or other bio-weapon development at Fort Detrick to obtain a copy of the House of Representatives Congressional Record of July 1st 1969 Page 18077, where Doctor Martin Dworkin, PhD--a Professor of Microbiology at the Medical School of the University of Minnesota testifies. Very compelling, indeed.
I would sooner believe that the Zapruder film was altered, not at the Hawkeye Plant in Rochester, but by Judyth, Ferrie, Oschner and Sherman in a "home film studio" than I would believe that the development of HIV/AIDS was even being attempted in a home made laboratory! Film alteration is at least a somewhat "linear system" with which to contend. By comparison, micro-biology is non-linear, extremely complex [read:chaotic], and therefore unpredictable. It would really take some doing...even at Fort Detrick!
-
According to Glen Sample (sp?) in the book The Man in the Sixth Floor Window, the Man in the Mexico City photographs misidentified as Oswald is Ralph Geb, who played football in high school with Mac Wallace.
I don\'t know if anyone has confirmed or refuted this, but I believe that\'s where it come fro.
And I believe Monk means that I.B. Hale\'s son, not his father, was engaged to John Connally\'s daughter and pulled the trigger that killed her.
BK
Thanks Bill & Dixie,
It's been a long time since I was studying this stuff and I'm not as sharp about it anymore. I think you're correct about it being the son, Bill. It got to be too late last night while I was posting this--and I literally started dozing off at the keyboard! I just kinda stopped writing...and went to bed.
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Doug,
I think I see what you mean...but, TMWKK was a commercial television production that was subject to editing, etc. -- It is not tantamount to a confession, IMO--of course, I most certainly could be wrong. But, in any event, this story sure seems to be extremely challenging. I mean, wow--if we put ourselves in Jim's shoes! What a long haul this has been for him, so far, only to find out that--even if she is "the real deal" it won't matter because her testimony is tainted as a witness, and even if she's a murderer who went to trial she can't tell the truth about the circumstances that led up to it even there because no one would want to know! Moreover, even though she isn't "wanted" for anything now--if she turned herself in for KNOWLEDGE of a crime that nobody was even persuing--she could be in big trouble irrespective of the broader truth.
The deaths probably weren't ruled homicides anyway--so it's all a moot point.
Thanks for the feedback, Doug.