Malcolm Ward

The Disappearing Rainforests We are losing Earth's greatest biological treasures just as we are beginning to appreciate their true value. Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second with tragic consequences for both developing and industrial countries. Rainforests are being destroyed because the value of rainforest land is perceived as only the value of its timber by short-sighted governments, multi-national logging companies, and land owners. Nearly half of the world's species of plants, animals and microorganisms will be destroyed or severely threatened over the next quarter century due to rainforest deforestation. Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. That equates to 50,000 species a year. As the rainforest species disappear, so do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. Currently, 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. While 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less that 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists. Most rainforests are cleared by chainsaws, bulldozers and fires for its timber value and then are followed by farming and ranching operations, even by world giants like Mitsubishi Corporation, Georgia Pacific, Texaco and Unocal. There were an estimated ten million Indians living in the Amazonian Rainforest five centuries ago. Today there are less than 200,000. In Brazil alone, European colonists have destroyed more than 90 indigenous tribes since the 1900's. With them have gone centuries of accumulated knowledge of the medicinal value of rainforest species. As their homelands continue to be destroyed by deforestation, rainforest peoples are also disappearing. Most medicine men and shamans remaining in the Rainforests today are 70 years old or more. Each time a rainforest medicine man dies, it is as if a library has burned down. When a medicine man dies without passing his arts on to the next generation, the tribe and the world loses thousands of years of irreplaceable knowledge about medicinal plants. Source: http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

True,sad but true.They are in a win win situation.If they go bust,joe public has to bail them out,or should I say the Governments use our taxes to bail them out.If joe public goes bust,the banks will take his/her last penny.Brings a new term to Bank Robbers.

William Plumlee has not posted since April 20th 2010. Although,not related to Stephen Turner,it is another member that stopped posting in 2010.But then again he was born on January 2, 1909.Probably went to his 1001st birthday party. Not being sarcastic,just adding a bit of levity.As well as pointing out the fact another member stopped posting in 2010. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=1680

A lot of information there Paul.Quite a lot to be going on. The information I posted was intended to see if you had seen it before,and receive your opinion on it.Which you have provided in abundance.Many thanks. I think the earlier information I provided originally came from the Books, COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA This site has a 4,000 page database that you can download in pdf format.If you are interested,here is the site. http://www.ajweberman.com/coupt5.htm

Paul,I found this on the Walker shooting,don't know how reliable it is.The article also appears to have a lot of info on other characters.Many more pages than I am posting. HOSTY ASSIGNED THE WALKER CASE On June 6, 1963, S.A. Hosty was informed by an ex-employee of General Walker, William MacEwan Duff, that he was involved in an arrangement to kill General Edwin Walker, with two other men. William MacEwan Duff had received an Undesirable Discharge from the Army on June 2, 1964, by reason of unfitness due to Fraudulent Entry in the Army (concealment of other service). His record contained a letter entitled: "Fraudulent Entry" that stated: "During the entire period of time EM has been assigned he continually cause trouble because of his refusal to tell the truth." Duff came to Dallas where he married Frances Barnard. The marriage was annulled after two weeks. In June 1963 two private investigators hired by General Edwin Walker told the Dallas Police Department that Duff was planning to kill Walker. These were the two men named by Duff as plotting to kill Walker. Duff was arrested and polygraphed. The polygraph test indicated he had no knowledge of the Walker Incident. OSWALD WAS UNSURE OF THE OUTCOME OF WALKER INCIDENT The FBI reported: "Dallas report of S.A. WARREN C. DeBRUEYS dated December 8, 1963, on pages 284 and 285 set out interviews of Marina Oswald on December 3, 1963, and December 4, 1963. She advised during the Spring of 1963 they resided on Neeley Street. One evening in the Spring of 1963 her husband indicated he was going to typing class at the Dallas evening school (Crozier Technical High School where OSWALD last attended on April 8, 1963) where he normally attended two or three times a week. On this particular evening he was very late and arrived home about midnight, very pale, agitated and excited at which time he admitted trying to kill General Walker by shooting at Walker with a rifle. Marina Oswald stated her husband normally would depart the Neeley Street address sometime between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. returning home about 9:00 p.m." In 1964 Marina told the Bureau: "When he came back, I asked him what happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me he had shot at General Edwin Walker." OSWALD went on that he did not know if he had hit General Edwin Walker; when he learned from the newspapers the next day that he had missed, he told her he was "sorry that he had not hit him." Marina Oswald told the HSCA: "[When he returned late that evening] he turned the radio on and he was very pale and he was listening to the news, changing from station to station. I ask him what it was all about, and he said that he tried to shoot General Edwin Walker. I told him, how dare you take somebody's life and you should not do things like that, I mean you have no right to do it. He said well if somebody shot Hitler at the right time you will do justice to humanity so since I do not know anything about the man I should not talk about it." [Marina's HSCA Test. pg. 383] In 1994 Marina Oswald told this researcher: "All I can tell you is what he told me when he came home. And people have pointed out how nervous he was after that, and he was cool as cucumber after Kennedy? Are you asking me, did I make this up? No. He came home from work, it was late, I found the note in one of the little closets. I confront him when he came what it was all about? Then he turned the radio on. He told me he shot at Walker." ANALYSIS If OSWALD shot at General Edwin Walker he would have known immediately if he hit him or missed him. Marina Oswald pointed out to this interviewer that all she had was her husband's word he shot at General Edwin Walker. She was not a witness to the event. HEMMING was the shooter and knew the outcome of the Walker incident. OSWALD was exaggerating his importance in the event to his wife. He had not done the shooting. If he had, he would have known that he missed. EVIDENCE FABRICATED BY DEMOHRENSCHILDT DeMohrenschildt told the Warren Commission that while he and his wife were visiting the OSWALDS one evening at Neely Street, Marina Oswald remarked that LEE bought a gun and showed it to Mrs. DeMohrenschildt. George DeMohrenschildt told the FBI that this visit occurred on Saturday, April 13, 1963. That year Easter Sunday fell on April 14, 1963. The purpose of the visit was to deliver an Easter present to OSWALD'S daughter. In 1964 Marina Oswald stated "when she had asked her husband what he had done with the rifle, he replied that he had buried it in the ground or had hidden it in some bushes. He also mentioned a railroad track in this connection. She testified that several days later, OSWALD recovered his rifle, and brought it back to the apartment." Marina Oswald stated that OSWALD did not retrieve his rifle until April 14, 1963. Nonetheless, George DeMohrenschildt claimed he and OSWALD stood in the front room talking, and Marina Oswald opened a closet to show Mrs. DeMohrenschildt the gun; Mrs. DeMohrenschildt called out to her husband in the next room. He did not get a look at it, but remembered a telescopic sight. Marina Oswald told them LEE used it for target shooting. George DeMohrenschildt noted he then "jokingly" asked LEE if he had taken the shot at General Edwin Walker. LEE became tense, "sort of shriveled," and made a face in answer to the question without specifically answering it. In a State Department interview at the American Embassy, Haiti, on December 1963 the DeMohrenschildts claimed they had seen the rifle in the Fall of 1962, and not the following Spring. In that interview, they claimed the last time they had seen the OSWALDS was in January 1963, not April 1963; they were too busy preparing for their forthcoming trip to Haiti to see LEE and Marina Oswald after that. [HSCA V12 p52] The HSCA asked Marina Oswald whether she exhibited the rifle to the DeMohrenschildts: "I cannot tell you that, not because I am hiding, but because I cannot recall." [HSCA V12 p301] In George DeMohrenschildt's unpublished manuscript, he blamed the Walker incident on a Jew: "There is another thing which makes me believe that LEE possibly tried to shoot General Edwin Walker. A man, whose name I do not recall, a Jewish man, whom LEE met at Ford's Christmas party, described General Edwin Walker as the most dangerous man in the United States, a potential neo-fascilst [sic] leader. I noticed that LEE kept on asking why. And the other fellow explained clearly his reasons. LEE might have been influenced by this statement." Marina Oswald told this interviewer in 1994: "I think he waited two days before recovering the rifle. They did come and bring that. If it was Easter it had to be Sunday. I liked DeMohrenschildt very much." EVIDENCE - THE NOTE OSWALD left a note for Marina Oswald in Russian with practical instructions in case the Walker mission ended in failure. Marina Oswald testified she became agitated the night of the Walker incident when she found the note in OSWALD'S room; she entered the room contrary to his instructions when she began to worry about his absence. She allegedly kept the note, to turn over to the authorities "if something like that should be repeated again." When asked whether LEE requested she return the note, she claimed: "He forgot about it." Marina Oswald did not bring the note to the attention of the Dallas Police Department, but kept the note in a Russian book entitled Useful Advice. Ruth Paine accidentally turned the note over to the Dallas Police Department on December 2, 1963. Michael Paine: "I accept that he took a shot at Walker and nothing came of it. I think he probably meant to kill him, but Walker had the good fortune to duck at the right moment. He wrote a letter and left it with Marina Oswald just before he went out that night. My wife was raked over the coals by the FBI when she quite unwittingly sent that letter to Marina Oswald. Ruth was sending Marina things she thought Marina would like, and this was a book written by Doctor Spock on babies. The FBI came back thinking she was trying to smuggle important information to Marina. So they grilled her, brought her to tears, and she was totally ignorant of that letter being in the book. She had never seen it. And she was very angry at Marina for keeping from her that LEE had done that. Later on, I remember discussing with Ruth why she had done that: Marina Oswald was afraid of being deported back to Russia." Ruth Paine: "This was a book that Marina had read to me from. It was child raising manual. After she left on November 23, 1963, I expected her to come back, but she didn't. So every day or so I would send something the baby that might need - a change of clothing, etc. Mail began to come for her. I would give it to the police. The FBI had overlooked it. Later, I understood Marina had hidden a note in a book. First I heard about it, two guys from the Secret Service came and asked if I knew anything about it. They presented it as if I did know something about it. I said, 'I just sent a book to her.'" The text of the note: (1) This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it. (2) Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance upon learning everything. (3) I paid the house rent on the second so don't worry about it. (4) Recently I also paid for water and gas. (5) The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the check. (6) You can either throw out or give my clothing etc. away Do not keep these. However I prefer you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil etc.) (7) Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise. (8) The address book can be found on my table in the study should you need same. (9) We have friends here. The Red Cross also will help you. (Red Cross in English). [sic] (10) I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of the month. You and the baby (apparently) can live for another two months using $10 per week. (11) If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge though which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge). ANALYSIS The note referred to the Walker Incident. 1. "This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it." OSWALD gave Marina Oswald the key to his post office box for the first time. He had previously withheld it from her. OSWALD had Marina Oswald wait in a drugstore rather than accompany him into the main post office on Ervay Street, where OSWALD rented Box 2915 from October 9, 1962, to May 14, 1963. What was he up to at the Post Office? The Warren Commission: "Although the possibilities of investigation in this area are limited, there is no evidence that any of [OSWALD'S three boxes] were ever used for the surreptitious receipt of messages...The single outstanding key was recovered from OSWALD immediately after he was taken in custody." [WR p312] In 1994 Marina Oswald did not recall having been told to wait in the drugstore while her husband went to the post office: "It was just to remind me where it was." 2. "Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance upon learning everything." OSWALD feared his action might escape notice not only by the Washington newspapers, where the Soviet Embassy was located, but by the local media in Dallas. General Edwin Walker was headline news in 1963; even the anonymous pot shot made the front page of the Dallas Morning News. OSWALD was incredibly stupid. OSWALD was about to commit a political act which would be viewed sympathetically by the Soviets. According to Marina Oswald: "LEE said he was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization...if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives." [WR p406] 3. "I paid the house rent on the second so don't worry about it. Recently I also paid for water and gas. The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the check." The reference to OSWALD'S check having been mailed to his Post Office Box meant the letter was written sometime after April 5, 1963, when he lost his job at Jagger-Chiles-Stoval. 4. "You can either throw out or give my clothing etc. away Do not keep these. However I prefer you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil etc.) Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise. The address book can be found on my table in the study should you need same." OSWALD was about to commit a crime that could result in a stiff prison sentence. 5. "We have friends here. The Red Cross also will help you. (Red Cross in English). [sic] I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of the month. You and the baby (apparently) can live for another two months using $10 per week. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge though which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge)." OSWALD was going after a former General , a tough customer. He could have been killed or taken prisoner. [DeMohrenschildt/W WR p282; WR pp. 416, 738, 592; HSCA R pp. 98, 60, 62] Marina Oswald told this researcher 1994: "If he was apprehended as you said, but something more will be printed, then identify people who tried to shoot at Walker as it was in newspapers, you follow me? Maybe the Embassy would help me to go back to Russia? He was giving instructions where to go if he doesn't come home. Maybe he was with a group and maybe they would kill him. It's unlikely Walker would have killed him. The police aren't going to kill him. The message of the thing was that he had a mission or had another second life. He did not indulge in a explanation to me. I knew nothing about it. So, if something happened to me, he was just giving directions to go to get help. Maybe somehow also he betrays himself by saying it. That's a giveaway without him realizing that. The note did not say he was going to kill Walker. He came home without that rifle. What was all that about? If HEMMING put my husband up to this, the main thing was to show LEE was a killer." BULLET PROBABLY FIRED FROM A MANNLICHER-CARCANO The Warren Commission Report stated: "Specimen Q188 was fired from a barrel rifled with four lands and grooves, right twist. Mannlicher-Carcano rifles of the type used in the Kennedy assassination are among those which produce general rifling impressions such as were found on specimen Q188." FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier apprised the Commission that relatively few types of rifles could produce the characteristics found on the bullet. [WR p186] The FBI's tests did not prove conclusively the bullet was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano or was fired from OSWALD'S Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all others: "The FBI was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the bullet recovered from the house of General Edwin Walker had been fired from the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository." The FBI reported: "Bullet submitted as recovered from Walker's home has same physical characteristics as the bullet and bullet fragments recovered in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. Walker bullet is 6.5 MM caliber bullet fired from a four land and groove, right twist barrel Mannlicher-Carcano rifles of type used in the assassination are among those which produce rifling characteristics such as on Walker bullet. Not possible to determine whether or not Walker fired from rifle used in assassination due to extreme distortion and mutilation and because individual microscopic marks produced by barrel may have changed subsequent to time Walker bullet fired." [Memo R.H. Jevons to Conrad 12.4.63] The FBI Lab Report that this document was based on stated: "The copper jacket and the lead core of the Q188 bullet were determined to be slightly different in compositions from the copper jackets and lead cores of the Q1 and Q2 bullets. Although the differences in composition between the Q-188 and the Q-1 and Q-2 bullets were small and do not indicate that these bullets came from the same box. It is to be noted that there is no assurance in the fabrication of ammunition that all the ammunition ending up in one box possesses bullets from the same batch of metal, that is, with the same composition." [NARA HSCA 180-10100-10288] The HSCA: "The firearms panel of the committee examined the bullet fragment that was removed from the wall in the home of General Edwin Walker and found that it had characteristics similar to bullets fired from OSWALD'S Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. In addition, neutron activation analysis of this fragment confirmed that it was probably a Mannlicher-Carcano [6.5 millimeter] bullet." ANALYSIS HEMMING used OSWALD'S Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to shoot at Walker. Any tests conducted on the bullet would show that it was fired from a rifle whose barrel had the same or similar rifling characteristics to OSWALD'S. 30.06 OR 6.5 MM? In the original story about the Walker shooting in the Dallas Morning News, Q188 was identified as a 30.06: "Walker was working on his income tax at 9:30 p.m. when the bullet, identified as a 30.06 crashed through a rear window and slammed though a wall next to him." An early police report described the bullet as "of unknown caliber, steel jacketed." [supp. Offense Report 4.10.63] General Edwin Walker did not believe that the bullet fired at him was in the possession of the HSCA and he sent this Mailgram to Robert Blakey: "The bullet before your Select Committee called the Walker bullet is not the Walker bullet. It is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas City Police on April 10, 1963. The bullet you have was never gotten from me, or taken out of my house, by anyone at any time." THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE The FBI investigated General Edwin Walker's contention. Billy Gene Norvell discovered the bullet in the home of General Edwin Walker. On June 3, 1964, Norvell advised an FBI agent that "...he then picked up the bullet and scratched his initials 'B.N.' or his initial 'N' on the base of it." Norvell gave the bullet to B.G. Brown of the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department. Brown stated that he marked the bullet. On April 25, 1963, J.C. Day transported the bullet to the City/County Criminal Investigation Laboratory, where he turned it over to F.T. Alexander and Louie L. Anderson: "Lieutenant Day advised that he retrieved the Walker bullet from the CCCIL on December 2, 1963, and gave it to FBI S.A. Bardwell Odum on that date...S.A. Odum forwarded the Walker bullet to the FBI Laboratory."There, it was initialed JH and RF. In June 1979 the FBI examined the bullet for the officers initials who were links in the chain of evidence: "Identifiable marks were found inscribed on varying portions of the bullet itself. It must be understood that certain markings are clearly discernible, others admit of more than one interpretation, while others may be obscured by oxidation or otherwise." The markings found were, "Q 188," and letters which appeared to be as follows: "HJ," "RF," "N," "B," "J," "D," "A," "O" or "D." The bullet was contained in an original Dallas Police evidence box: "The cover (top) of the box bears 'HJ, RF, April 10, 1963, 4011 Turtle. CK Burg by F.A. BGB Q 188. The inside bottom of the box bears 'Day 7640' and the outside bottom bears '7640 Day' as well as 'Q 188' and 'Rm.'" [FBI Director to Keuch 62-117290-144 7.3.79] ANALYSIS HEMMING owned a 30.06 rifle at this time, however, it was unlikely that he would have utilized it in the Walker attack, when he had OSWALD'S Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at his disposal. The rationale behind the Walker attack was to create a history of violence for OSWALD by linking him to the Walker incident. Firing at Walker with OSWALD'S Mannlicher-Carcano would further this end. The newspaper reporter who stated that the bullet was a 30.06 may have gotten his information from Walker. Walker was convinced the bullet the FBI had was not the one taken from his wall, however, Walker was a crackpot. The initials on the bullet matched those of the police officers who handled it. THE CRYPTIC FBI DOCUMENT An FBI document dated December 4, 1963, to the SAC, Dallas, from SA (Deleted), Subject, Edwin A. Walker, Information Concerning, stated: "Assistant Director William C. Sullivan called at 3:10 a.m. and instructed he receive a return telephone call and be filled in on the details relating to the alleged bullet being shot into the home of Edwin Walker. I returned the call and advised Mr. Sullivan that the General Walker shooting details are not contained within the Dallas files. However, I mentioned that a slug obtained from the Dallas Police Department had been sent to the Laboratory for examination, and the transmittal letter reflects the slug was recovered from Walker's home through a window and that no one has been identified as firing the bullet. Mr. Sullivan then instructed that Agents review Dallas newspaper morgues first thing Wednesday morning, November 4, 1963, and the details be obtained and furnished him by teletype. Mr. Sullivan cautioned this be done discreetly since no one knows of OSWALD'S possible involvement in the shooting. Lead (AM, November 4, 1963) Immediately review morgues for new articles on or about April 10, 1963 relating to General Walker shooting. Prepare detailed teletype, attention: Assistant Director Sullivan. Addendum: In connection with the Walker case, FBI S.A. Kenneth Howe advised that (deleted) called him (Howe) on evening of December 3, 1963, and said an unidentified (deleted) mentioned 'I suppose you (deleted) know about it - OSWALD taking a shot at Walker - he admitted to it in a letter to his wife. 2- Dallas (Deleted)'" [FBI 157-218-45 re. 1983] OVERALL ANALYSIS OSWALD allegedly chose an enemy of President John F. Kennedy as his first target before assassinating President John F. Kennedy. The HSCA: "Kennedy and Walker hardly shared a common political ideology. As seen in terms of American political thinking, Walker was a staunch conservative, while the President was a liberal...It can be argued, however, that from a Marxist's perspective, they could be regarded as occupying similar positions." Most Communist Party-oriented Marxists believed that certain capitalist forces were more progressive than others and should be encouraged. The Warren Report stated that OSWALD'S attack on General Edwin Walker betrayed a predisposition to take human life. Once the Warren Commission established this, the Walker attack became probative evidence OSWALD killed President John F. Kennedy. [WR p187] HEMMING told this researcher: "OSWALD didn't do the Walker shooting. The whole clownish story of the Walker shooting: he's gonna ride a bus with a rifle. Oh, he breaks it down, and rides the bus. Then he hides it somewhere in the railroad tracks and picks it up. Jesus Christ. "Marina had the battered wife syndrome, as they call it today. Let me tell you, if he was doing that kind of xxxx, she would have blown the whistle in a heartbeat to keep her kids. Why should her kids suffer for this kind of activity? In the Soviet Union, whatever you do - your family is going to pay for it. You talk about deterrence of crime, police states have got it. She's gonna come over here, from that kind of society, and she's gonna look around and think this country's any goddamn different? How the xxxx would she know? What would she have done in the Soviet Union if he started talking about hitting the Kremlin? She would have snitched him out. What was the difference in her frame of mind between living in Minsk and living in Dallas, Texas. No difference. Whatever she would have done there, she would have done in Dallas. So all this bullxxxx about her being aware, this was to dirty her up, to get her to admit that kind of xxxx. "We got suspicious of Walker when he went out there just a short time after somebody took a shot at him, yet we were sitting in Walker's study with the curtains open, the lights on, bullxxxxting with Walker until 5:00 a.m. in the morning. We're thinking, 'What's gonna keep the rig from coming back?' And we're sitting there with him. He took no security precautions at all after the shooting. Either this guy's a total xxxxing nut or he knows something we don't know. Me and Howard Davis are kinda wondering if he must have had something to do with setting it up himself. This was May 1963. We were out there again in July and we were wondering, 'Maybe Walker's people set it up to promote Walker?' Or maybe some of the right wing people in Dallas, to promote Walker, conned OSWALD into you know, all speculation. Walker had already met with some of our Texas financial backers. The backers were backing Walker. We hadn't elected Walker our leader." THE SOVIET VISA On April 18, 1963, the Soviet Embassy, Washington, sent Marina Oswald a letter requesting that she come in for an interview. If this was impossible, it suggested she furnish her reasons for beginning proceedings for permission to enter the Soviet Union for permanent residence in writing. Marina Oswald did not follow up on her request until June 1963. Then she informed the Soviets that her husband would be accompanying her back to the Soviet Union. Marina Oswald and LEE OSWALD had planned to separate, now they were back together again. HEMMING told this researcher: "It could have been a homesick thing, Cubans, Russians, everybody goes through this xxxx. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, where she's got to make the decision voluntarily - and he's talking about going back? We are led to believe that he's trying to convince her to go back because she's supposedly writing these letters for him to the Soviet Embassy in D.C. And he's going back? Bullxxxx. Did you get what I just said?" Marina Oswald told this researcher: "He made me to write letters to Embassy. Go away. He cannot tell me why." OSWALD AND THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE The Warren Commission stated "Some time between April 12, 1963, and April 18, 1963, OSWALD distributed Fair Play for Cuba Committee materials in Dallas apparently uneventfully." OSWALD wrote a letter on April 19, 1963, to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York, requesting literature and announcing he had already distributed Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlets in Dallas: L.H. OSWALD P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas. Dear Sirs: I do not like to ask for something for nothing but I am unemployed. Since I am unemployed, I stood yesterday for the first time in my life, with a placare around my neck, passing out fair play for cuba pamplets, ect. I only had 15 or so. In 40 minutes they were all gone. I was cursed as well as praised by some. My homemake placard said: 'HANDS OFF CUBA! VIVA Fidel. I now ask for 40 or (50) more of the fine, basic pamplets - 14." HEMMING told this researcher: "Never happened. The White Russians wouldn't have stood for it. He never gave out the leaflets. There were no pro-Castro demonstrations in Dallas. He would have got his ass kicked. The FBI had several informants in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and had burglarized the offices of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. On April 21, 1963, the FBI in New York City became aware of OSWALD'S letter. HOSTY, OSWALD & FAIR PLAY CUBA COMMITTEE JUNE 1963 The news about OSWALD'S contact with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee did not reach S.A. Hosty until early June 1963. The FBI: "A Special Agent in New York was censured for failing to promptly disseminate information on the Fair Play for Cuba to Dallas concerning OSWALD. Another Special Agent in New York was censured for failing to insure that Fair Play for Cuba information concerning OSWALD was more promptly disseminated to Dallas." S.A. Hosty had been instructed to be on the alert for Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities in Dallas, yet when he received the telex about OSWALD'S leafleting, he claimed the information was "stale." He made no attempt to verify OSWALD'S claim of having distributed leaflets: "When I got it, it was approximately six or seven weeks old, past the date it allegedly took place..." ANALYSIS S.A. Hosty refused to investigate OSWALD despite his contacts with the notorious and highly subversive Fair Play for Cuba Committee. THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE When the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was first formed, the CIA commented: "We bet this one winds up on the Attorney General's list." The announcement of the formation of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was made on April 5, 1960, at a cocktail party given by Cuban Consulate. On April 6, 1960, a full-page advertisement in The New York Times listed Richard Gibson, authors James Baldwin, Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, Jean Paul Sartre, Robert Taber (a Robert Taber born May 10, 1919; died in September 1981) and others as sponsors. ROBERT TABER Robert Taber's CIA file reflected allegations that he served a term in the penitentiary in the 1930's for armed robbery. It was reported in 1950 he was a Communist. He became interested in Fidel Castro's revolutionary movement in 1957, when he served in the mountains with the Castro forces. A Passport Record check in 1962 noted that he may have lost his U.S. citizenship because of this. A 1960 Domestic Contacts Division report categorized him as a resentful, frustrated foreign correspondent. He received extensive publicity in 1961 when he defected to Cuba because he was facing a perjury charge in the United States: he had testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee that the full-page advertisement in The New York Times was paid through voluntary contributions, but the FBI developed evidence that Cuba's delegation to the United Nations advanced the money. [CIA F82-0489] Fifteen months later Robert Taber returned to the United States and was questioned in closed session by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. In March 1964 Robert Taber applied for employment with the CIA. The CIA's Office of Security rejected him because "In view of Subject's notorious background, which raises serious questions on his honesty, loyalty, integrity and (deleted) trustworthiness, (deleted). Leo J. Dunn." [CIA Memo 3.13.64 Chief, Personnel Security Division] HEMMING told this researcher: "Taber went up in the mountains for the Agency. He put out money for a hit on Fidel. St. George went up there. He was a stalking horse to take out Fidel. He had a price on his head." The CIA believed the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was controlled and financed by Cuba. It uncovered evidence that a U.S. national in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had been given the monopoly on the distribution of Cuban cigars. [CIA F82-0489/3] The Fair Play for Cuba Committee immediately came under intensive FBI investigation. [CIA F82-0489/28; F82-0489/2] By January 1961 the Justice Department solicited its registration as a Cuban Government agency. However, the organization advised through an attorney that it would not register. The Justice Department had already forced the 26th of July Movement to register, listing its foreign principal as the 26th of July Movement, Havana, Cuba. In April 1961 the Fair Play for Cuba Committee charged that the CIA organized troops to invade Cuba, and were training in Louisiana, Florida, and Guatemala, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. [NYT 4.18.61] The CIA penetrated the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. According to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Richard Helms, to "monitor" a group was merely to attend its public meetings and hear what any citizen present would hear; to "infiltrate" a group was to join it as a member and appear to support its purposes in general; to "penetrate" a group was to gain a leadership position, and influence or direct its policies and actions. [RR fn p152] In 1979 Richard Helms was asked if he was familiar with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee: "I recall the name Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but I can't, for the life of me, remember whether it was pro-Castro or anti-Castro at this stage. Source: http://www.combat-di...hapter12/21.htm

PENN JONES T H E CONTINUING INQUIRY VOLUME IV, NUMBER 9 APRIL 22, 1980 THE STOP-AND-GO MOTORCADE by Gary Mack When retired Dallas Police Officer Earle V. Brown told me the motorcade stopped on the Stemmons Freeway access ramp (see March 1980 TCI), my first thought was verification. From all written information, including the Warren Commission volumes, there's no direct indication whatsoever that such an event really happened. The TCI printing deadline was moved back some 10 days to accommodate all I knew at that time. Afterward, I called Brown again to ask if he was absolutely certain about what he saw. He said he'd been thinking about it for the past week and there was no doubt - the motorcade, with the Kennedy limousine in front, came to a halt for some 30 seconds. Brawn didn't remember any specifics - there may have been one or two motorcycles, he couldn't recall anyone getting out of a car, one of the men had what appeared to be a big automatic rifle. But the two men in the front seat of the limousine were talking and gesturing, and that's why Brown concluded, right then, they didn't know the location of the nearest hospital. Secret Service guidelines, of course, required that knowledge. 3 I'd heard that Jesse Curry can be reasonable with critics and remembered that his wife had called our radio station two years ago to say thanks for treating her husband fairly on our talk shows. So, seeking verification of Brown's story, I called the former Dallas Chief of Police. Since this was to be our first discussion, I decided not to press the man too hard for answers. He's in the phone book, I dialed the number and Chief Curry himself answered. If he recognized my name or the radio station, he gave no indication. He did agree to answer a few questions. When asked if his car was ever behind Kennedy's, Curry denied it by repeating his Warren Commission testimony that he led the motorcade to Parkland. When I next told him some "newly discovered" films and photographs showed he pulled to his left in the Triple Underpass, slowed down, then speeded up and cut in between JFK and his Secret Service escort car, Curry still denied being behind Kennedy. There was no real reason to argue the point, so I asked about the speed of the motorcade out of Dealey Plaza and on up to Stemmons. Curry said they were accelerating "pretty good" until the motorcycle officer pulled up and they talked briefly. He didn't remember the officer's name, even when I mentioned Martin, Chaney and Jackson. "I leaned out my window and said to him 'Were those shots?' and he said 'Yes and the President's hurt pretty bad.' And I said 'Well get us to the hospitall' " I asked where this conversation took place and he said "somewhere just before Stemmons." %'he big question, how fast were you going, made him pause before answering "Probably '^tive or six miles an hour." When told of Officer Brown's account, Curry denied they stopped, but revised his speed estimate to "pretty slow, maybe two to three miles an hour." Before I could ask him to think about it more carefully, Curry unexpectedly volunteered "You know, they didn't even know where the hospital wasi" "There have been rumors about Source: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jones/id/1061

Ian,perhaps it could be looked at the other way around.Major General Edwin Anderson Walker,being Gay,would be a easy way to blackmail him into taking part,if he were reluctant to do so. I believe,or have a hunch,Walker was shot at,perhaps to make him join a conspiracy to kill JFK.A shot by LHO,who was possibly released on the orders of RFK after the shooting. Walker already hated the Kennedy's,after being stripped naked and bungled into a plane to find himself detained in a mental institute.Add to that Walker was extreme right winged and he thought the Kennedys were pro communist.He had a bucket full of hatred for the Kennedys. Paul Trejo and Harry Dean have a lot of information which could put Walker in the frame.

Some other interesting information. Two professional television cameras were filming at the time, one located outside the Bureau at 5 St James and the other outside 8 St James. In ballistics terms the footage from those two cameras provides most of the hard scientific proof needed to prove the shots could not have been fired by the Libyans, and confirms the firing platform was located in a building on the northern side of the square, well to the west of the Libyan Bureau. Forensic details from Yvonne Fletcher's post mortem provide the balance of irrefutable scientific evidence. Early that day crowd barriers were placed round the central garden pavements of St James Square, and also to the west of the Libyan Bureau in front of numbers 7 and 8. The anti-Quadhafi demonstrators were ushered behind the barriers in the inner square at 10.15 am and a senior police officer then personally positioned twenty police constables, including WPC Fletcher, in an arc facing the inner square. Significantly, although there were more than 50 police personnel present in the Square, Yvonne Fletcher, the shortest constable in the Metropolitan Police Force, was the only female officer present. As the constable with the lightest body weight facing multiple demonstrators of considerable bulk, every rule in the book says the senior officer should have positioned Yvonne well out on one of the flanks, but he did not do so. Yvonne Fletcher was deliberately positioned on the apex of the curve in front of the Libyan Bureau, in front of the television cameras, and directly in the chosen line of fire from 8 St James Square. Just four minutes later at 10.19 am a 3-shot burst of automatic fire rang out. Yvonne Fletcher was hit by the first bullet in the upper right back. Bullet entry angle was 60 degrees from the horizontal, with an exit wound visible below the left rib cage. If the entry and exit wounds are lined up with her known height, and her televised position when the shots were fired, the line of fire backtracks precisely to the top floor of 8 St James Square. No other building in St James Square is high enough or at the correct azimuth to facilitate the sixty degree shot. At the coronial inquest into her death, creative media deception "proved" that Yvonne Fletcher was killed by a shot fired from the first floor of the Libyan Bureau on her left-hand side, at only 15 degrees from the horizontal! The continuous television video sound track records the crowd chanting, followed by a bullet strike on a human body, followed in turn by the sounds of three equally-spaced very fast shots. By far the most important point proved by the sound is that the camera microphone located outside the Libyan Bureau recorded the `whump' of the bullet striking Yvonne Fletcher before it recorded the sound of the three shots being fired. What this means in layman terms is that the bullet which killed her was supersonic, and was fired from a position more distant from the camera's microphone than Yvonne Fletcher herself. This analysis alone proves the shots could not have been fired from the Libyan Bureau under any circumstances. If the shots were fired from the Libyan Bureau they would have crossed over the camera microphone before the first bullet hit Yvonne Fletcher, i.e. the microphone would have recorded a different sound sequence: first a single shot, then the bullet impact, then shots two and three - whether the bullets were supersonic or not. There is absolutely no trace of this latter sequence on the audio, which also destroys the claim made at the coronial inquest that two 9-mm Sterling sub-machine guns fired at the same time from the Libyan Bureau. The professional television audio proves in absolute scientific terms that no shots were fired from the Bureau, nor from any other building on the eastern side of St James Square that day. The camera positioned outside the Bureau panned left and right, showing demonstrators massed along the pavement on the inner square. When the shots were fired, this camera zoomed in and filmed the demonstrators falling sideways to the ground towards the camera's left. So their physical response was to shrapnel and noise from the opposite direction: exactly the line of fire from 8 St James. The massive kinetic energy and inertia of the high velocity assault round fired at her from 8 St James Square, knocked Yvonne Fletcher to the ground in precisely the same direction as the demonstrators, once again proving the direct line of fire. The second TV camera at 8 St James then zoomed in to show Yvonne Fletcher rolling from side to side on the road, dying on national television in excruciating agony for the greater good of the "international community". It is no great secret that many embassies stock weapons for use in self defence, which are normally limited to handguns loaded with jacketed or solid lead bullets of standard military type, normally 9-mm parabellum, designed to remain intact and not expand on entry to the body. In the case of the 9 millimetre 115 grain bullet fired by defensive pistols, and sub-machine guns such as the Sterling, energy falls from 341 foot-pounds at the muzzle, to 241 foot-pounds at 100 yards. Quite enough to cause serious injury, but rarely death if hit in the upper right back at fifty yards. Conversely, the energy from high velocity 7.62-mm burst-fire assault rifles such as the Belgian FN or German Heckler and Koch51, firing a 150 grain standard military round is a massive 2,288 foot-pounds at 100 yards. Enough to go straight through a policewoman with energy to spare. The full Fletcher autopsy report will never be made public, but details released at the coronial inquest into her death are sufficient for military experts to prove that a 9-mm parabellum bullet fired by a Sterling could not have been responsible for the terrible damage inflicted, even at point-blank range. After entering WPC Fletcher's upper right back the single bullet damaged the right lung, completely destroyed both lobes of the liver, shredded the large inferior vena cava vein leading to the left ventricle of the heart, caused damage to the spine and cut the pancreas in half, before completing its 12 inch track through her body and exiting below the left rib cage, continuing on to cause further injuries to Fletcher's left elbow. Massive injuries like these sustained through 12 inches of human tissue, can only be caused by the colossal hydrostatic impact and inertia of a full bore (7.62-mm) high velocity assault round. To rule out any further argument on this point, tissue tests were conducted in Australia to establish the maximum penetration of 9-mm parabellum rounds in pig carcasses. At its maximum muzzle velocity of 1,350 feet per second, the 115 grain bullet fired at 50 yards penetrated only 6 inches, with no hydrostatic effect at all on wet organs such as the liver. Then, to counter ridiculous claims from London that Yvonne might have been killed by a "silenced" pistol or sub-machine gun, more 115 grain rounds were downloaded to a subsonic (silenced) velocity of 900 feet per second. At 50 yards these puny rounds penetrated only 1.5 inches. Further tests established in absolute scientific terms that the minimum round needed to inflict Fletcher's hydrostatic injuries and penetrate 12 inches of tissue, was a bullet with a minimum weight of 150 grains, fired at a velocity in excess of 2,750 feet per second. Such rounds can only be chambered and burst-fired by full-bore high velocity assault weapons. There are three high velocity rifle rounds specifically designed to cause the savage fatal injuries suffered by Yvonne Fletcher that day, the worst of which is the `petal' fragible, an assassination bullet designed to enter the body before its nose separates into several razor-sharp high velocity splinters, leaving the heavy base of the bullet to continue on a straight track through the body. If three petal frags were fired, with only one striking Fletcher, the remaining two would explode on impact with the paving, hurling razor-sharp metal shrapnel fragments and hard granite chippings in a low arc towards the anti-Quadhafi demonstrators standing behind the barriers just beyond Yvonne Fletcher's position. Quite enough to injure a large number of bystanders but not kill them, which is exactly what happened at 10.19 am on the morning of 17 April 1984. The question has to asked whether the objective of the covert operation was simply to splatter a few demonstrators with shards of shrapnel, which would have been enough to swing public opinion against Libya. Perhaps the operation simply went wrong and Yvonne Fletcher was killed by mistake? No. The sound track analysis and film footage prove she was hit by the first shot in the 3-shot burst. The first shot in an automatic burst always hits its target, before the weapon "walks" due to recoil effect. Therefore the assault rifle sights were lined-up on Yvonne Fletcher's back when the shooter squeezed the trigger. The only possible verdict is pre-meditated murder. Hours after Yvonne's death, when the counter-terrorist squadron of the Special Air Service arrived by helicopter from Hereford, its members were advised by a senior police officer that the shots were fired from the Libyan Bureau at 5 St James Square. Good though the SAS normally is at countering terrorists in multiple environments, this wildly inaccurate police information made it impossible for the Squadron to successfully track down Yvonne Fletcher's ruthless killers. There are few things more sacred to the British public than the safety of its proudly unarmed police force. Therefore the murder of a young unarmed policewoman on the streets of London would generate feelings of intense loathing in the British public and direct raw hatred towards the Libyans as the supposed killers. It did, but the public remained unaware of the real culprits as the horrifying sight of Yvonne Fletcher dying on national television was beamed across Britain into millions of homes. Police Special Branch and MI5 had suspicions of course. The shots rang out for no obvious reason, and seasoned officers understood only too well that for the Libyans to kill an unarmed policewoman in broad daylight on a London street was tantamount to committing diplomatic suicide. Making the task even harder for police was their exclusion from the first three days of COBRA intelligence meetings after the murder, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, while Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was out of the country on an official visit to Portugal. It was an entirely critical time when the police were in hot pursuit of the murderer of an unarmed British policewoman, and had every right to storm the Libyan People's Bureau in order to search for evidence. Indeed the police wanted to storm the building, but permission was refused by the chairman of COBRA. It is perhaps a coincidence that, at this early stage, storming the Libyan Bureau could only have proved that no shots were fired from there at all. The Chairman of COBRA and members of MI6 at the Foreign Office were demonstrably certain that Yvonne Fletcher was not killed by Libyans located in the Bureau, because after a creative media feeding frenzy and a bloodless siege that lasted until 22 April 1984, Britain broke off diplomatic relations with Libya and ordered the occupants of the Bureau to leave the country within seven days. They departed on 27 April, with no suspects being arrested or charged with her murder. Immediately after their departure the Libyan Bureau was entered and searched from top to bottom by a specialist military clearance team looking for booby traps, weapons and ammunition. Despite an exhaustive search of every nook and cranny in the building, nothing was found, a fact reported by the media the next day. It was not until 2 May 1984, five days after the extensive military search, that the Metropolitan Police suddenly "found" 4,367 rounds of 9-mm and .22 calibre ammunition, 7 pistols, two Sterling pistol grips and two Sterling magazines in the Libyan Bureau. On the face of it, Mr. Plod had suddenly become much more skilled at finding concealed weapons and ammunition than the premier military explosives clearance team. Who was fooling who? If the weapons and ammunition were Libyan property they would certainly have been loaded into one of the 18 Libyan diplomatic bags which left the country unopened. Critically though, no Sterling sub-machine guns or 7.62-mm high velocity assault rounds were planted in the Libyan building to be later "found" by the Metropolitan Police. There were sound reasons for this. Any "whole" Sterling sub-machine gun could be tested ballistically by forensic scientists, an event that had to be avoided at all costs because it would have exposed the deception; and 7.62-mm assault rounds had to be excluded because WPC Fletcher was notionally murdered with a low velocity 9-mm parabellum round: a fraudulent "fact" officially recorded at the inquest into her death. The situation became more confusing in April 1985, when on the first anniversary of Yvonne Fletcher's pre-meditated murder, BBC2 Television ran a documentary in which an amateur video film of the demonstration was shown for the first time. The amateur camera allegedly recorded the sound of a 12-shot Sterling sub-machine gun burst, which concurred nicely with the coronial inquest findings of May 1984, and appeared to explain the inexplicable: eleven fired 9-mm bullets found by the Police during a search of St James conducted 10 days after the murder, in which time period the crime scene was not secured. Add to that the 9-mm bullet which allegedly killed Yvonne Fletcher but was not recovered from her body, and we have a neat figure of 12 rounds to match the forged video footage. The amateur video footage provides an object lesson in how not to use forged evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The audio of a Sterling firing an 12-shot burst is real enough, but it was not recorded in St James Square, nor on the morning of the 17th April 1984 when Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. How is it possible to prove this? By relying on hard science and ignoring misleading media hype. Immediately before the murder, one of the professional cameramen filmed the front facade of the Libyan building, which was crossed diagonally by a clear shadow line cast by the sun. The exact time was accurately calculated using survey techniques and astronomical data from the Greenwich Observatory in London. The forged amateur footage also shows a sun line diagonally crossing the front of the Libyan building, but unfortunately it is in the wrong place and at the wrong angle for 10.19 am on the morning of 17 April 1984. More convincing for the layman reader is the car parked in front of the Bureau. On the professional video the car is an unoccupied blue Peugeot sedan with its bonnet positioned between the two windows to the left of the Bureau entrance. On the blatantly forged amateur video, the unoccupied blue Peugeot sedan magically transforms itself into a white station wagon, starts its own engine, then drives itself five feet closer to the Libyan Bureau front door. Clever! For forensic scientists there are a staggering number of other errors on the footage providing 100% proof of forgery, including the sun shadow line failing to shade the bonnet of the "new" white station wagon; the green Libyan flag vanishing from the pole above the Bureau front door, and a tall black street light to the right of the Bureau disappearing completely. There is no doubt the forged footage was prepared in order to forever cement the reversed Orwellian media "truth" in the minds of the British Parliament and people. Anyone daring to challenge this reverse media "truth" would be patted indulgently on the head and given a copy of the BBC2 film, complete with the damning forged amateur video footage "proving" the Libyans fired an entirely mythical Sterling sub-machine gun burst that day. Ultimately the ploy failed. Unwittingly perhaps, the film makers proved their own video footage was deliberately forged, and thus in turn proved they were accessories after the fact to the murder of an unarmed British policewoman on the streets of London. At the time of going to press, Scotland Yard was making no moves to have this loathsome section of the media tracked down and charged. Sooner or later it must do so, because there is no statute of limitation where the murder of a uniformed police officer is concerned. Yvonne Fletcher's pre-meditated murder was one of the major triggers allowing blanket sanctions to be imposed on Libya by the United Nations Security Council. With less than a handful of bullets Libya was brought to its knees by deception alone. But who did it? It was in early 1984 that an American multinational moved into 8 St James Square. Unknown to the British or Libyans, the multinational owned three smaller oil-related service companies. The first, Intairdrill, operated inside Libya, while the second had exclusive access to the top two floors at 8 St James Square. The author was a consultant to the third. One year after Yvonne Fletcher's murder, all three small companies were discreetly disposed of by the multinational corporation, which was in turn linked to foreign intelligence agencies including the Israeli Mossad and American CIA. The identity of the person responsible for actually ordering the operation may never be uncovered. Was it the Director of the Mossad, or the Director of the CIA? Or was it simply an in-house multinational job on behalf of one of those agencies or an unknown third party? Because the occupants of 8 St James on that day and their connections are known, it is still possible to backtrack the chain of command, though this would require significant resources. For the television media 1984 was a landmark year. Though in the past "little" lies had been broadcast frequently, this was the first proven occasion when the media deliberately covered up a horrific murder and reversed the absolute scientific proof for its own biased internationalist reasons, to the detriment of British national security. Fiction was overwhelmingly embraced as a substitute for truth. After 17 April 1984 the media lost its credibility. Lying on national television about the horrific pre-meditated murder of an unarmed British policewoman on the streets of London, proved it would lie about anything at all, once paid the traditional thirty pieces of silver. WPC Yvonne Joyce Fletcher, ruthlessly sacrificed on television at the age of twenty five, was laid to rest at her local village church in the county of Wiltshire with full police honours. One of her mourners was the very same man who denied her superiors the right to enter the Bureau at 5 St James Square, and prove no shots were fired by the Libyans that day: The Chairman of COBRA. Source: http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/yvonne-fletcher-was-killed-by-ciamossad.html

If MI5 are involved,will the truth come out.Its a bit like saying,the FBI and CIA investigated JFK,s assassination.It is known,that intelligence knew there would be shooting on the day Yvonne Fletcher was killed.The intelligence community did not pass this information to the Police,although American Intelligence intercepted a message from Tripoli saying that shootings would happen.It is claimed the message got lost.Tam Dalyell,a Labour MP asked questions in the House of Commons. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) My locus in the tragic murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher is simply that, for reasons deployed in seven Adjournment debates and elsewhere, I do not believe the official view on Lockerbie, or that the accusations against Libya provide the whole story. Like Dr. Jim Swire, Pamela Dix, Rev. John Mosey, Martin Cadman and others of the Lockerbie relatives, Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher want the truth. Very frequently, a Government are justified in dismissing a television programme or a press article as being without foundation—I use polite terminology. But as I watched Fulcrum Production's "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 on Wednesday, 10 April, I came to the conclusion that casual dismissal simply will not do. I deploy two sets of reasons for that belief. First, anyone who watches the programme must acknowledge the care and detail with which those responsible for that production have put it together. Secondly, the people appearing are of a calibre and relevant experience that cannot merely be brushed aside. It is not on to imply that the professional opinion on ballistics of Lieutenant Colonel George Styles is of no value. He had 26 years in the British Army and is one its leading weapons experts. It is preposterous to imply that the professional opinion of Hugh Thomas on the anatomy of gunshot injuries does not require a serious and detailed response. He is a former chief consultant surgeon to the British Army in Northern Ireland and has dealt with hundreds of firearms injuries in Ulster. Thomas is, quite simply, one of the leading gunshot experts in the world. The Minister knows that Professor Bernard Knight has been one of the Home Department's most trusted and eminent pathologists for many years. He was entrusted with the investigation at Cromwell street, and much else. I gave notice to Detective Superintendent Emerton of Scotland Yard, and he to the Home Office, that I would ask the following questions. First, was Yvonne Fletcher shot from a different direction from that which we have hitherto been given to believe? Secondly, there is a stark difference between what the pathologist, Dr. Ian West, wrote in the post mortem report and what he said at the inquest. Why is there that discrepancy? In his post mortem report, for example, he suggested that Yvonne Fletcher had been shot from the upper floors of an adjacent building—an angle of wound that he measured as between 60 and 70 deg. At the inquest, however, Dr. West stated: Her injuries were entirely consistent with a shot fired from the first floor window of the Embassy, an angle of 15 degrees. Why was there this extraordinary change of view? Hugh Thomas said that the post mortem, the first view, was correct. Thirdly, is Hugh Thomas right in saying: The one bullet that caused the fatal injury certainly came from the higher building"? Fourthly, Dr. West expressed the view that WPC Fletcher must have been turning when she was shot. Turning with the natural curve of her back would greatly 209 reduce the angle of the bullet wound. Professor Bernard Knight dismisses that analysis. I ask the Government: is Dr. West or Professor Knight right? Fifthly, is Lieutenant Colonel Styles right in saying that WPC Fletcher's injuries could not have been caused by a Sterling machine-gun fired from the embassy's first floor because of the range and the tumbling nature of the bullet? Sixthly, why was the video recorded by one of the Libyan demonstrators not presented in evidence at the inquest, even though the police had a copy of it? It was a student video that recorded far more than either of the professional recordings made on 17 April 1984, and it undermined the analysis of the police ballistics experts in terms of the number of bullets fired and the weapons used. Seventhly, have the police interviewed those members of the intelligence services who witnessed the exchange of signals between the Libyan People's Bureau and Tripoli, which indicated that there would be a shooting incident? Was that information passed on to the police? Eighthly, can the House of Commons be told what Ministers said to those members of the Security Service who indulged in what we all know was a smear campaign against the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan? This matter goes beyond the simply personal concerns of those involved. I appreciate the presence in the Chamber of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). This matter concerns our relations with the Arab world and our relations with Libya. I have had seven Adjournment debates on this subject already, which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not wish me to rehearse. I shall just draw to the House's attention a statement in The Independent, on 16 February, by the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham), a former trade Minister. He wrote: Case one involved a large order for Bedford lorries, which were to be used by the Libyan army for civilian purposes—mainly ambulances and fire engines, or so they claimed. The trucks were standard issue and not adapted in any way for military purposes. On this order depended the future of the company. I came to the conclusion that on balance, the company's licence should be supported. I was strongly opposed by the Foreign Office—as much on political grounds, post Lockerbie and post-Scott, as military ones. The Ministry of Defence, as far as I recall, stayed aloof. I lost. The company shut down and its factory now lies empty. Fifteen hundred men and women have had to find new work. So much for our relations with Libya. The case refers to a central moral argument. It is not my style to involve such matters in party controversy and therefore it is a pleasure that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), whose record in searching for the truth is impeccable, should have an opportunity to put his point of view. 1.39 pm § Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) In the few minutes available to me I am delighted to associate myself entirely with the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to pay tribute to the tireless campaign that he has conducted to seek out the truth of the tragic death of Yvonne Fletcher. He has not been engaged in any crusade for any purpose other than to seek 210 to clarify the facts in the interests of Yvonne Fletcher's delightful mother, her family, her friends and our basic democracy. I am also delighted that the Minister of State, Home Office is on the Front Bench because I can say to him—I hope not to his embarrassment—that, as a difficult Back Bencher, I regard him as one of the straight and honourable Ministers. I hope that this afternoon, if not later, he will disregard any advice that he has from any other Ministry about what is in the national interest and realise that his obligation is to search for the truth. My interest in the case started some years ago when I had an invitation, which I took up, to resolve what I thought was the issue of that tragic death, which resulted in Colonel Gaddafi being abused for offering £250,000 of what was described as blood money in respect of the murder. When I pointed out to Ministers at the Foreign Office that, far from offering, he was simply responding to a request that I made after long negotiations with officials at the Foreign Office, which was confirmed in writing by one of its senior officials, I was advised that the person concerned had left public service and could not be traced. As a result of what I describe as active research I was able to go back to the Secretary of State and point out that the official was still employed in the Czechoslovak embassy doing a Czechoslovak language course. I therefore received what I will always treasure to my last day here—a letter from a Foreign Office Minister apologising for the misunderstanding. I hope that the Minister will accept that the "Dispatches" programme presented evidence that it was simply not possible for the shots to have been fired from the three-storey Libyan embassy and that full details were given of what was happening in six-storey buildings nearby. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow has said, the issue simply cannot be ignored and the matter is vital to the family and to the people of Libya, who have suffered a great deal from the sanctions that stem from that particular tragedy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise, as I believe he does in his heart, that truth is the secret weapon of politics. There is no other way in which we can proceed that is fair to the family and friends affected by that tragic murder without recognising that the crucial thing is to try to establish the facts and tell the people. I fully appreciate that that is not an easy task for a Minister. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and I have clear views about what happened. At the end of the day, going for the truth, a full inquiry and a clear statement of the facts is a much stronger weapon than any other devious arrangement. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for raising the issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will once again show the House of Commons that he is one of those who is interested in truth and clarity and nothing else. 1.43 pm § The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean) The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has followed his usual courteous approach by giving me notice that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) intended to raise certain 211 allegations about the murder in 1984 of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, which were aired in a recent Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for his customary courtesy for letting my officials know that he had sent a list of specific questions to the police. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that I do not have advice from any other Ministry on what is in the national interest. Any information that I can offer the House is based on police information, and it is straight and honest. Let me say at once that Yvonne Fletcher's murder was a terrible crime; as the then Home Secretary said in his statement to the House about the incident, it was a barbaric outrage. I, too, want to express my deep sympathy to Yvonne Fletcher's family. I hope that the television programme's reopening of the issues surrounding her death has not caused them more unnecessary, undue distress than they have already suffered. I entirely share, as do the Government, the police and I am sure all in this House, hon. Members' concern that, if at all possible, the person or persons responsible for WPC Fletcher's murder should finally be brought to justice. But the investigation of that crime, which alone can lead to such a desirable outcome, is a matter for the police, not for the Government, this House, or a television company. It is quite right of course that the hon. Member for Linlithgow has passed to the police his questions about this case. I should say to the hon. Member and to my hon. Friend that if it was not for the fact that I respect the issues raised by hon. Members in the House, and treat their views seriously, I would regard the television programme simply as the preposterous trash that it is. There has been an extensive police investigation into the murder. Sadly, it has not proved— § Mr. Dalyell "Preposterous trash"? But those are the views of Bernard Knight, who is the most distinguished Home Office pathologist. Is Bernard Knight to be described as preposterous trash? § Mr. Maclean No, I said that the programme was preposterous trash, as I shall seek demonstrate. I am not attacking any of the so-called experts, but they did not examine the body at the time, give evidence at the coroner's inquest and have that evidence tested by others. Merely giving opinions on a reconstruction by a television company is not the best way to try to get to the truth of what happened at the time. It has not proved possible to charge anyone with the murder of WPC Fletcher. The investigation therefore remains open, and the Metropolitan police will, of course, consider any new evidence presented to them. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has also been in touch with the Metropolitan police about some of the matters raised in the programme. I know that the Metropolitan police are aware of the programme and are reviewing its contents as part of their continuing investigation, including giving specific consideration to question No. 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about why the video shown on the programme was not presented in evidence at the inquest. As for the assertions made in the programme about the activities of the intelligence agencies, including the allegations that the murderer of WPC Fletcher was privy 212 to information available to intelligence services here and in the USA; that "rogue elements" in those services had a motive to kill WPC Fletcher, an allegation on which the hon. Gentleman based his final question, No. 8, of which he gave me notice; and that members of the intelligence agencies attempted to smear the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, the House will be well aware that it is not the Government's usual practice to comment on speculation, however bizarre or preposterous, about the activities of the intelligence services. Nor can I help the hon. Gentleman in respect of his two questions Nos 7 and 8, which relate to intelligence matters. Having said that, there are several points of which I should like to remind the House.' At 10 am on 17 April 1984, a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan People's Bureau in St James's square. The police were fully in control and there were no problems of public order. Without any warning, a number of shots were fired from an automatic weapon from a window on the first floor of the bureau. Twelve people were injured with bullet wounds and were taken to hospital, including WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who died shortly afterwards. WPC Fletcher was not the only one to be shot in that frenzied, cowardly attack, but she was the only one to die. After the shooting took place, the Government immediately asked the Libyan authorities to instruct those inside the bureau to leave the building and to allow it to be searched for weapons and explosives. The Libyan Government refused repeatedly to agree to that request or to co-operate in the criminal investigation into the death of WPC Fletcher. For that reason, we broke off diplomatic relations with Libya, with effect from 22 April. The programme was wrong to suggest that the incident transformed what had previously been a benign Government attitude to Libya. Our relations with Libya had been particularly bad since 1980. Following Colonel Gaddafi's announcement that all Libyan nationals should return to Libya or be "dealt with", two Libyan dissidents were murdered here and two children of a third were poisoned. The newly accredited secretary-general of the Libyan People's Bureau stated publicly his approval of the killing of Libyan dissidents in the United Kingdom and was required by the then Foreign Secretary to leave the country forthwith. An attempt was made to burn down the British embassy in Tripoli. On 26 April 1984, the Libyans removed their diplomatic bags from the bureau building. The following day, the 30 people in the bureau left the building. The "Dispatches" programme failed to mention that those people were taken, accompanied by diplomatic observers, to the Civil Service College at Sunningdale, where they were interviewed by the police. They left for Libya that evening. On 30 April, the police entered the former bureau building. In the course of searching it, they discovered several handguns and a quantity of ammunition. Firearms residue was found on the carpet below the window from which the weapon was believed to have been fired on 17 April and a spent cartridge case of the same calibre as that weapon was found in the same room. Elsewhere in the building, the police found accessories for sub-machine guns of the same calibre. At that stage, the police view was that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution for the murder of WPC Fletcher against any individual, and that they 213 would not be able to obtain evidence to sustain a prosecution without the co-operation of those who were in the Libyan People's Bureau. None the less, the police were of the view that it was likely that the murder was committed by one of two people who were in the bureau. Both of them possessed diplomatic immunity and, therefore, could not be prosecuted under English law even if the necessary evidence had been available. It was claimed in the "Dispatches" programme—solely on the basis of a reading of the post mortem report and the proceedings of the coroner's court—that the angle of entry and the terminal velocity of the bullet that killed WPC Fletcher were such that it could not have been fired from the first or any floor of the Libyan People's Bureau. The programme cast aspersions on the pathologist involved in the case, Dr. Ian West, who I stress was working purely for the coroner and not for the police; and on the coroner, who is of course an independent judicial officer. The analysis of a soundtrack, which was said to reveal a loud shot that we are asked simultaneously to believe was fired from a silenced weapon, was also said to support that assertion. The programme asks us to believe that WPC Fletcher was murdered by, or with the connivance of, a British or American intelligence officer. If it were not so offensive and obscene, it would be laughable. WPC Fletcher's murder horrified all of us in this country because no one ever imagined that, in a quiet London street in broad daylight, someone would be so mad as to fire a machine gun from an embassy window. The programme asks us to believe that there are assassins in the British or American secret service who are willing to murder a British police officer; that it was some sort of plot that their bosses did not know about, but everyone covered up; and the most preposterous suggestion of all is that that assassin anticipated, or had some knowledge, that some maniac in the Libyan embassy would fire a machine gun into the crowd and, at that point, could simultaneously fire a shot that would kill WPC Fletcher. If people want to sit in the bowels of some television production company and invent those feverish fantasies, that is up to them. However, I do not know what hurt they have caused the parents of WPC Fletcher and all her other relatives who must be suffering the anguish of not seeing her killers brought to justice. Clearly, the programme makers do not care. However, I do care that the memory of that brave officer should not be sullied by preposterous suggestions that she was murdered by other servants of ours or of a friendly country as part of a treacherous plot. It is a fact that a hail of bullets came out of that embassy window and injured 12 ordinary people. One of those people was a British citizen in uniform, WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who died while on duty protecting the people and the community she served. § Mr. Dalyell It is all very well for the Minister to use words such as "feverish" and "preposterous", but what about the considered view of Lieutenant Colonel George Styles, who is an expert in ballistics? Do those adjectives apply to his professional views? § Mr. Maclean My adjectives apply to a programme that second-guessed the evidence and conducted reconstructions. It asked people to comment on evidence 214 that was prepared by a professional pathologist and presented to an independent coroner during a full inquest. It was a re-reading of history and no doubt a dozen experts could make of the evidence what they will. The problem with experts looking at evidence 12 years after the event is that none of their opinions has been tested in court before a jury. Dr. West's opinions, his analysis of the body and his painstaking reconstruction of the bullet's angle of entry into the body and through the tunic were presented at the inquest. His evidence was tested and the jury believed the evidence that was presented to it. It is preposterous that a programme should do a reconstruction and invite any number of experts—who did not examine the body and who were not present at the time of the incident—to offer opinions and comments when they do not have the full facts. Several of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me arise from the assertions in the programme: was Yvonne Fletcher shot from a direction different from that which we have hitherto understood? Is Professor Thomas, who was interviewed on the programme, correct in his belief that the bullet must have been fired from the top of a high building? Is Dr. West right that WPC Fletcher must have been turning when she was shot, or is Professor Knight, who was also interviewed on the programme, right to dismiss that analysis? Is Lieutenant Colonel Styles right that WPC Fletcher's injuries could not have been caused by a Sterling machine gun fired from the embassy's first floor? My response to all those questions is as follows. I understand that Dr. Ian West—the pathologist who worked on the case—in co-operation with eminent scientists from the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory, carried out detailed experimental work following the murder on the question of the angle of entry of the fatal bullet, including a reconstruction using the tunic that WPC Fletcher had been wearing. The question was explored at the coroner's inquest before a jury, and the evidence given convinced that jury that WPC Fletcher was unlawfully killed by a bullet coming from one of two windows on the west side at the front of the first floor of the bureau. In response to the hon. Gentleman's second question, it is simply not the case that Dr. West changed his mind between writing his post mortem report and giving evidence at the inquest. The programme's claim that he did is based on a misreading of the papers and an insufficient understanding of a number of the scientific issues involved—including the fact that the angle from the horizontal of the entry of a bullet into a body lying flat is different from the angle if the body were erect and different again, as was demonstrated experimentally, if the body were turning and the shoulders dropping. I understand that it also remains the view of the police, on the basis of substantial physical evidence collected immediately after the shooting, that the shots that killed Yvonne Fletcher were fired from within the Libyan People's Bureau. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East believe that the inquest was in some way flawed or unsatisfactory, there is provision for the matter to be reviewed by the courts. Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, an application may be made to the High Court, with the consent of the Attorney-General, for a fresh inquest to be ordered. All coroner's decisions are subject to judicial review. 215 However, I stress that it is not open to politicians, such as the Home Secretary or any other Minister, to comment on the decisions taken by coroners in individual cases. As I have said, I share the concern expressed by the hon. member for Linlithgow and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the full truth of the matter should be established and that the person or persons responsible for WPC Yvonne Fletcher's murder should finally be brought to justice. I believe that the best way of making progress towards that end is for the Libyan nationals who were in the bureau at the time of the shooting to co-operate fully at last with the investigation into the murder. The Libyan Government, whose 216 representatives were not among those who spoke to the programme, should accept responsibility for the actions of their officials. § It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put. § Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock. Source: http://hansard.millb...yvonne-fletcher Other interesting sources. http://s13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/ar/t774.htm http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/group_13.htm http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/terminal_velocity.htm http://vialls.homestead.com/yvonnefletcher.html

That's Neoliberalism for you John.Profit first and foremost above all else. Makes you think of Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was murdered in St James Square in the heart of London.It was a anti Gaddafi peaceful protest.But a machine gun was fired from the Libyans Peoples Bureau which supposedly killed her.But was another shot fired from elsewhere. Libyan In 1984, in London, Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead outside the Libyan people’s Bureau. In April 1996, Britain's Channel Four programme Dispatches revealed that Fletcher had been murdered by elements of British and American intelligence. "The purpose of the slaying ... was to 'shape' public opinion and, importantly, pre-empt Parliamentary indignation for the later bombing of Tripoli by British based US warplanes. The official inquest concluded that WPC Fletcher was killed by someone firing a 9mm calibre automatic weapon from a lower floor in the Libyan embassy. But this verdict has been disputed by a number of experts, including the British Army's senior ballistics officer Lieutenant Colonel George Styles and Home Office pathologist Hugh Thomas. On 24 June 1997, Tam Dalyell MP questioned Prime Minister Tony Blair about the death of Yvonne Fletcher. Dalyell made particular reference to a Channel 4 documentary about the murder: "With the agreement of Queenie Fletcher, her mother, I raised with the Home Office the three remarkable programmes that were made by Fulcrum, and their producer, Richard Bellfield, called Murder In St. James's. "Television speculation is one thing, but this was rather more than that, because on film was George Styles, the senior ballistics officer in the British Army, who said that, as a ballistics expert, he believed that the WPC could not have been killed from the second floor of the Libyan embassy, as was suggested. "Also on film was my friend, Hugh Thomas, who talked about the angles at which bullets could enter bodies, and the position of those bodies. "Hugh Thomas was, for years, the consultant surgeon of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, and I suspect he knows more about bullets entering bodies than anybody else in Britain. "Above that was Professor Bernard Knight, who, on and off, has been the Home Office pathologist for 25 years. "When Bernard Knight gives evidence on film that the official explanation could not be, it is time for an investigation." Examination of the scientific evidence showed that the shot which killed Yvonne Fletcher could only have come from from Enserch House. This building had links to the CIA. Source; http://aangirfan.blo...our-spooks.html Other Sources: http://vialls.homest...nefletcher.html People's Bureau

Re Tidy Laundromat. I believe the Penningtons saw Oswald at the Tidy Lady Laundromat in the 12:50's before one o'clock. Most people will only accept a one Oswald involvment and will forced to choose between the modes of potential transporation. It fits well with me with two Oswalds, in all the modes of transportation, with one setting the other one up...then, and the days and weeks prior which are so well documented. Source: http://groups.google...a0abee?lnk=raot The Tidy Lady Laundromat was located on Davis Street as well. Source: http://www.jfkassass...p?topic=5830.24 The light-colored Rambler station wagon that was seen with someone who was practically a double for Lee Harvey Oswald passed under the triple-underpass at 12:40 P.M. A few blocks beyond that overpass is the Commerce Street Viaduct, leading directly into Oak Cliff. It is practically certain that after the Rambler with an unknown driver and a “Oswald impostor” left the Depository it crossed the viaduct, and after turning left on Sylvan Street drove 12 blocks further going south on Davis St. Three blocks away was the Tidy Lady Launderette. The drive from the Texas School Book Depository, would have taken 7 or 8 minutes. It is at the launderette where the car stopped. It would have been within a minute or so of 12:47 P.M. The Tidy Lady (1227 Davis) was at the corner of Davis St and North Clinton St. There were only two people in the laundromat, at that time John Wesley and Oda Pennington. The car with the two fugitives parked on the east side of North Clinton St., by the side door of the laundromat. The young man who exited the car passed the laundromat and then turned around and entered, making a beeline towards the payphone. A brief pause and the Pennington’s heard the caller speaking in Spanish, in the FBI report, the Pennington’s felt that the man acted as if he was in trouble, under the circumstances, the Pennington’s were no doubt, accurate in their were perception. What happened to the driver is not certain but he may have left the scene as soon as he parked the car, which is what the Oswald impostor did as soon as he finished his call. He was last seen walking South on North Clinton St. The car had been abandoned. When the couple were shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, they said he “appeared” to be the same person. Just as compelling is how close the laudromat was to Jefferson Street, the location of the Texas Theater, and on the other side of Jefferson St. in the distance was the apartment of Jack Ruby. The Tidy Lady Lauderette on Clinton Street was only five blocks south away from Jefferson Street. paraphrased from pages 831-832 Harvey and Lee - John Armstrong So if you are trying to ascertain if another person was "in play" on Jefferson Street besides Lee Oswald, this scenario definitely seems pertinent. End of account. Yes....End of story? Definitely not. There was also a Clarence Otis Pennington in W. Virginia who was interviewed by the FBI, at this point it is not known whether the individual Oda Pennington was related to Clarence Pennington. However there is a very sophisticated genealogy website and Family organization named Pennington Research Association, that almost without question makes mention of an C.O. Pennigton and “his wife Ida!”......If you surmised that the Pennington’s are interesting you would be right.... Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3128&st=150

Fletcher Prouty,s letter to Jim Garrison touches on Ed Lansdale.Well worth a read IMHO,take a look here. http://www.prouty.org/letter.html The cop on the left in post 21 looks a bit like Roscoe White to me. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhiteR.htm

Here is a site on the men of Major General Edwin Walkers 24th Division.Some of the old soldiers have reminiscences on Walker. {Robert, I was in the 24th Signal Battalion from October 1959 to May 1962. I was on Flak Kaserne (the one with the lantern over the hole in the fence way down behind the hospital). I had looked up General Walker and found this page.........reading them reminded me of a night I had duty in the Radio Control Center (in the basement of the HQ building and 30 seconds to the back door of the EM club). I received a call one morning around 0600-0630 and I immediately recognized the voice as that of the General. He asked me if I would have the Officer of the Day send someone to pick him up, his driver had parked in the garage and committed suicide.I will never forget the nonchalance in his voice.} {Not long after I arrived in Augsburg and had settled into my new job at 34th Inf PIO, there was a mandatory meeting called for all troop information personnel in the 24th Division. It was (groan!) on a Saturday, infringing on our so-called free time. At the meeting there were two generals at the front of the room - Edwin A Walker and, I think, a General Marroon or something like that - clearly, the remote second in command. As Gen Walker addressed us, he pulled down a huge wall map of the world. It was rendered in various shades of red and pink. This was, he said, to show the degree of communist influence in each country. The United States got off easy with only a medium red color. We all looked at each other, the other general, too, rather mystified and uneasy with this commanding officer who seemed, to all intents and purposes, to be flat out crazy. Gen Walker stated that it wasn't http://educationforu...44&st=165enough to be anti-red - you must be PRO-BLUE! He gave us a list of books to be placed in all the dayrooms - required reading for everyone. It was up to us, the TI personnel, to spread the word. Well, we didn't really get much done along those lines. Before long Gen Walker was relieved of his burden and we all got on with our various lives. Several years later, I watched his exploits in New Orleans on TV with fascination.} Source: http://www.bobrowen....e in his voice. {You brought back memories when you wrote about Gen. Walker. Remembering attending mandatory lectures, named if I remember right "Pro Blue Program". Never thought of him as a "right wing fanatic" nor do I today. thought of him as very patriotic, got the division in great shape (mandatory PT and runs daily) and to tell you the truth never did see any racist attitudes come from him (most of my NCO's black or Hispanic) and we received great field training. He may have been a little extreme, in some peoples eyes, but most of the men did not think so.}

TSBD FBI Booklet at Mary Ferrell Site,Photos/Floor Plans/Parking Lot etc http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=2 Floor Plan A. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=4

John,this site seems to have something relating to Major General Edwin Walker and Anzio. During World War II, Walker commanded a subunit of the Canadian-American First Special Service Force in the invasion of Anzio, Italy in January 1944. In August 1944, Walker succeeded Robert T. Frederick as the unit's commanding officer. Source: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Edwin_Walker

Thanks for the informative post Paul.I don't think,Beating the bushes for General Walker,has been shown this side of the pond.As usual you have lots of interesting stuff on General Edwin Walker.He was a very complex character.

Roscoe White sounds very much like Badgeman from , http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhiteR.htm Roscoe White joined the United States Marines and left for Japan in August, 1957. He was stationed at Atsugi and worked on the U-2 project. Whitejoined the Dallas Police Force in September, 1963. Soon afterwards, his wife Geneva White, claimed that she overheard her husband and Jack Ruby plotting the assassination of John F. Kennedy. White left the police force and was employed by a company called M & M Equipment. On 23rd September, 1971, White and a fellow worker, Richard Adair were both badly burnt in an industrial fire. Adair recovered but White died the following day. On 4h September, 1990, Roscoe's son, Ricky White, revealed to a meeting at the University of Texas that his father had been involved in killing the president: "The diary said after my father shot the President he handed his 7.65 Mauser to the man standing beside him, hurled over the fence, took the film from the military man, whirled around the fence and went through the parking lot." White added that Lee Harvey Oswald had also taken part but had not fired any of the shots. White then went on to kill J. D. Tippit. Ricky White claimed he had got this information from his father's diary. This apparently had been taken away by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Has anyone come across Kenneth Bennett Glaze,re Major General Edwin Walker.Apparently as a military intelliegence officer, he served with General Walker in Germany. Additionally Glaze was a master marksman who performed classified wet work. Also, he resided and worked within the Dallas-Fort Worth region. Source: http://www.lincoln-a...topic=53.0;wap2 Also he went missing in on August 23, 1963.They found his bones in December 1963.But not immediately identified.He died from gunshot wounds and was not identified till 42 years later. Source: http://suite101.com/...ade-idd-a377492

This gives some details of Walkers timeline John.But I don't think it is specific enough. World War II Service - Staff Operations 4th Infantry Division Artillery & Commanding Officer 20th Field Artillery Battalion Camp Gordon 1942-1943; Commanding Officer 345th Field Artillery Battalion, 83rd Infantry Division Camp Atterbury & Commander 77th Field Artillery Battalion 2nd Cavalry Division, Fort Clark 1942-1943; Commanding Officer 3rd Regiment, 1st Special Service Force Aleutians & Italy 1943-1944 and Italy & France 1944-1945 (the 1st Special Service Force or FSSF was the fore-runner to the US Army Green Berets known today). For his WWII service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and the Combat Infantry medals. Source: http://arms2armor.com/store/product1106.html

If they still want documents to remain official secrets after all these years,if they think LHO is guilty,then what have they to hide.I doubt if they will ever reveal all the info on the JFK assassination.It could alter peoples perspectives about the Government and trust,for those few that still do trust their Government. I certainly do not trust my Government,and have not done so for years.What with Dr David Kelly dying,and there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.I trust no Government.

Malcolm, controversy over that "document" has been beaten to death, please let us not dredge it up on this forum? It is known as the "McCone-Rawley document" and it has been around nearly eight years.: http://mccone-rowley...owley-from.html http://www.jfklancer...id=19036&page=4 Thanks for the answer Tom,I said I did not know if it was true or false.As is much about the JFK case.You can take it,case closed for me.

Proof Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by CIA,worked for ONI. I came across this document,shown in link provided.I don't know if its a fake or true.Or even if its been shown before.Click on document to enlarge.Anyway,enough gas,here is the link. http://hidhist.wordpress.com/assassination/jfk/proof-lee-harvey-oswald-trained-by-cia-worked-for-oni/

He seems to be still here Dawn.I don't know about Facebook but his posts are still here. http://educationforu...p?showuser=3785

That is very interesting Pat,I have been to your site before and read your articles.I think the head-shot likely came from the rear.With what evidence we have at this time and a lot of your conclusions in that area are well presented.Although,I don't think I would have chosen the place were Oswald is supposed to have fired from.It is my understanding,from reading some books that you would have to lean into the wall,so as to speak to fire from there.Giving you limited shots.I would have chose the roof,giving you much more freedom of movement. I have always thought the Neck shot came from the front.Very interesting article.