Michael Clark

...

I have read about the argument between JFK and LBJ at the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth over who was going to drive in the position that John Connally ultimately drove in. i approach things with the mind that what ultimately happened is what was meant to happen; and then I look to see if that makes any sense. JFK was killed, and John Connally was wounded such that he could be of no help to JFK. If Connally were able to pull JFK out of the way of the head shot, I believe that he could and would have. Who was the guy that LBJ wanted to be sitting in the car, ahead of JFK? Conally took wounds to his hand, leg and chest.

More to the point, they were not going to reveal his cover story/name.

Mr. Parnell, Vicenza was unwilling to state who MB was until only recently, certainly the HSCA was not going to do it, in public papers anyway. In the trades we have a name for what you are seeing. I can't repeat it here. Let's just refer to it as "mush-mouth". Cheers, Michael

So my working theory, as quoted above, leaves another option. What if Walker set-up this hit himself? That could mean that he had already been invited or cajoled into the same scheme that I posited, with all the same results and requirements; except that the assault on Adlai Stevenson would have been unnecessary. This does, however, leave open the possibility that whoever fired the shot into Walker's window, also managed to get the Manlicher rifle into the TSBD. Perhaps this was a backup patsy. I'd have to read-up to be sure, but I think the Walker bullet was unidentifiable. That has a convenience in that a back-up patsy could be set-up after the fact by which rifle was ultimately identified as found in the TSBD and which pristine bullet would be found at the hospital. Imonaroll likeasandwich Cheers, Michael

I can think of a couple of master propagandist/disinformation specialist/ spy novelist folks/teams who could...... DAP and EHH. Cheers, Michael

Paul, you have managed, there, to say nothing at all. At least you didn't expend a great deal of effort, time and words to accomplish that. I know people, who I love dearly, who can go on at length, an manage to say nothing at all. Cheers, Michael

Interesting, old thread that lasted 2 days and was never updated.

I brought in the Supreme Court from the Bull Pen, and Baker wandered around the clubhouse for an hour before going home. And that was only 5PM in the UK so he can't claim that it was bed-time.

Oh my my my! This thread has has me inspired to write an addendum to Dante's Inferno, describing a circle of hell where the damned are forced, for eternity, to sit between Colby and Gaal for an eternal debate.

This is how the situation smells to me. I have recently read about LBJ's knack and M.O. of getting as many hands as possible dirtied-up in underhanded matters. The formation of the WC reflects this as does the host of high level characters visiting Dallas in the days sorrounding the assassination. Perhaps Walker, and maybe his Minutemen, were, at the time, working hard to stay clear of any developing plot. This staged event (the attempt on Walker) could be seen as both dipping him with both a motive to be part of the conspiracy (revenge) and a threat against his aim to stay clear of it. His apparent arrangement of the humiliation of Adlai Stevenson, prior to Kennedy's visit, can be seen as his compliance with the threat. Oswalds purported involvement in the attempt on Walker could have later been twisted into either an attempt to thwart a plot on Kennedy, or, as it happened, evidence of his (LHO's) willingness to take out some big-shot. All that was needed was Chef George De Mohrenschildt to add the mustard or the mayonnaise to the sandwich that was otherwise ready-to-go. Cheers, Michael

NAA info from 2010 http://forensic-science-fall-2010.wikispaces.com/Neutron+Activation+Analysis "In the past, NAA evidence was not admissible into courts on the grounds that testimony it "proved" was not concrete enough to be allowed as evidence. In fact, a not-so-ancient trial involving NAA evidence, using trace element blood comparison samples was admitted into a lower court, despite the objection of the Defense. After being convicted, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, who declared the evidence inadmissible, as the technique was not yet proven. This was a large step backwards for NAA in courts, as it hurt the reliability of future, more concrete evidence done by neutron analysis."

Sounds like a nascent, semi-sanctioned secret society. I am surprised that Paul Trejo has not found this subject interesting enough to get involved in.

Did you design, build, turn-up, test and commission one of these in your basement? Are you using information from real scientists and researchers? Why do you not cite any studies or data? I would think that if it were valid science you would be able to cite its continued use, development, success in solving cases and its admissibility in court over the last 54 years. Why do you not?

Jim, My apologies if it seems like I am just splitting hairs here, but... Cross examination can only exist in an adversarial situation. Marina was not being charged with a crime. There was no prosecution nor a defense. There was no threat of being charged with a crime or even perjury. Without those elements, there can be no "cross-examination". I stated that there was no threat of being prosecuted for lying as well, even though the witnesses were testifying under oath, but I really don't know if that was the case. I decided to make the point anyway because it raised the question, for me, as to whether anyone was charged with perjury for their Warren Comisission testimony. That's something I'll have to look into. What gets closer to your point, I think, is that there were numerous (countless?) times where there was conflicting testimony. From my reading, I have seen very little attempt to seriously juxtapose conflicting testimony and drill down to get to the truth. That may be what you are calling "cross-examination", or as it were, a lack thereof. Cheers, Mike

That is too interesting to not link http://spartacus-educational.com/MDcrichton.htm Two characters that I expected to see in there, but did not, are I. B. Hale and Fred Korth. Here is the Forum thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/6568-jack-alston-crichton/&page=1

I apreciate your labors and cast no stones.

I think he is picking on you for the awkward sentence, highlighted in red.

Any update on Sean?

This thread seems to have lived a short life prior the the pinned posts, so I figured I would bump it.

Thank, you. I started to look it up myself, then realized That I would not know if what I found would be the case in Dallas, in 1963.

Ralph Paul's testimony was taken prior to Wanda Hemlick's testimony.

Not a good start. I searched my 71 page PDF of the testimony of Ralph Paul for the word "crazy" and I retrieved "no results". It looks like I have some reading to do....

Yes, perhaps others do as I do. That's all I was offering. I had no idea who Robert Anderson was, so I "Just followed the boys at chow time" (a quote from A few Good Men, a movie that, next to MP's The Holy grail, is the only movie I tend to quote). Like I said, if it looks like it might be a Simkin bio, it is going to be worthwhile. Cheers, Michael