Cory Santos

Correct. Also, how he interacts with DCM. Is there actual proof it was him?

https://oakcliff.advocatemag.com/2022/10/charles-brandt-jfk/

Thanks Ron but I disagree and would like to hear Max’s take on it.

Max this goes to my prior issue with her comment about not knowing which building he actually worked in. If she thought it was the old building it was not on the parade route. So it makes no sense. If she thought it was him and knew it was the actual TSBD then she lied about not knowing which building he worked at. Either way that is serious. Your above information fits with this nicely and is important. Can you add anything to the issue of her knowing where he worked? Thanks.

https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-cohen-leads-letter-seeking-release-remaining-kennedy

We have actual documented proof that she was being monitored by the FBI due to her activities. There is no debate about this. Now this would seem to logically follow one of two scenarios. One, the Kennedy’s knew about the surveillance or they didn’t. Assuming they did not know about it, the question is whether this gave Hoover and others a great opportunity to get dirt on the Kennedys IF the two had at a minimum just a friendly relationship with her? Associating with a potential communist sympathizer-which is how the fbi reports seem to look at her- gives a bad impression publicly to the brothers just by association. Recall, Sinatra became unwelcome due to his connections.

https://people.com/politics/secret-service-agent-clint-hill-reveals-suicide-attempt-after-jfk-assassination-new-memoir/

Wow

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hiding-group-sues-biden-national-120028563.html

I didn’t know DVP that you had a loon. Cool. Which species? Lol.

It’s ok David, no one here thinks your a member of the “deep state” lol.

Thank you Joe for your comments. Fine points.

No, that is not what I said. But I would like those questions answered if possible.

If you are going to say it as if it is a sure statement as to whom Marilyn was referring based on Don’s opinion, can you ask Don what proof does he have that she meant Leonardi as opposed to Lawford? Outside of some bloggers suggesting on the internetit I fail to see any actual proof she meant him. 2- Did Don know either MM and/or Lawford and or Leonardi? Thank you

Let me refresh your memory. BEGIN QUOTE: That’s nice but not what I asked you. If you feel it was him alone then based upon your prior posts it appears you feel this way based upon the “evidence”. You mentioned the witnesses. Would you agree that the witnesses do not all agree it was Sirhan? Do you agree that a witness saw a woman going down stairs exclaiming I believe “we got him” or something to that affect? Yes or no?

So it seems I’m not getting a response so I’ll explain my thoughts on this. With JFK, Warren Commission supporters jump all over the autopsy to prove the shots came from behind. Yet with the RFK, they conveniently ignore the autopsy. With JFK, selective witnesses are accepted while others ignored. Okay one says but they are not credible or are confused. But, with RFK, again serious and credible witnesses such as Paul Schrade are ignored. So I asked what evidence are you relying on that RFK was murdered. You stated the witnesses. Ok, fair answer but the witnesses do not all pin it on Sirhan alone. Moreover, the RFK autopsy clearly shows the fatal shot was not fired from Sirhan revolver. Do kindly admit it is not “the evidence”-as if all the evidence leads to one conclusion-you rely on but rather, that limited and selective “evidence” which you alone have determined to be important. Considering the psychology people bring when looking at a problem, if you never see a conspiracy in the evidence you probably are judging the evidence with a biased perspective. That applies to conspiracists as well, so it is fair to apply that logic to myself but David when I say I see no evidence that leads me to conclude Dorothy was killed I think I satisfy the neutral standard. Do you satisfy that standard or do you lean biased to never finding a conspiracy. To refute the actual RFK evidence seems odd if you are neutral.

So it seems I’m not getting a response so I’ll explain my thoughts on this. With JFK, Warren Commission supporters jump all over the autopsy to prove the shots came from behind. Yet with the RFK, they conveniently ignore the autopsy. With JFK, selective witnesses are accepted while others ignored. Okay one says but they are not credible or are confused. But, with RFK, again serious and credible witnesses such as Paul Schrade are ignored. So I asked what evidence are you relying on that RFK was murdered. You stated the witnesses. Ok, fair answer but the witnesses do not all pin it on Sirhan alone. Moreover, the RFK autopsy clearly shows the fatal shot was not fired from Sirhan revolver. Do kindly admit it is not “the evidence”-as if all the evidence leads to one conclusion-you rely on but rather, that limited and selective “evidence” which you alone have determined to be important. Considering the psychology people bring when looking at a problem, if you never see a conspiracy in the evidence you probably are judging the evidence with a biased perspective. That applies to conspiracists as well, so it is fair to apply that logic to myself but David when I say I see no evidence that leads me to conclude Dorothy was killed I think I satisfy the neutral standard. Do you satisfy that standard or do you lean biased to never finding a conspiracy. To refute the actual RFK evidence seems odd if you are neutral.

Still waiting David come on.

Still waiting David.

Umm Ron, the quote was taken from a note she wrote. The article is clear on that. So yes, a persons diary or personal writings are admissible in a court of law under the right circumstances. Strange you would bring that up though A great deal of evidence against LHO or, evidence cited by conspiracists to show 11-22-63 was a conspiracy would likewise not be admissible in a court of law. Try reading this and note all the people who had things to say. You don’t really believe they are all lying do you? https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/03/marilyn-monroes-final-hours/amp

Forget what Lawford says. Let’s hear what the victim had to say in her own words. “One note reveals that Monroe might have distrusted and even feared J.F.K.’s brother-in-law, Lawford, who was the last person to speak to her on the phone before she was found dead. In a handsome, green, engraved Italian diary, probably dating to around 1956, Monroe writes of the “feeling of violence I’ve had lately about being afraid of Peter he might harm me, poison me, etc. why—strange look in his eyes—strange behavior.” Monroe writes that she feels “uneasy at different times with him,” and that she believes him to be “homosexual.” She writes that she loves, respects, and admires “Jack”—most likely the dancer and choreographer Jack Cole—“who I feel feels I have talent and wouldn’t be jealous of me because I wouldn’t really want to be me.” Of Lawford, she concludes, “Peter wants to be a woman—and would like to be me—I think.” https://themarilynmonroecollection.com/marilyns-secret-diaries-in-vanity-fair/

That’s nice but not what I asked you. If you feel it was him alone then based upon your prior posts it appears you feel this way based upon the “evidence”. You mentioned the witnesses. Would you agree that the witnesses do not all agree it was Sirhan? Do you agree that a witness saw a woman going down stairs exclaiming I believe “we got him” or something to that affect? Yes or no?

David?

Awww. Ok. Assuming I agree with you, please go over the RFK witnesses. Do you believe Sirhan murdered RFK? If yes, did all the witnesses say Sirhan fired the shot that killed RFK? Did all the evidence support that Sirhan firing from in front of RFK fired the fatal shot?

No your misinterpretation of my posts is the only thing suggesting a similarity. Now, so in the RFK case you rely on the witnesses saying he was shot. Why not simply rely on the autopsy for that conclusion?