Bob Ness

I've come to a pretty solid conclusion it wasn't a "security failure". Too much weighs against it. Protecting him should have been easy.

There is no "waited too long" in a capital offense prosecution. That's what the Innocence Project is about (even though it wasn't around then). If DoJ or anyone else chooses to let it go that doesn't invalidate the statements Grammer made after the fact that could have provided important context to Ruby's actions, should he claim he was coerced or something. We don't know this of course but if it's true Ruby called and gave the DPD the head's up that he was going to be there with a gun to shoot LHO, they could have prevented him from entering the building and given Ruby cover for being apprehended prior to the shooting. Curry's trashing of the report (if true) speaks to his possible involvement in purposely leading LHO to his death for reasons unknown, but not difficult to divine down to a few probabilities. Most of those aren't very innocent, obviously. Grammer's statements were unambiguous, but Bill dispenses with them in the usual way.

In terms of the trial against Ruby, yes. Regarding the subject of the JFKA, no. Clearly this is an example of important information the prosecution withheld at the time of the trial. Not surprisingly, Grammer revealed it after his pension was secure. In regard to Ruby's trial and a potential murder conspiracy there are no limitations as these are capital crimes. It looks a lot like Curry was well aware of an ambush of LHO and Ruby was trying to get out of it, possibly because he was being forced into it in some way. Whether it was a "Texas Trial" or not, Grammer's story, which at one time had corroborating sources apparently, was a straight up admission of conspiracy, like it or not. Under the circumstances, claiming negligence is a triple-gainer into a tea pot. There's no getting around that.

Not necessarily. The lack of corroborating documentation creates problems on cross, I would imagine. It seems clear Grammer and Putnam's report was filed in the discard bin and any of the other witnesses such as FBI agents would reveal Curry's dismissal of the report. If you're prosecuting Ruby and going for the death penalty, there's already enough evidence of prior intent (particularly in Texas at that time) to do that. Prosecutors could choose to not muddy the water and Belli would stay mum (Brady was brand spanking new and he would no doubt leave sleeping dogs sleep - not knowing whether it would be pertinent). Of course, he probably had no knowledge of it anyway. The prosecution would much rather project a competent law enforcement image rather than the clown show and possibly criminal set up it was. Curry had every reason not to say anything about it to anyone before and during the trial even if Wade would have wanted it (which he probably didn't - it's a straight Helen Keller on that front). Grammer said the caller knew the details of the transfer which indicates the information came from the DPD, not news sources or whatever. I doubt he or Curry would be eager to go to the stand to tell everyone they could have prevented LHO's murder but "We're here so Ruby gets the chair". That doesn't make any sense at all.

And that's incorrect? I believe the testimony the Connelly's gave for the entirety of their lives after the event. They were the single best witnesses to the event. We of course could go through the investigator's transcripts of Jackie's deposition and see if there's a conflict. Do you have a copy of that, Bill? How about you @David Von Pein?

David. This is ridiculous. The Connally's are probably the best witnesses to the shooting. I know that's inconvenient, but seriously, the insistence to take them out of the equation is probably as bad or worse than any CT obsession out there. They were two feet away! That's one you should back off of.

Considering how pleased they were with World War 1. It gets tiresome going over to Europe to clean up scrapes that have been going on for centuries. There was a lot of resistance for that reason.

Haha I don't believe for a minute they didn't know about it. Not even a New York one.

I think nearly every point of this is obvious.

The problem is that in Dallas in 1963 the parking garage was probably the fairest trial he could get.

That's correct. He wanted to surrender to them at Camp David and Bolton through a fit is my understanding. He signed an agreement to leave that was to occur after the election, if I recall correctly.

Well put. That's exactly the problem. I don't know how this could possibly escape Lance and other LNs. Clean pistols in the trunk is still SOP in many police departments. In 1960 Dallas they could probably have their pick of caliber.

Not for me. That's exactly how I look at it. To me this is the only forum left to look at the evidence and judge for myself whether there was a conspiracy or not. I came to this forum for different reasons and have remained because of my interest in peripheral subjects that relate to the JFKA (as well as the JFKA). On this forum a person can hear from people who have researched the subject to varying degrees and amounts of time and access them personally and directly. Many have spoken to people directly involved (most of whom are dead by now) and in some instances they are actual participants in the official proceedings or surrounding events. In spite of the common flaming and bickering that occurs it's a fantastic repository of information regarding the JFKA and many of the characters. The posters are almost invariably of above average intelligence or better, regardless of their position on the subject. Since my time is taken up with personal and professional concerns, I can hardly devote the time to researching firsthand direct sources like many have. I appreciate the efforts of those that do and make it available. I will chime in on subjects I have specific experience with but stay away from topics featuring people who are much better informed on the subject. If I know people personally who I have spoken to about various topics, I'll throw that in also as long as the information has no known restrictions (I have contracted with Federal entities and private parties who demand non-disclosure of information). The point is I tend to look at the subject as if I were a juror. In a sense I think we all are to some degree.

Go read Helmer's twitter feed. Ridiculous. Not a single post that isn't a full stop defense of Putin. Not a hint of the usual complaining about SOMETHING one would expect in a political reporter's notebook on current events.

Nice try but all of your juvenile ranting doesn't hide the fact that YOU are the one supporting the incineration of innocents in Ukraine and buying off on Russian propaganda about Nasis. Come back someday with an original thought.

Pretty much decided this guy is just an A hole with no stable employment. Total clown show.

Paul a pre-invasion deal when someone is holding a gun to your head isn't a "deal". Putin had broken several agreements by that time and his word is worthless. This is a standard Euro-land grab simple as that. The end agreement would amount to the Ukraine is gone.

Oh stop it. You're a self-proclaimed "journalist". Such are the arrows of your first amendment privilege. Laughable comment. I would like to see you provide us with sources that you have contact with that aren't people who just confirm a bias you have. Anyone who posts other's opinions as a source is like the hysterical boneheads who interview each other on MSNBC or Fox or any of the channels that peddle that as journalism. Broadcasters interviewing each other isn't journalism it's manipulation. That goes for you too. Go practice journalism.

Well then! My dad was at Polebrook wasting his youth defending exactly the type of action were seeing Putin take right now. He helped feed the people of Berlin when Khruschev decided it was time to starve them. My Grandfather was in the Pacific defending your treasured Colonies. They both lost valuable years of their lives because Europeans are such a mess they absolutely can't stop killing each other. That's been true for centuries. My Uncle volunteered and was with Monty until such time as he shifted over to the USA. All of those men and others paid a dear price for their service keeping Europe from completely slaughtering each other. That cost made it home to the mainland in the form of servicemen with undiagnosed PTSD, which in my view colored their outlook and resulted in among other things, the JFKA. So excuse me when I hear someone from the UK preach from on high about the evils of US geopolitical brinksmanship because I for one can clearly see that Europe is not capable of controlling themselves. Russia (or the USSR) has engaged in roughly 38 wars or military conflicts since 1800 (PRIO), making the US look like pikers. That's just Russia. Who knows what the other countries, past and present, would add to that total. My point is this. There are borders for countries for a reason. We're not talking about disputed land. The Ukranian borders have been established for decades. Crimea is part of the Ukraine. As are the Eastern regions. NATO has stabilized Europe for many decades now. That's a fact. They are a sovereign country. Just like we helped you during WW2 and prior to our entry, NATO is helping Ukraine maintain their sovereignty. Is that clear enough? Simple really. Putin does not have to do anything to stop the bloodshed. All he has to do is stop shooting. Fact. The Russian people don't have to make any sacrifices. Putin doesn't lose territory or treasure. They don't have to do anything but stop shooting. That is apparently a bridge too far for you and that's sad. Come up with your own points someday Chris, not other's. I'm glad somebody showed you how to copy and paste a link from some academic in Chicago but maybe you should do your own thinking. I don't run around like an idiot doing research for other people. I'm actually smart and experienced enough to be able to judge for myself with what information is available. I don't need to waste my time listening to someone rationalize and justify abhorrently criminal behavior. It's sick. The cynicism reflex is so strong in you and many of these critics it blinds them to a fairly easy take on what needs to happen to make it better. STOP SHOOTING! DO NOTHING! I certainly don't think of the US or NATO of being lilly-white roses and used to be more sympathetic to Putin's situation but once he crossed the line into Crimea that was over. NATO's critics remind me of battered spouses who swear over and over "they're really a nice person" while getting kicked around the block. There are points at which a stand must be made, and invasion is an uncontroversial point (unless you want to get kicked around the block some more). Once more. In order to maintain some semblance of stability in a nuclear armed world borders must be respected, and a country's sovereignty maintained. The UN is one place differences can be hashed out as well as diplomatic channels. Pulling a gun out and telling someone "Let's negotiate" while pointing it at their head is NOT negotiating. In the international diplomatic world, a "promise" is not a "treaty" and Russia knew it at the time and was well aware a future American President isn't bound by a lick and a kiss. By breaking their AGREEMENT not to attack Ukraine in exchange for Ukranian transfer of nuclear stockpiles (the Budapest Memorandum -1994) and their explicit agreements as members of the OCC and UN, Russia has broken every agreement they made to assure Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, LONG BEFORE 2014! Like beginning in 1997. This defense of Putin and Russia at this point is sickening.

Correct. Countries bordering Russia have every reason to contemplate joining NATO because they know well other NATO members are precluded from attacking each other and through mutual defense cooperation would withstand aggression from Russia or it's satellites. Although certainly imperfect, it works. Ukraine and Crimea is a perfect exemplar that proves the point. Russia's aggression there will eventually bring more of its neighbors into NATO and could eventually bring Ukraine in also. Ukraine was contemplating inclusion into the EU which is what Putin wanted to stop. NATO wasn't on the agenda as many of the NATO members wouldn't have allowed it. Diplomatically or ideologically Russia is impotent. Their only methods of influence is tanks, propaganda and murder. I definitely blame the West for missing and botching the opportunity to help Russia early on but that's a different discussion. On a macro level, in the nuclear age, countries have to abide by agreed international borders as that terminates any other discussion which basically amounts to justification to commit war crimes. That's what's happening in Ukraine. That's what happened in Iraq. Recognized borders makes it all black and white and if differences remain, other methods can be tried. The problem is that Russia's ability to prevail diplomatically is virtually nil and they know it. Tanks have always been a realistic option for them because they have and use the nuclear card. All the remaining mumbo-jumbo about Nuland and Turkey and whatever is just fog to justify incinerating civilians until such time as their political leadership cries uncle. Just curious. Where are you from/located?

Fair enough. What NATO country has been attacked within its borders by another country which resulted in sustained conflict? Not terrorists. Not separatists.

Exactly. Not long ago I posted a link to Moby Dick claiming Melville states Oswald didn't do it and he says it in here - go check for yourself! (Here's the link if you don't believe me. It's only a thousand pages. Moby Dick : Herman Melville : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive). It would be simple for me to go find a contrary opinion, post that as my evidence, and have a nice day. It's BS. If people can't explain their positions and use the best facts they can assemble, I'm not interested. Posting links to other people's assertions is lazy and dishonest, by and large. Lori's a journalist and can't even source information (I wouldn't expect her to a lot of that for a forum...). I also tend to search for on-the-ground sources through forums and blogs and so on (Maidan and Syria in the past come to mind) to get those perspectives rather than rely on academics but that's harder to do now because conversation has been cut off in troubled areas and wasn't not too long ago. If people can't summarize their claims (at least Carter does that) and footnote their sources if needed why should I do that for them? To me the entire situation is obvious. I'm not unaware of the shenanigans the West has engaged in and am somewhat sympathetic to the Russian defensiveness toward their neighbors. History is on their side in that regard. But borders of sovereign countries should be respected because if they are not, the results can be catastrophic. As is the case in Ukraine today.

"Goes see this link" is direct? Like YOU make a point by referring to other people's links and expecting me to waste my time? The fact is NATO countries have never been subject to attack (within its borders) from other countries since its formulation. European countries have uniformly joined when given the opportunity. That has largely been because the US has provided an umbrella of security that those countries have benefitted from since that time. My family has blood on the ground in Europe defending some idiot Royal or the other's sensibilities in the interminable fighting that goes on in the most violent place on earth (Europe). That is not true of Russia and its satellites. Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, etc etc etc have all been trashed by Russia at one time or the other and you seem to support that. The invasion of Ukraine was an outright invasion of a sovereign country. The blood bath is on Russia. Not NATO. The position seems to be that someone holding a gun to your head and saying "let's negotiate" is somehow virtuous and explains the reason why Putin invaded when Ukraine declined. It's not up to Russia to determine the policies of the Ukrainian government. Their move is simply good old European colonialism dressed up for ignorant people to swallow and unfortunately will likely give rise to more repression of innocent people. Do you really think that after trashing the Ukraine Putin will pull back and fix it up? No. He's there for good unless they beat him back and then the US and NATO countries will be asked to pay for it.

You call that cross border sustained combat? Separatists fighting among themselves and their host? Can you fill me in on the Alien Enemy Law also? That has a history of about 700 years. Still common law everywhere. Under this law, enemy aliens can be subject to arrest, internment, and deportation. It's common especially after your native country has attacked your host country.

Well, I would agree with that. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014. Putin offered passports and citizenship to various sundry groups in Ukraine before that as a pretext and then used murder and mercenaries to destabilize an already shaky situation. That has been the modus operand in the continent for hundreds of years. They're not the only ones to do that. Because of the fluid settlement issue in Europe for centuries that method of destabilization is part of the landscape. I've asked before (and will again) what NATO member country has experienced sustained conflict within its borders? Nobody seems to be able to come up with that answer. Maybe you can. It's not a trick question.