Steve Roe
-
Posts
429 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Steve Roe
-
-
On 1/6/2022 at 9:29 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Excellent article and rebuttal to the Morley piece.
I wonder who put Morley up to attack Alecia Long? Oh, let me guess..........
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
In the film we show the actual illustrations that people drew for the HSCA.
We show the interview with Sibert.
We mention the lie in the HSCA volume 7.
This is all out there in the declassified record.
There was a blow out hole in the rear of the skull that the HSCA tried to cover up.
And when you add in the particle trail evidence, that shows further that there was a front to back shot.
Add on the Z film, and the testimony of Holland and Bowers, and the photos of all those people running to the GK, and the saw smoke in the air and the people who smelled smoke, plus the Z film, then its pretty much a done deal. When you throw in the brain weight issue, I mean please.
And Mike Chesser has been working on something about those x rays that is very interesting, and also about the brain weight.
DiEugenio said this: There was a blow out hole in the rear of the skull that the HSCA tried to cover up.
Cyril Wecht in his HSCA testimony said this:
Mr. CORNWELL. And if the single-bullet theory is not correct, how many bullets, in your view, did strike the two occupants of the car?
Dr. WECHT. Of course, then--let me answer that, I believe that the President was struck definitely twice, one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of the head. I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car. I think that there were four shots most probably fired. I eagerly await with extreme anticipation the results of the consulting firm that I understand your committee has retained in Boston, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, concerning their interpretative studies of the motorcycle policeman's tape from that day; as to whether or not they have definitely found evidence of four shots having been fired. But I think your question was, how many bullets struck the occupants, and I think that there is definite evidence for three. There is a possibility of more, but I can't really introduce evidence that would corroborate that; more than three.Cyril Wecht is now in the ever-growing conspiracy, now including the HSCA.
-
4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
That Garrison was a nut. How anyone can believe his nonsense is beyond me.
-
13 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Dr. Wecht reviewed Ferrie's autopsy and concurred with Dr. Chetta findings that it was an Aneurysm. Also, he informed Garrison about Proloid overdoses not being the cause of death. Wecht even disagreed with the nature of the "suicide notes".
This is pretty amazing, because Garrison never mentions Wecht reviewing the autopsy upon his request, in his book. What kind of shady business is this?
So, let's take a look a Mr. DiEugenio's take on Ferrie's death from his "Destiny Betrayed" book.
"His body was found naked on his living room sofa; a sheet was pulled over his head. Two typed suicide notes were found. Neither one of them was signed. 16 The table next to his body was strewn with medicine bottles, several of them empty. Coroner Nicholas Chetta had the body moved out quickly, before Garrison and his staff arrived. Garrison took some of the medicine bottles in order to check them out. On February 28, Chetta ruled that Ferrie had died of natural causes, specifically, a berry aneurism or broken blood vessel in the brain. Garrison had his doubts, especially in light of the two typed suicide notes. He had Proloid, one of the drugs found in the apartment, analyzed and discovered that with Ferrie’s hypertension, this drug could cause death by brain aneurism without a trace. 17 There are other mysteries beyond the two suicide notes and the deadly drugs.
Washington Post reporter George Lardner, Jr., claims he was with Ferrie until 4: 00 A.M., a time the coroner insisted was “absolutely the latest possible time of death.” This means that Ferrie must have died, by whatever means, within minutes of Lardner’s departure. 18 It could mean that, if Ferrie was murdered, the killers were waiting for Lardner to leave. And in fact, years later, when coroner Frank Minyard looked at the autopsy pictures of Ferrie, he noted contusions of the inside of the lower lip and gums. The day before he died, Ferrie had purchased 100 thyroid pills. When his body was discovered, they were gone. Minyard theorizes that if Ferrie was murdered, the killers may have mixed the pills into a solution and forced it down his throat with a tube. One of the contusions is on the inside of the lower lip where the tube may have struck during a struggle. With all these suspicious circumstances, why did Chetta rule as he did? In no one’s memory had someone left a suicide note— in this case, what could be considered two of them— and then died of natural causes. But Chetta apparently wanted to play it safe in the face of the tremendous publicity focused on Ferrie’s death. 19 Further, Chetta had first set the time of Ferrie’s death as before 4: 00 A.M. But then Lardner came forward and said he had been with the man until about four in the morning. This is when Chetta revised his time of death until 4: 00 A.M. as the absolute latest possible time of death. And further, Ferrie’s doctor Martin Palmer told author Joan Mellen he thought the autopsy was “slipshod.” He termed it not a full autopsy but a partial one. 20
Ferrie’s death was a staggering body blow to Garrison’s inquiry. But his death was compounded by the death in that same twenty-four-hour period of Eladio Del Valle. As mentioned, Del Valle was a former congressman in Cuba under Batista. Once Castro took over, Del Valle joined the violent opposition to him."
DiEugenio, James. Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case (p. 226). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.
Now we have DiEugenio creating another false mystery, surrounding Ferrie's death.
Hey, but what does Dr. Wecht know about autopsies?
-
16 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:
Saw this today on Twitter:
I hope the documentary has a good PR person/firm promoting it. There’s almost too much here for great story angles/pitches.
As a PR guy, I always thought the JFK research community suffered from the lack of a cohesive PR strategy and implementation. JFK Revisited deserves its due in the media.
Let's face facts here, the film is a flop here in North America. To his credit, Oliver Stone recognizes the reality of the situation when he states there was little attention in the film.
Now it's down to Social Media platforms to try to breathe some life in the film. Well, good luck with that!
The film has glaring errors, omissions, and "creative editing" to put forth this conspiracy. One researcher pointed out how Stone's Editor snipped and edited Bill Newman's historical eye-witness account to fit the story. I don't care what you say, but intentionally playing around with historical film clips like that, is highly unethical.
All JFK enthusiasts have to wake up to the cold hard fact that this is not 1991, and the JFK Assassination interest has waned dramatically over the years in the public. The subject is so saturated with books, films, forums that do nothing but confuse those new to the case.
Also, in my opinion, a large population of Americans are sick and tired of Conspiracy Theories, from 9/11 to QAnon to RFK and of course JFK.
I admire Oliver Stone for being candid and honest about the film's lack of interest, something you will seldom read here in this forum.
-
5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Not one or two, twelve persons identify Shaw as Bertrand! That is funny!
-
5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
While she does not specifically mention Todd, she does say "I was able to discern the initials representing the chain of custody of item CE399." That chain would neccessarily include Todd.
He just won't believe it Tracy. Cover-Up mode in progress.
-
On 11/14/2021 at 1:41 PM, Stu Wexler said:
Steve you are missing the point so let me clarify it. Elmer Todd initialed *a* bullet recovered from Texas. He later identified his initials on *that same* bullet. If that bullet were CE399 his initials should have been etched in like everyone else who later received it. They are not. What happened to them? You have to argue that they faded away such that no one who has seen it, both live and in high res photos (that you yourself can look at) can find them. Yet initials for other people at the lab who engraved their initials at the same time as Todd, per FBI procedure, are on CE399 and all the other ballistics material those lab techs engraved. So you would have to believe Todd's initials disappeared while the others' markings somehow stood the test of time. *Or* you can believe that another bullet came from Dallas, the one Elmer Todd engraved, is not CE399 and was removed from the evidence stream. Which one is more likely?
Stu, Tammi Long of the ARRB went to the Archives and observed CE399. According to her report, she saw the initials on the bullet. showDoc.html (maryferrell.org)
-
13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
There is a widely circulated claim, first made in an essay by John Hunt presented at a JFK Lancer Conference in 2005, concerning a claimed absence of initials of FBI agent Elmer L. Todd on C399, the so-called "Magic Bullet". According to the claim, even though Elmer Todd testified that he marked his initials on C399 and then testified that he again verified finding his initials that he had put there when he later checked C399, John Hunt investigated and found no such initials were there. Based on that report countless books and articles discussing the JFK assassination have taken the supposed missing Elmer Todd initials as having the status of a fact. But it is simply not accurate, it is not true. C399 does have the initials of Elmer Todd. And this is not a matter of subjective or divided opinion or reliance upon expert testimony, but a simple matter that a mistake was made, an honest mistake on John Hunt's part but a mistake nevertheless, simply a matter of fact that should be corrected, as in stop claiming it and perhaps issue an error correction where appropriate. If the interest is being accurate.
This correction in one way of looking at it is not too important, for it changes nothing concerning the issues with C399 either way. (Seriously, it does not change the issues raised relative to C399 either way.) It matters simply on the level that something that has been claimed to be true is not true, and therefore should not be presented as if it is true. It is an error that should have been caught and corrected before now. I posted an earlier version of this on another topic discussion but it received little notice or comment so am reposting as a dedicated topic here for reference.
Below I show Elmer L. Todd's initials, "ELT", on C399 on two of the NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) color photos of C399 (the entire set of NARA photos of C399 can be seen here: https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-CE399). The initials "ELT" are cut off at edges in each case in the two photos, one photo showing the upper parts of the ELT letters, and the other showing the lower parts of the ELT letters.
When I first studied these photos and identified these initials, I had many reservations and self-doubts about what I was seeing based on a misunderstanding: I had thought or supposed, or read (I forget which) that John Hunt had reported his finding (of an absence of the Elmer Todd initials) based on personal examination of the physical item, C399, in the National Archives. That gave me pause, because surely the initials would be visible, and could not have been missed, if the item were viewed in person (since the initials are visible in the photos). I was baffled: how could John Hunt (or anyone) have looked at the item and reported the initials were not there?
That mystery was cleared up for me earlier this evening when I found John Hunt's article setting forth his finding: "Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet" (https://fdocuments.net/reader/full/ce399-chain-of-custody). In the article I discovered John Hunt did not make his finding based on examination of the physical item in the National Archives. He made it from photos, the NARA photos. He had no superior information to what I, or anyone else here, have and can have equally. In fact, we have better information than John Hunt did (through no fault of his), as explained below.
In Figure 5 of his article, John Hunt shows four views of C399, NARA photos taken from different angles. Then Hunt gives his initials identifications with arrows to where he saw them. The photo images in the Figure 5 themselves are too unclear and small to be able to see markings, but the photos on the Mary Ferrell site at the link above, if blown up on a computer screen, make the writing or scratching of initials on C399 clear and visible.
Whereas John Hunt's Figure 5 shows four views of C399, the NARA photos actually show five views of CE399, pictures taken from different angles all the way around (photos #1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of seven total NARA for C399 on the Mary Ferrell site at the link). John Hunt's Figure 5 shows NARA photos #1, 2, 3, and 7 but not #4. It has dawned on me that the reason John Hunt's illustration shows only four of the NARA photos may be because that is all that were made available to him. If so, the one missing (#4) that he may never have seen may help explain and render more understandable how he made the mistake. For the #4 photo--the one not in Hunt's Figure 5--shows initials of Robert Frazier (RF). But John Hunt mistakenly identified Elmer Todd's initials ELT, which appear as parts of three letters in NARA #1 and the other parts in NARA #7, as Robert Frazier's (RF). If NARA #4 with the real Robert Frazier initials had been seen by John Hunt, I believe he would not have made the error in calling the parts of ELT initials RF's, for the error would have been apparent. All of this says to me that this was likely not a matter that John Hunt ignored #4, but rather that at the time he made his analysis, for whatever reason he never saw #4, never had it, did not know it existed. If he requested photos, whoever sent him photos sent only 4 out of the 5 NARA photo angles of C399 that actually exist.
Here are my notes and readings of the five NARA photos and initials thereon. The image quality of the NARA color photos on the Mary Ferrell site is such that these can be personally checked by anyone who wishes to do so. Who knows, although I think I have these right, maybe somebody can improve upon one or more of these readings. (References below to "Left" and "Right" refer to the upright bullet photos shown in the John Hunt Figure 5.)
NARA photo #1 = No. 4 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as having JH (Cunningham) on the Left, and RF (Frazier) on the Right. My readings: CK (Killon) on the Left, and parts of ELT (Todd) on the Right, cut off by the Right edge.
NARA photo #2 = No. 2 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as having JH (Cunningham) on the Right. My reading: I can see nothing.
NARA photo #3 = No. 3 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as having JH (Cunningham) in the middle. My reading: JH (Cunningham).
NARA photo #4 = [missing in Hunt Figure]. My reading: RF (Frazier) in the middle.
NARA photo #7 = No. 1 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as RF (Frazier) on the Left, and CK (Killon) on the Right. My reading: parts of ELT (Todd) on the Left cut off at the Left edge, and indecipherable in shadow if writing exists on the Right.
The conclusion: the Elmer Todd missing initials on C399 has been a mistake. Elmer Todd said he marked C399, then he checked it again and confirmed he saw his initials on it, and there is nothing amiss in Elmer Todd's testimony on that; the color photos of C399 of NARA show his initials in agreement with his testimony.
Greg, yes it was marked by Elmer Lee Todd. This nonsense is now in Oliver Stone's 2-hour film, written by Jim DiEugenio. about Todd not marking the bullet. Here's further proof.
showDoc.html (maryferrell.org)
Yes, it was initialed on the nose of the bullet by Elmer Lee Todd. Thanks for debunking this crazy nonsense.
-
16 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:
The exception being before the conviction---
In all history...who has ever pleaded guilty and asked for execution to a crime he can't remember?
His own attorney confirms Sirhan's admission... "It's all vague NOW" and wishing- "the whole thing had never taken place" also tells me that he really does remember and has no genuine remorse.
Yes, that's right Karl.
Sirhan had admitted his guilt.
The "I don't remember" ploy Sirhan has been playing over the years is pure baloney.
-
On 9/17/2021 at 8:03 AM, David Lifton said:
Pardon my cynicism; but if Sirhan is released and embarks on the equivalent of a "book tour," those government officials who permitted such a farce, will look like fools.
DSL
9/17/21 - 6 AM PDT
You're exactly right David. Sirhan has never shown remorse for his murder of RFK.
-
Larry Crafard did not shoot Tippit, he was in the Carousel Club.
See "Armstrong Exhibit 5310-G"
-
On 9/15/2021 at 2:06 AM, James DiEugenio said:
It was not just Al.
The late Greg Stone also took apart Kranz.
Did Greg Stone mention Sirhan firing blanks, Mr. DiEugenio?
No, he would have laughed that off, and rightfully so.
So, did Sirhan fire blanks?
-
46 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:
No. It was too fragmented to identify microscopic striations unique to Sirhan’s firearm.
That's correct Mr. Mellor.
-
On 9/14/2021 at 5:21 PM, Dennis Berube said:
Yikes Steve. The brilliant Allard Lowenstein destroyed the Kranz report in 1977.
I don't consider Kranz independent at all. He was active in the case blocking testimony, he was special counsel to the DA's office and admitted he wanted to become a DA. Real independence there. He never mentioned ANY of the MANY witnesses that described a point blank shot and cherry picked from their statements.
“You must acknowledge that no one saw much of anything. And that’s what has always troubled me.” - Kranz
again, good chuckles here
Oh, so Lowenstein destroyed the Kranz report.....really?
-
On 9/11/2021 at 3:59 PM, Chris Barnard said:
I may have misunderstood where you are coming from here. So, you agree there was a conspiracy to kill Senator Robert F Kennedy (one of two Senators to be assassinated in US history, the other being Huey Long) but, you disagree with Lisa’s hypothesis?!
As to whether blanks being fired as a distraction, it seems plausible, I mean the noisiest rounds possible to draw attention to Sirhan, but, it matters little if he is firing live rounds. You might draw a comparison between people firing from the TSB vs the people firing at the picket fence. The crux of the matter is Noguchi, and his testament to the kill shot being behind the ear and a few inches from RFK’s head. That and the panels removed with bullet holes in them and being destroyed by the LAPD.
We have all of the motive in the world to believe that RFK being killed by a conspiracy.
IMHO opinion the assassinations of the 1960’s should be looked at as a collective, not as individual unfortunate happenings. Look for patterns, not coincidences.
Of course, it’s a persons right to disagree, but, logic has to prevail in any coherent investigation.
In regards to the RFK assassination, I do not believe or subscribe to a conspiracy. Studying the facts over the years, it was Sirhan and Sirhan alone that gunned down the Senator. I do not believe in the Manchurian Candidate fantasy.
Also I do not dispute Noguchi's autopsy findings of a near "point blank" shot to the head, behind his right ear. Despite all the reports of Sirhan being some distance away, it was clear that he lunged toward RFK and fired the shots. By accounts I have read, that was the first shot (head). Not Thane Eugene Cesar, who had a .38 service revolver. If it was Cesar, then why didn't they jump him? Does that make sense?
I prefer to read and study the actual reports, first hand to form my opinion. I am not swayed by the many books on RFK's murder promoting conspiracy. I do not have a closed mind, because I have examined many of these claims and they prove to be false, misleading and/or under-researched.
You stated this: "MHO opinion the assassinations of the 1960’s should be looked at as a collective, not as individual unfortunate happenings. Look for patterns, not coincidences."
Response: I strongly disagree with that statement. You cannot assume every murder, in this case, political assassinations are part of a conspiratorial pattern. That's absurd. Each case should be studied individually, examining the facts, the evidence and testimony of witnesses.
That's my opinion.
-
1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:
Out of interest, have you read Lisa Pease' book, "A lie too big to fail". It wasn't a new revelation that RFK was assassinated by someone other than Sirhan Sirhan, it was thoroughly researched and expanded on.
Yes, I have the Kindle version of Lisa Pease's book, "A lie too big to fail".
No, it's not a new revelation of other shooters. Of course Thane Eugene Cesar is the most well known. But what Pease does is expand her fantasy to other shooters.
Here's a direct quote from page 289 (Kindle Version) of her book.
Knowing Sirhan was going to be firing blanks, other conspirators simply had to wait until Sirhan fired his first shot. Then, while everyone else in the pantry froze in shock and fear, assassins moved quickly to get the job done. This scenario fits all the known evidence. Sirhan was like a magician’s assistant, providing the distraction by firing blanks. All eyes went to his gun, leaving the actual assassins to do their job. The actual shooters could have used suppressors and kept their weapons well hidden, perhaps in rolled-up posters or under a newspaper or a busboy’s towel. With several people firing at once, it became impossible to tell how many shots are fired. That explains why the shots sounded like firecrackers to such a large number of witnesses.
Pease, Lisa. A Lie Too Big to Fail (p. 289). Feral House. Kindle Edition.
Does this sound credible? The book is chock full of "what ifs" and her speculation which are absurd in relevance to the facts.
-
On 9/10/2021 at 11:32 AM, Dennis Berube said:
Not even a coherent statement, it sounds like you read an MSM piece about RFK Jr instead of his actual works. He just won a big case against the FCC, apparently the courts find RFK Jr of sound mind. I’m sure you thank him for his heroic effort on behalf of all humans, the MSM didn’t.
but this did get a laugh, thanks
I love fantasies that involve statistical impossibility like more bullet holes/sounds than Sirhans gun could even hold, blanks or not.
Statistical impossibility, huh? I see you believe the conspiracy nonsense.
I will link this document for you and others to read. It's lengthy and no doubt there will be people who do not want to take the time to read and study. It's a primary document, not a conspiracy book by someone expressing their opinion.
For background, a Special Council was appointed in 1975 by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to independently investigate the murder of Robert Kennedy. His name was Thomas Kranz, and he reviewed trial documents, evidence, witness interviews, etc. In short, a very thorough investigation.
As I stated before, reading Kranz's investigation report requires concentration and attention to the detail. You will not find this exhaustive investigation in any of the various RFK conspiracy books, such as the sham book written by Lisa Pease.
As most of you know, Lisa Pease believes Sirhan shot blanks out of his eight-cylinder Iver-Johnson .22 revolver.
I've asked Mr. DiEugenio if he believes this, and he refuses to address the question, even though he reviewed Ms. Pease's transcript and highly praised the book.
Here's the Kranz report https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=99873#relPageId=14&search=sirhan_bullets
-
There's some crass remarks being made here about the Kennedy family. I would like to remind you that it was their father, not yours, that died because of Sirhan.
RFK Jr. has a history of nutty conspiracy theories, including the Covid Vaccine aimed at Afro-Americans. And there is more.....
The rest of the immediate Kennedy family don't buy into nutty conspiracy theories, so they are not gutless, in denial, ad nauseum. Just because you buy into this fantasy about Sirhan being innocent of anything.......you can't selfishly demand they do.
Think about what you are saying.
-
13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
And the rightwing extremist Larry Elder said he would not grant parole.
Whoever wins the crazy recall, is installed something like 38 days later.
Therefore we really do not know who will be in office.
Its hard for me to understand this crying out for revenge by the family of RFK. Sirhan has already served about three times what the average convict does for that crime. Therefore, purely on the comparative analysis, Sirhan is being used politically. What makes it worse: he has been a model prisoner. So just on those issues, he should have been freed a long time ago.
But as anyone who studies this case knows, not only did Sirhan not shoot RFK, it was not possible for him to shoot RFK. I mean Dan Moldea, in his piece of crud book, went to the most nutty extremes to try and make this conclusion possible, and he could not do it. And he got mad at me for showing it was BS.
The man who shot RFK is dead, Thane Eugene Cesar. Thanks to the LAPD, he got a pass.
The reason Sirhan was in the position he was is due to the GIrl in the Polka Dot Dress, who admitted she was part of the plot, both before it happened with Fahey, and after it happened, as she escaped out the back stairs. She got away also. So we are supposed to keep Sirhan in prison instead of two people who actually were involved and were allowed to escape?
What was the name of that Shirley Jackson short story?
So Mr. DiEugenio, did Sirhan really fire blanks from his .22 Iver-Johnson revolver, as your close associate, Lisa Pease has repeatedly said?
-
12 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland,
joined her brothers Robert Jr. and Douglas in supporting Sirhan's parole.
Anyway, we don't determine justice by taking a vote of the children
of the victim but by studying the facts of the case. The fact is
abundantly clear that Sirhan did not shoot Senator Robert Kennedy.
Mr. McBride, as of today I see nothing that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend supported RFK Jr. and Douglas Kennedy's recommendation that Sirhan be paroled.
Maybe you have a source that I am not aware of.
I do acknowledge that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has supported RFK Jr.'s call for a "Re-Investigation" in the 15th Parole hearing, not a Parole Release.
-
16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I guess RFK Jr. and Douglas Kennedy are the only RFK children to really look into their father's murder. You can't shoot somebody facing you from 8-10' away behind the ear from One Inch Away.
Ron, so what was Sirhan doing there with his .22 Iver-Johnson revolver?
Firing Blanks in the air?
-
In addition to Kerry Kennedy, the eldest son of RFK, Joseph Kennedy has voiced his disgust with the Parole Board's recent ruling. Now it will go to the larger Parole Board, and then ultimately to Governor Gavin Newsom.
You can bet your bottom dollar they will fight this. I support their efforts to get this overturned.
I am confident Sirhan will remain, where he should be, in prison for the rest of his life.
Assassin's parole recommendation condemned by Kennedy's daughter (newsnationnow.com)
-
On 8/2/2021 at 8:21 AM, Gil Jesus said:
Who led the President into an ambush ?
The Lead car was as per Secret Service protocol. The parade route was already established. Nobody led the President into an ambush, intentionally.
Who led Oswald into an ambush two days later ?
Nobody lead Oswald into an ambush, intentionally. The Dallas Police dropped the ball when Ruby snuck in, down the ramp.
Who refused to work security for the motorcade ?
Not sure what your question is all about. The Dallas Police worked with the Secret Service on the motorcade detail.
Who denied Oswald legal counsel ?
No one denied Oswald legal counsel. He was offered a court appointed lawyer upon his indictment, but he turned it down. Again Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association visited him in jail on Saturday, and he wanted John Abt, but if he couldn't get him, he would choose the ACLU.
Who kept Oswald isolated from his family ?
He was in jail, and his family did visit him and talked to him, via jailhouse telephone.
Who told the press not to ask Oswald questions ?
The midnight conference was to show Oswald and give him a chance to speak freely. Excited reporters did ask him questions and the showing was terminated.
Who controlled the lineups ?
DPD did of course. Don't most police departments control the lineups?
Who controlled the evidence ?
DPD did, until the FBI took over the investigation and a big portion of the evidence.
You think the cops weren't complicit in this crime ?
No absolutely not. Why would they want to kill the President?
You think they loved Kennedy ?
Some did and some did not. Again, just because you don't love the President, it doesn't mean you are complicit in a crime. Millions of Americans didn't like him. Painting a broad brush like the all the DPD hated Kennedy is a childish statement.
You think their security of Kennedy and then Oswald was sufficient ?
Obviously it wasn't. Again, it's 1963 and Kennedy rode in many motorcades wide open to the public.
Do you have any idea how justice was served in the South in the 1960s ?
I grew up in Dallas when it happened. This is an incredibly naïve statement. Do you know how justice was served in Chicago in the 1960's?
This is nonsense ?
Yes it is complete nonsense. You are intentionally blaming the Dallas Police for a murder they never committed. Of course, Oswald gets his usual pass.
OK then, make your case. Prove me wrong. Maybe you can change my mind.
Seriously? I'm never go to change your mind. You are committed to this belief.
JFK Revisited and Homophobia
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Well stated Greg, and of course nobody steps forward to identify what Clay Shaw did in a plot to kill the President......NOBODY. The same mentality was applied to Ruth Paine, countless and baseless innuendoes that go absolutely nowhere.