Leslie Sharp
-
Posts
2,131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Leslie Sharp
-
-
6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
Leslie - where did the document in question originate? This thread starts with an Albarelli email to you and Alan kent about this document in which he writes in parentheses “this from you (sic) the Angleton family member’ as if to identify the origin of the document. Who is ‘you’ referring to? What does ‘sic’ mean here? Did Hank write that? Who is the Angleton family member? Why is the document no longer available?
I’m sure this all brings back sad memories for you, occurring as it did right before Hank fell ill.the "you" is a typo ergo the [sic]. I'm concerned it might not be available but as I said, efforts are underway.
Hank did not anticipate passing suddenly; in fact he talked about having another decade at least so he continued to protect his sources. Coup was and is a work in progress. I've been far more transparent on this forum than he would have been because at this juncture I know it's my responsibility to balance his obligations with my own strong belief that the facts of the assassination belong in the public domain. -
43 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
I'm nobody's proxy.
-
42 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
I'm nobody's proxy.
Read and corrected.
-
4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:
@Jeremy Bojczuk I'm not entirely clear whether Greg Parker is permitted to comment on EF threads; it does appear you both are his sometime proxy so you're invited to give him a heads up that I've resumed the conversation on this thread which picks up with another private message exchange along the same theme (see Reiner talks about the two Oswalds).
Sharp: You're incorrigible. I'm curious. If you asked about my pen name, why didn't you ask me additional questions you broach in your screed?Parker: Firstly back to the TT which you managed to represent at the Ed Forum as me bringing up Prayer Man. The arrest had nothing to do with Oswald being on the steps. Why do you keep misrepresenting things?
Here is the quote from Jim Ewell,
"For some reason, instead of following the police into the main part of the theater, the lower floor, I went up these stairs into the balcony. And there, there must have been about fifteen or twenty high school age boys up there watching. They’d skipped school to watch double feature war movies. One of them was “War Is Hell.”"
This is about provided you with actual facts, not about any gunfight. Though I acknowledge your right to bear arms is enshrined lol
I hope this will not now be misrepresented as more on Prayer Man - or indeed, as an Aussie having the gall to tell you about the history of Texas theatres. If the boys had been African-American, I am sure Ewell would have said so in the wording of the times.
Sharp: I won't be debating you on this private platform. Find a work-around if you've been banned from EF. It's obvious you have a few proxies in place. What I'm offended by, both personally and professionally, is your sleazy approach. You ask one question in a jolly go lightly tone, knowing that you have no intention of permitting me to answer the myriad of others before you leap headlong into . .. whatever that was. Disappointing although in hindsight, not surprising.
Parker: Asking about your pen-name was an opportunity to see how truthful you would be. I decided on balance, it made little sense. And I said so when i called it "thin" to you here. I therefore had no faith that you would tell the truth about anything else. You had already lied about going to the FBI about an alleged threat, implied falsely that I was involved in alleged threat, refused to give a direct answer when Jeremy challenged you on that, thus implying yet again that I was involved. Even your faux anger over me calling you "Les" once at JFKFacts shows your aptitude for falsity, since as is now known, Lesley is not your name anyway. And my portrayal of your efforts to pattuy queries about the datebook are absolutely spot on. Stultifying.
And now:
So you (Greg) admit that your approach was deceptive and meant to disarm? Straight out of an agency playbook, Greg.
I could not care less whether you're satisfied by the history of the pen name I opted to use when writing about the Kennedy assassination. Nor should anyone else, unless of course buttons are being triggered as in your case.
You're defensive about a hypothesis you and others have poured heart and soul into, and I get that; but did you the Royal not consider the possibility - nay the fact now - that eventually, evidence could surface to challenge the theory that Oswald — the perfect patsy — was standing outside the depository building when the barrage of gunfire took K's life?
Lafitte writes, "Oswald in place". "L.O. is idiot but will be used regardless" "Oswald set in place" "Clip Clip his wings the pigeon way" "Fly fly away". There's not the slightest intimation Oswald was anything other than the perfect patsy, nor is there evidence of concern that he was spotted standing outside the depository. Does that suggest someone on the inside of the building, maybe Shelley, had been assigned to keep him inside or at least contain any slip up should he be caught on film outside? Perhaps, ergo the renewed interest in Shelley AND Bookhout
What is your evidence I lied about going to the FBI? First, I'm fairly sure I said that I had to restrain my spouse from calling the FBI having read the threat on jfkfacts. I was new at the game and had no idea this is normal operating procedure online for some ruffians and boorish brutes. Apparently the FBI still takes such chatter seriously. I implicated you because the party making the threat (I genuinely cannot remember his name) was following your lead to the letter. I asked but you failed to rein him in and that's how you entered the fray. You of all people know the value of 'policing our own.'*
I still have to ask, who put you in charge of what I should or shouldn't react to. Leslie is not "Les". I wasn't then - nor am I now for damn certain - your friend so the nickname struck me as weird. It still does.
Suggesting pen names are representative of an aptitude for falsity is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Here are a couple of hundred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pen_names
I'm not sure what your last sentence means ... something about the datebook. You can review the debates on various threads. If you're not satisfied, that certainly is your subjective prerogative.
Meanwhile the pursuit of a possibility Shelley was actively controlling Oswald's movements on the day continues; pursuit of Bookhout's possible relationship to Odum who we continue to consider as the likely primary caretaker of Oswald continues.
I hope you'll move on, Greg.
*Brehon Laws . . . The only executive authority in ancient Ireland which lay behind the decision of the judge was the traditional obedience and good sense of the people, and it does not appear that this was ever found wanting. The Brehons never appear to have had any trouble in getting their decisions accepted by the common people. The public appear to have seen to it that the Brehon’s decision was always carried out. This was indeed the very essence of democratic government, with no executive authority behind it but the will of the people, There can be no doubt whatever that the system trained an intelligent and law-abiding public.Austin, capitol city of Texas was and remains markedly more progressive than Dallas.
March 8, 202160 Years Ago this spring: The struggle to desegregate Austin's movie theaters
AUSTIN, Texas — Austin in 1960 was slowly outgrowing its image as just a “college town” as the population approached 200,000. But like most cities in the South, Austin was actually two towns: one for white residents and one for Black residents, with white residents generally living west of what was to become Interstate 35 and Black and Hispanic residents living east.
. . . McCulloch and McNealy were among a number of former students who participated in the 1960-61 protests who were interviewed for the documentary "The Stand-ins," produced by People’s History in Texas. The documentary tells the story of how the protests eventually led to change.
By the next year, the “stand-ins” had forced the Texan and Varsity theaters to open their doors to Black patrons. Other movie houses in town remained whites-only for a few more years until 1964 when civil rights for all became the law of the land. . . .
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/history/austin-movie-theaters-segregation-the-backstory/269-f1046ea2-0522-40b4-b400-ea7caa8ae35e -
19 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Jim Hargrove writes:
Applin was indeed on the ground floor, not the balcony, when he was escorted out of the building in order to give a statement at the police station.
Butch Burroughs assumed, erroneously, that Applin was being arrested. Burroughs never claimed to have seen anyone detained in the balcony. I dealt with this particular 'Harvey and Lee' canard some time ago in the following comment:
Scroll down to the headline, 'Reasons to doubt Burroughs' story'. You'll find out:
- that Burroughs' story, about seeing an Oswald lookalike being arrested, didn't emerge until 30 years after the event;
- that Burroughs failed to mention it to the Warren Commission in 1964;
- that he failed to mention it in 1987 to Jim Marrs, who would surely have asked him if he had noticed anything suspicious;
- that he never claimed to have seen anyone come down the stairs from the balcony;
- and that Burroughs could not have seen into the balcony from his location at his concession stand.
Elsewhere in that comment you'll find out :
- that the police reports about an arrest in the balcony were made by officers who probably weren't there;
- and that there is no chance at all that two members of a top-secret long-term doppelgänger project would give the game away by each telling the police that his name was Oswald.
The story of a second Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater is a myth.
Jeremy, you might pass this on to Greg Parker for his edification. Note: Austin, capitol city of Texas was and remains markedly more progressive than Dallas.
March 8, 202160 Years Ago this spring: The struggle to desegregate Austin's movie theaters
AUSTIN, Texas — Austin in 1960 was slowly outgrowing its image as just a “college town” as the population approached 200,000. But like most cities in the South, Austin was actually two towns: one for white residents and one for Black residents, with white residents generally living west of what was to become Interstate 35 and Black and Hispanic residents living east.
. . . McCulloch and McNealy were among a number of former students who participated in the 1960-61 protests who were interviewed for the documentary "The Stand-ins," produced by People’s History in Texas. The documentary tells the story of how the protests eventually led to change.
By the next year, the “stand-ins” had forced the Texan and Varsity theaters to open their doors to Black patrons. Other movie houses in town remained whites-only for a few more years until 1964 when civil rights for all became the law of the land. . . .
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/history/austin-movie-theaters-segregation-the-backstory/269-f1046ea2-0522-40b4-b400-ea7caa8ae35e -
@Jeremy Bojczuk I'm not entirely clear whether Greg Parker is permitted to comment on EF threads; it does appear you are his sometime proxy so you're invited to give him a heads up that I've resumed the conversation on this thread which picks up with another private message exchange along the same theme (see Reiner talks about the two Oswalds).
Sharp: You're incorrigible. I'm curious. If you asked about my pen name, why didn't you ask me additional questions you broach in your screed?Parker: Firstly back to the TT which you managed to represent at the Ed Forum as me bringing up Prayer Man. The arrest had nothing to do with Oswald being on the steps. Why do you keep misrepresenting things?
Here is the quote from Jim Ewell,
"For some reason, instead of following the police into the main part of the theater, the lower floor, I went up these stairs into the balcony. And there, there must have been about fifteen or twenty high school age boys up there watching. They’d skipped school to watch double feature war movies. One of them was “War Is Hell.”"
This is about provided you with actual facts, not about any gunfight. Though I acknowledge your right to bear arms is enshrined lol
I hope this will not now be misrepresented as more on Prayer Man - or indeed, as an Aussie having the gall to tell you about the history of Texas theatres. If the boys had been African-American, I am sure Ewell would have said so in the wording of the times.
Sharp: I won't be debating you on this private platform. Find a work-around if you've been banned from EF. It's obvious you have a few proxies in place. What I'm offended by, both personally and professionally, is your sleazy approach. You ask one question in a jolly go lightly tone, knowing that you have no intention of permitting me to answer the myriad of others before you leap headlong into . .. whatever that was. Disappointing although in hindsight, not surprising.
Parker: Asking about your pen-name was an opportunity to see how truthful you would be. I decided on balance, it made little sense. And I said so when i called it "thin" to you here. I therefore had no faith that you would tell the truth about anything else. You had already lied about going to the FBI about an alleged threat, implied falsely that I was involved in alleged threat, refused to give a direct answer when Jeremy challenged you on that, thus implying yet again that I was involved. Even your faux anger over me calling you "Les" once at JFKFacts shows your aptitude for falsity, since as is now known, Lesley is not your name anyway. And my portrayal of your efforts to pattuy queries about the datebook are absolutely spot on. Stultifying.
And now:
So you (Greg) admit that your approach was deceptive and meant to disarm? Straight out of an agency playbook, Greg.
I could not care less whether you're satisfied by the history of the pen name I opted to use when writing about the Kennedy assassination. Nor should anyone else, unless of course buttons are being triggered as in your case.
You're defensive about a hypothesis you and others have poured heart and soul into, and I get that; but did you the Royal not consider the possibility - nay the fact now - that eventually, evidence could surface to challenge the theory that Oswald — the perfect patsy — was standing outside the depository building when the barrage of gunfire took K's life?
Lafitte writes, "Oswald in place". "L.O. is idiot but will be used regardless" "Oswald set in place" "Clip Clip his wings the pigeon way" "Fly fly away". There's not the slightest intimation Oswald was anything other than the perfect patsy, nor is there evidence of concern that he was spotted standing outside the depository. Does that suggest someone on the inside of the building, maybe Shelley, had been assigned to keep him inside or at least contain any slip up should he be caught on film outside? Perhaps, ergo the renewed interest in Shelley AND Bookhout
What is your evidence I lied about going to the FBI? First, I'm fairly sure I said that I had to restrain my spouse from calling the FBI having read the threat on jfkfacts. I was new at the game and had no idea this is normal operating procedure online for some ruffians and boorish brutes. Apparently the FBI still takes such chatter seriously. I implicated you because the party making the threat (I genuinely cannot remember his name) was following your lead to the letter. I asked but you failed to rein him in and that's how you entered the fray. You of all people know the value of 'policing our own.'*
I still have to ask, who put you in charge of what I should or shouldn't react to. Leslie is not "Les". I wasn't then - nor am I now for damn certain - your friend so the nickname struck me as weird. It still does.
Suggesting pen names are representative of an aptitude for falsity is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Here are a couple of hundred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pen_names
I'm not sure what your last sentence means ... something about the datebook. You can review the debates on various threads. If you're not satisfied, that certainly is your subjective prerogative.
Meanwhile the pursuit of a possibility Shelley was actively controlling Oswald's movements on the day continues; pursuit of Bookhout's possible relationship to Odum who we continue to consider as the likely primary caretaker of Oswald continues.
I hope you'll move on, Greg.
*Brehon Laws . . . The only executive authority in ancient Ireland which lay behind the decision of the judge was the traditional obedience and good sense of the people, and it does not appear that this was ever found wanting. The Brehons never appear to have had any trouble in getting their decisions accepted by the common people. The public appear to have seen to it that the Brehon’s decision was always carried out. This was indeed the very essence of democratic government, with no executive authority behind it but the will of the people, There can be no doubt whatever that the system trained an intelligent and law-abiding public. -
On 1/26/2024 at 8:58 AM, Paul Brancato said:
Leslie - would you post the note from Lafitte to Angleton and the source? Needless to say that is explosive.
Paul, it's the first email in the chain. If you're asking for the original, those documents appear to be missing or "unavailable" for now. Efforts are underway.
It also should be emphasized that Lafitte and Angleton are reflecting on an international assassin as well which should be of interest to those who recognize the significance.
And yes, it was explosive at first reading; and more concerning as time goes on, Hank fell seriously ill within forty+ hours of sharing what he had recently taken possession of.
From: Hank Albarelli
Date: January 16, 2019 at 7:06:54 AM EST
To: dick
Subject: Note to AngletonThere’s a very interesting post-assassination note to Angleton from Lafitte (this from you [sic] the Angleton family member) that points up two things: there was an assassin referred to as “Ostrich” that Lafitte agrees w/ Angleton as being very good (but seemingly not used in Dallas); and Lafitte agrees with Angleton on the merits of having not used Cubans in “direct capacities.” I [sic] pretty certain I know who Ostrich is/was but will only say once I’m absolutely there. [Ludwig Nebel]
-
Not to relitigate what has been debated on this forum over the years, but for the sake of a degree of continuity in this discussion:
Item
Mr. Ball. Why did you go to the front?
Mr. Shelley. Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. Ball. And who was out there?
Mr. Shelley. Well, there was Lloyd files of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton she’s with Texas School book, and Wesley Frazier and Bill Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. Ball. You were standing where?
Mr. Shelley. Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. Ball. That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. Shelley. Yes.
Mr. Ball. Did you see the motorcade pass?
Mr. Shelley. Yes.
This was Shelley’s first opportunity to state that Lee Oswald was also standing “just outside the glass doors on the top landing of the entrance.” He didn't.
Do Prayer Man aficionados argue: (simple, succinct answers please?)
a) Shelley failed to notice Oswald
b) Shelley wasn’t asked so he didn’t offer
c) Shelley knowingly lied by omission
d) Shelley was pressured to lie by omission
e) other
To clarify: (Prayer Man advocates: a simple few lines in response will suffice)
1) Interview notes that Capt. Fritz relied on for his own initial report included SA James Bookhout’s which suggested Oswald stated during one interview he was out front with Shelley
2) William Shelley doesn’t testify that Oswald was out front with him.
3) William Shelley doesn’t appear in the WC transcript of the testimony of SA Bookhout.
4) The question of Oswald’s whereabouts during the assassination does not surface during Bookhout’s testimony.
5) The most egregious flaw in their WC testimony is the line of questioning, not Shelley’s nor Bookhout’s responses.
6) However, there was ample time in the ensuing years, particularly during the HSCA investigation, for both Shelley and Bookhout to correct the record that Oswald was standing outside the depository building during the barrage of gunfire that took Kennedy’s life.
Did they?
-
One might ask if Reiner talks about two Oswalds has poked the bear at ROKC?
The following is better suited to an independent topic; henceforth I'll respond only after@Jeremy Bojczuk et al launch the appropriate thread.for now:
Greg Parker Facebook messaged me Sunday Jan 28, full of the joys of pending spring . . .
Hi Linda. I'm just writing a piece on alternative facts, conspiracies, the deep state, and a few other things, including a response to some comments you have recently made at the ed forum concerning me. I was looking for any explanation you have supplied in the past regarding why you use a pen-name, but can't find anything. Would you care to fill me in? Pretty sure I can guess, but hey, I've been wrong before and best to check with the one person who actually does know. [emphasis added]
So, let me get this straight? With this runaround (not uncommon for the prayer men), Greg decided that in one instance — the question of a pen name — It's best to check with the one person who actually does know — but in all other instances, he thought to himself: I think I'll just roll with speculation, supposition, innuendo, the whole lot, rather than taking advantage of the same opportunity to check with the one person who actually does know before penning my insult-riddled biased screed because - after all, LESLIE still won't get on board with Prayer Man.
@Jeremy Bojczuk Please tell Greg for me, "bring your knife to the gunfight here, personally, and I might respond in detail" beginning with what a sleazy tactic.
Opening salvo ...
Greg Parker: Hi Linda. I'm just writing a piece on alternative facts, conspiracies, the deep state, AND A FEW OTHER THINGS [emphasis added], including a response to some comments you have recently made at the ed forum concerning me. I was looking for any explanation you have supplied in the past regarding why you use a pen-name, but can't find anything. Would you care to fill me in? Pretty sure I can guess, but hey, I've been wrong before and best to check with the one person who actually does know.
[I responded with the full text of a comment I posted on Ed Forum outlining the history of my decision to write under a pen name. Greg continues with benign questions regarding timing.]
Leslie Sharp: July-ish 2017. Why do you ask?Greg Parker: curiosity
Leslie Sharp: that's a given. specifically?
Greg Parker: i like timelines. and this, regardless of whether or not i use them. If the timeline makes sense my curiosity is satisfied.
Leslie Sharp: Mine or Hank's?
Greg Parker: Yours. You came out of nowhere using a pen name, going to the extent of having social media in that name and continuing with the pen name apparently after you had no need to, if I read your explanation for it correctly. That is more than enough to arouse curiosity, no?
The exchange continued with Greg insisting that EF rules require members to sign on with "official" identities to which I suggested that his issue is with the Ed Forum not me. Little did I realize. With stealth, he switched gears from the actual reason for his message to argue about "Prayer Man".
A credible journalist would have continued and asked questions he intended to pose in his piece. Instead? Greg answers them himself. Having a bit of experience with vipers, I should have suspected. -
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:
The “Oswald lookalike” in the balcony that Butch Burroughs saw detained by police was NOT George Applin, because Applin was seated on the main floor, relatively close to Oswald. I’ll be back in 10 or 15 days to continue this discussion.
I for one look forward to your return. I was just reading that Bentley was in the balcony. I wonder why he would look for a white guy in the coloreds only, unless someone pointed him there or unless he calculated the suspect would be hiding in the dark. (to be continued.)
And relevant to the Bard Odum angle, we overlooked that he was in the loop with the Walker bullet:
' . . . Also, on May 28, 1964, Dallas Police Lieutenant J. C. Day advised an FBI Agent that on April 25, 1963, ". . . he took the bullet from the CSSS, marked it for identification . . . " and then personally took it to the City-County Criminal Investigation Laboratory (CCCIL), Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas, where he gave it to F. T. Alexander and Louie L. Anderson. Lieutenant Day also advised that he retrieved the Walker bullet from the CCCIL on December 2, 1963, and gave it to FBI Special Agent Bardwell D. Odu7m on the same date.Special Agent Odum forwarded the Walker bullet to FBI Laboratory where it arrived for examination on December 4, 1963 . . . ' -
7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Lesley continues:
As I explained on page 4, there was only one arrest in the Texas Theatre. George Applin was assumed, erroneously, to have been arrested when he was in fact escorted out of the rear of the building in order to give a statement to the police:
More worryingly, Lesley also writes:
Is Leslie seriously suggesting that Greg Parker, or anyone connected to him, was behind such threats? She would need to produce some pretty strong evidence to justify that claim. I hope she will either produce that evidence or make it very clear indeed that she isn't accusing anyone ("Aussies ... these fellows ... Greg") of such behaviour.
You are correct. Suggesting there were two arrests is misleading. Odum was advised that a suspect was seen entering the rear door and he rushed to the TT; Applin was escorted out the rear door to give a statement.
Odd that you choose not to discuss why a federal agent felt compelled to witness any arrests related to the murder of a city police officer when his duty was to pursue the assassin of the president. Had authorities already determined Oswald was the assassin? How?
You can ask Greg if he recalls the incident.
-
2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I started this thread in part to get out there so to speak, expose, what I'd read. Also to gather the different reports and statements in one place for my own better understanding and that of others. There is yet more on Laffite.
It seems Hank Albarelli discovered Pierre in the papers, documents, letters, notes, and yes diaries/"datebook(s)" of George Hunter White. I think now safely (?) secured in Northern California. For further future research.
Through further research he was able to contact Pierre's widow and daughter. Subsequentially he was made aware of and later allowed to examine the datebook. Eventually in greater detail.
You've provided a tight summary of what was Hank's long road to Lafitte and his subsequent investigation.
I would add that Pierre was in the wider press as early as 1969 — IN New Orleans no less at the precise time Garrison was pursuing Clay Shaw. It is reasonable to suspect Lafitte was summoned back.
Prior to the Bob Considine article in 1977, Lafitte had made it into a few syndicated columns covering his testimony in trials and his own arrest. Dorothy Kilgallen mentioned his having won an Upstate NY art award. Serendipitously I came across one article in the Lubbock (Tx)Avalanche - Journal in the early '60s. I've laterally wondered if my parents who followed national news voraciously came across the name Pierre Lafitte.
How did so many JFK researchers miss the coincidence that the popular chef of the Plimsoll Club in the new International Trade Mart who had been summarily remanded into federal custody to return to Boston to face charges had been a long-time friend of journalist James Phelan who loomed large during the Garrison investigation? Anyone looking into Phelan would walk headlong into his writing collaborations with Lafitte and the sensational series published in True magazine. Phelan had even been in New Orleans in '63, researching a piece on the new DA Garrison; that coincidence alone should have piqued interest since the True series had hit the stands not that long before and Pierre was then living in Gretna hiding in plain sight.
I recently spoke with Joan Mellen who insists that because she and those dedicated to Jim Garrison had never heard of Pierre Lafitte, he was either a fictional character or of little significance (paraphrasing). With respect — and I admire Mellen's body of work — he was neither.
-
19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
There were three, not dozens.
19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:There were three, not dozens.
I'm also counting those who remained silent and whose families also kept the secrets.
As a quick side note re. Truly:
A Ray Truly who worked for Dresser moved into the former home on Ohio St. in Midland of the George Bush family when they left West Texas for Houston.
-
50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I personally believe that Shelley was a CIA employee. But that doesn't mean anything with regard to the coverup. The CIA controlled the assassination plot, whereas the FBI controlled the coverup.
Who knows what Shelley would have said had somebody asked where Oswald was during the shooting. The smart thing would have been for the authorities to have The Talk with him, to keep him quiet.
What you've suggested solves only the problem of getting the official narrative into the record. Which is fine. But it doesn't keep the witnesses of Oswald's innocence from blabbing to the neighbors and newspapers. They need to be given "The Talk" to solve that problem.
I propose the glue that held the official story at the depository together was either/or (and, perhaps and) a shared ideology and bound by oath.
Remember O.V. Campbell's partner in the depository business was viruently opposed to Kennedy; every tenant in the building boasted at least one retired military brass on its board, meaning heavy representation of the M-IC; Mattie and DH Byrd's politics are well-known. If the book business had a dual purpose — commercial for profit, and serving as a front for any one of several govt intel agencies — we're talking serious oath-taking by most who worked at 411 Elm.Otherwise, I'm with Greg Doudna on this (paraphrasing), silencing dozens for decades simply makes no sense.
-
6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Absolutely. I am a believer in the H&L theory... however, I'm not convinced that the LEE Oswald from New Orleans was always HARVEY'S double after HARVEY'S time in Russia. I kinda think that there were a number of doubles.
HARVEY'S double in Mexico City was blond and short.
Could OSWALD have been an acronym or code for a project not dissimilar to QJ/WIN or WIROGUE?
-
13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I believe that Shelley, Lovelady, and Frazier all saw Oswald out on the steps and that they were all under pressure to keep their mouths shut. I believe that that is the reason they were chosen to provide the fake WC testimony they wanted to hear. Although they were all allowed to hedge their testimonies, to help ease their consciences. For example, Frazier was allowed to suggest that the bag was too short to hold a gun.
What if Shelley played a role as Oswald's direct contact in the depository and required no pressure to keep his mouth shut during testimony. He doesn't need to be a CIA agent or anything other than a sometime intel asset (FBI?) or temporary employee.
Playing devil's advocate, isn't it reasonable to consider that instead of ensuring Oswald remained inside — which in fact would send up alarms to a completely unsuspecting Lee — someone like Shelley was in place to contain anything that might contradict the assertion Lee was in the building at the time of the assassination. In other words, just omit any reference to Oswald at all during testimony about events outside the building let alone the suggestion he was standing in the same area, i.e. "out with Bill Shelley in front," and simply perpetuate the confusion long enough to solidify Oswald's alleged guilt as the lone assassin in the public mind.From there, does anyone know whether Bookhout and SA Bard Odum ever worked in tandem on the investigation? We know that Odum and Hosty ended up together by evening of November 22.
From the ROKC way back machine,claims 2nd floor coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in
front
1. Bill Shelley ate half of his lunch in his office and left the rest for later. He didn't eat lunch out on the steps.
2. Bookhout's solo report doesn't reflect the interpretation of Sean's fracturing of Fritz's notes. It reads:" he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police office came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took his Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley and thereafter went home."
If Fritz copied Bookhout's notes, why do we break Fritz's phrases mid-line, to come up with something that doesn't match Bookhout's report which was based on his notes? — Goban_Saor
*. * *
Bookhout did make notes -- and Fritz said he basically started covering his own upsized backside almost straight away, so he may well have got to see them before they were destroyed. Alternatively, Fritz used Boohout's and/or the official reports of others as a guide to writing his own. — Greg Parker
-
5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
The Ubiquitous Bard. Is this his only official statement to the Warren Omission?
Unless you count his statement about TT. You might review Bill Simpich on MFF who may have provided updates since the major document releases. I haven't searched recently.
Kudos to the late Raymond Gallagher for recognizing patterns. Why would one SA be assigned to such a vast swath of the investigation? Containment would be my guess.
-
56 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
No, it's not a lie of omission, either. Surely you know how the testimonies worked. WC staff's job was to frame Oswald, not find out what happened.
They were gathering information that would help them do that, and ignoring or discarding everything else.
They knew what Oswald's alibi was. There was no reason to ask a friendly witness like Shelley if he saw Oswald on the steps.
With Vickie Adams, for example, Belin went through a mock interview first and then told her she must answer everything he was going to ask for real exactly as she just had.
I believe we're focused on separate concerns.
Of course the WC manipulated witnesses so I'm not challenging your position. I'm equally if not more concerned with witnesses they didn't call -- primarily SA Bard Odum.
But Ball also gave Shelley an opportunity to mention that Oswald was outside, whether Ball was being performative or not.
Either Shelley was under duress prior to taking the stand (is that what you're arguing?) or he chose to lie by omission of his own volition which prompts my question, again: did Shelley later revise his version of events to conform with Oswald's alleged claim he was "out front with Shelley"? If so, is there a citation? I'm not finding one so far on MFF.
-
1 minute ago, Roger Odisio said:
Actually I didn't say Shelley lied. I said he told them what they wanted to hear. And as we know, Ball and Belin typically made it known to witnesses what it was they wanted to hear,and what they wanted to cover, before the official testimony started.
Sounds to me like a lie of omission.
Let's not give Shelley a pass. Let's address the salient question: was Oswald "out front with Shelley," "with Shelley out front," or neither? This touches on the cornerstone of Prayer Man, does it not? -
14 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
Shelley's testimony suggests nothing at all, other than he was going to go along with what they wanted him to say. It was April 7, 1964 when he testified to Ball. Oswald was long dead; there would be no trial and it was clear Oswald was the guy the authorities had fingered for the murder. Shelley was not going to provide Oswald with an alibi. Even if he had seen Oswald on the steps.
On cue! 🙂. Seriously, Roger, are you arguing that Shelley lied under testimony? Say it isn't so!
What is your take on Shelley's role as Oswald's on-site control for the agency? -
6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
Thanks for these posts, Leslie. I read Mr. Russell’s book so long ago I’ve forgotten many of the details, but your observations indicating Oswald should have at least known, uh, something was up are interesting, and begs the question, What was he told to keep him inside the building that day and just before leaving the TSBD ?
Late last year, Len Osanic located and released a 1966 interview of Vicki Adams by Mort Sahl and and Mark Lane, Toward the very end of the interview, Adams confirmed that Shelley and Lovelady were are the bottom of the rear staircase just a minute or so after the shots were fired. Our bet is that Shelley gave Oswald (the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby) his final instructions, and two torn dollar bills to help identify a non-existent “contact” at the theater.
The Warren Committee lawyers seemed uncomfortable with Vicki Lawrence’s encounter with Shelley and Lovelady.
You raise some other interesting questions that I’ll try to study a little more. One thing my aging brain can’t seem to recall at the moment: Is there credible evidence Oswald claimed to be “out front with Shelley” somewhere other than in the dubious “Fritz’s notes?”
Rereading Shelley's WC testimony; he doesn't say Oswald joined him "out front" or any other location; in fact he doesn't mention LHO in his brief timeline of the actual assassination at all. Now, does that suggest he had been instructed to not provide Oswald with an alibi? Or was Oswald inside.
No doubt ROKC, if they're paying attention, will weigh in with updates on what else Shelley might have said. I'm genuinely interested to know if he revised his recollection at any juncture.
Fritz's notes were the object of dispute as I recall; I challenged the prayer men's interpretation. ["My daddy" - fifth+ gen. Texan was of that vintage and ilk, and I thought I was more qualified.]
-
2 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
I wasn't suggesting Odum knew of two Oswald's, but that possibly he knew in advance one might seek a contact at the Texas Theater. Thus he went to the back door. As opposed to being told by an unknown DOD officer.
If Alpine(?) is in the mix, maybe that's who the unidentified policeman saw being escorted out the back entrance, and in the frenzy he told Odum without realizing the error. But it doesn't explain why a federal agent removed himself from the search for the president's assassin to rush to TT witness the arrest of a suspect in the murder of a city cop. Was the unidentified policeman a ruse?
It's been argued that Odum's "instinct" and that of most who rushed to TT told them the suspect at TT was involved in both.
Then again, considering his subsequent role in the investigation, its probable he was "in on it" since April, just prior to the Walker incident.
I think earlier we discussed the possibility that beginning November 2, the patsy was passed off to those on the ground while Lafitte concentrated on Otto's strategy for an L-shaped hit in Dealey on the 22nd.
(Shelley is of keen interest.)
-
@Ron Bulman IF Odum is Caretaker, he might have had foreknowledge that one of the Oswald's might try to meet a contact at the Texas Theater.
Ron, there's no indication in the datebook that Lafitte — at the behest of Harvey or T or Angleton, let alone Otto Skorzeny — is dealing with two Oswalds. By extension, there's no substantial reason to believe Caretaker was working two Oswalds without Lafitte's knowledge. It's not impossible, but how would it work on a purely practical level? If Lafitte asked about Oswald or was advising about Oswald, would Caretaker or T know which Oswald? Caretaker and T leap frog responsibilities for Oswald. Which one?
I've had this discussion at length with David Josephs whose Mexico City research is very impressive, and we've agreed that two Oswalds would solve a myriad of discrepancies. However, nothing alters the fact that Lafitte was only dealing with one. -
3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
I sincerely doubt Agent Oswald was told he was about to be framed for the murder of JFK. His CIA contact/supervisor at the TSBD was, I believe, Bill Shelley.
On our website, John A. wrote,
Elzie Glaze was a Dallas journalist who in 1974 met a woman who had been working for the Texas Book Depository since 1969. Her immediate supervisor was Bill Shelley, who Glaze contacted and met on numerous occasions. In a 1989 letter Glaze wrote, "Mr. Shelley claims to have been an intelligence officer during World War II and thereafter joined the CIA."
Note that Shelley appears to turn up, besides at the TSBD, in another interesting situation in New Orleans.
The top three images are of Shelley on Nov. 22, 1963. The bottom two pix show a man (see red arrows) who sure looks like Shelley right near Oswald at the infamous leaflet incident in New Orleans.
I realize these questions have been addressed on EF over the years, but in light of the Reiner-O'Brien podcast aren't they worth revisiting.
If Shelley was his CIA contact/supervisor at the depository, then Shelley was responsible for his movements on Friday.Doesn't the "Prayer Man" movement rely heavily on Oswald's statement that he was "out front with Shelley" or "with Shelley out front" or a permutation thereof as evidence he was not inside? Would that suggest Shelley wasn't read in fully on the assassination operation so he dropped the ball by failing to ensure the patsy remained inside the building? That seems implausible to me.
Or did Oswald lie about being outside with Shelley? Didn't Shelley later corroborate his claim? Did Oswald realize he was set up and decided to drag Shelly into the mix? I don't recall Shelley's specific testimony but perhaps someone else following the thread will weigh in.
Does any of this lead to Joe Molina? If Oswald was duped, it seems guns and gunrunning would be the perfect foil.
A Problem with "Prayer Man"
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
By your logic, anyone could have been an "effective patsy"? You write that the patsy could have been at the White House. Or taking it another step, the FBI could just flip through their files, find one of those other American defectors to the Soviet Union who returned to the US and arrest him regardless of his location on November 22. Do I have that right?
If, as I believe Greg argues, young school kids were sitting in the balcony of TT, why weren't they identified as African Americans? In spite of pending immigration across the country, I assure you that Dallas was still identifying "coloreds."