Tim Gratz Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 (edited) As I currently see the ad, it would have four parts: (1) Yes, Virginia, there really was a conspiracy. (Well, perhaps the title is too corny.) This would concentrate on (a) the absurdity of the SBT; ( the fact that the bullet was planted if Tomlinson was correct (and the NAA wrong); © the paraffin test demonstrated that LHO did not fire a rifle on Nov 22, 1963; and (d) Rosselli's lawyer told Hundley that he (Rosselli) had been part of a conspiracy. (2) Matters that Merit Investigation. (a) Witnesses that should be interviewed including Jenkins, Wheaton, Murgado, DeTorres, Odio, Prof Kurtz (re Hunter Leake); the incarcerated former associate of Trafficante who told two seperate informants that he was involved in the Rosselli murder;( documents that remain to be produced (including all of the Joannides documents); and © scientific tests that ought to be either validated or invalidated, to-wit the acoustic evidence and the NAA. We need to convince people that there are indeed new leads and we don't want just a rehash or re-examination of the WC and HSCA. (3) Persons Endorsing A New Investigation. Hopefully prominent authors and former staff members of HSCA. (4) What You Can Do To Solve the Case. A form to contact their MC. Also contribute funds for the push for Congress. Links to a Website. ****************************************** Comments so far? Edited September 4, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I would add, as a matter to be investigated, the verbal "confession" E. Howard Hunt gave to his son. I'd interview both the son and the writer who helped him with it. If it was fabricated, it would be good for the historical record to pin that down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 I request comment on this proposed language for the ad: The undersigned do not necessarily endorse, either individually or as a group, each of the statements made and opinions offered in this piece. Nevertheless, each believe that there is sufficient "new" evidence to warrant a new investigation of the assassination. What would follow this language would be the names of authors, HSCA staff counsel, etc. who had agreed to join the call for a new investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now