Dave Perry

[Wim Dankbaar]

Dave Perry quite rightly points out that neither Files nor Judith is a credible person, and I know of very, very few researchers who still doubt that Dave is right.

How does Dave Perry point this out "quite rightly"? Which of his claims to argument this, do you find particularly credible? Take your pick from these ten: http://davesjfk.com/lettermn.html

As for the "very few researchers" you may want to start here:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/researchers.htm

And if you don't believe Judyth Baker, you may want to pay the world a service by absorbing the story thoroughly and pointing out how and why she is a hoax. It must be a horror for you to see this book rated with 5 stars:

http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monkey-Canc...n/dp/0977795306

I do not agree with Dave that the La Fontaine's solved the three tramp mysteries,( or any other mysteries) but I have not investigated the tramps enough to have a firm opinion about Chauncey Holt. If Dave is correct that the ONLY corroboration for Holt's story comes from James Files, then I would run a mile in a New York Minute -- in the opposite direction.

Dave Perry is not correct. The story of Holt is corroborated through many aspects, expert opinions and evidence, not the least the shadows in the tramp photographs, refuting the "official" tramps story.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm

In addition James Files does NOT corroborate Holt's story other than indirectly by placing Nicoletti in Dallas that day. Instead of adhering to Perry's claims, I suggest you investigate the claims of the source himself:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=8250980122157253214

Ask Mr. Perry - for objectivity's sake - to place a link to that video on his Chauncey Holt page! Ask John Mcadams too.

Let's see if Mr Perry can run a mile in a New York Minute -- in the right direction.

Wim

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ask Mr. Perry - for objectivity's sake - to place a link to that video on his Chauncey Holt page! Ask John Mcadams too.

Wim

Sorry, Wim, you' re talking to the wrong guy. I have no room on my To_Do list for Holt, Judith or James Files.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Ask Mr. Perry - for objectivity's sake - to place a link to that video on his Chauncey Holt page! Ask John Mcadams too.

Wim

Sorry, Wim, you' re talking to the wrong guy. I have no room on my To_Do list for Holt, Judith or James Files.

I know! That's why it's a shame you jump to an opinion uninhibited by factual knowledge. Or maybe I should say based on Perry's lies.

Wim

[Pamela Brown]

Dave Perry quite rightly points out that neither Files nor Judith is a credible person, and I know of very, very few researchers who still doubt that Dave is right.

Excuse me? Dave Perry has a right to his opinion and so do you, but Judyth Baker is a documented witness to Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA in the summer of '63 and she has a right to be heard. You may not like what she has to say, that's your choice.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Gee Raymond, yet another researcher who believes Judyth? Don't you agree that if she is a hoax, she is quite a good one? Or did you study the story more in depth and is Pamela just dumber than you and Dave Perry together?

Wim

Edited November 11, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[William Kelly]

[William Kelly]

So what's up Dave, did your "search for tips on Tippit" ever develop anything new or different?

BK

[Pamela Brown]

Gee Raymond, yet another researcher who believes Judyth? Don't you agree that if she is a hoax, she is quite a good one? Or did you study the story more in depth and is Pamela just dumber than you and Dave Perry together?

Wim

I really wish people would get off the soapbox of trying to label Judyth Baker a 'hoax' when she has better credentials than most witnesses who have come forth, and has created a greater upheaval in the community than just about anyone else I can recall.

Judyth is a documented witness who deserves to be heard as such in an open forum. People are free to decide for themselves what to think about what she has to say. That is certainly fair, a level ground.

We have few enough witnesses still alive -- the last thing we should be doing is trying to shut them down.

[Jack White]

"Judyth is a documented witness who deserves to be heard"

I have never seen ANY DOCUMENTATION. Can you explain?

Jack

[Wim Dankbaar]

Here's a Tippit tip for Dave. The men who shot JFK and Tippit both in one picture:

Edited November 13, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Duke Lane]

... My biggest beef with Dave Perry is in regards to the fabricated DPD report on an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house, which Perry accuratly shows is not real, yet he just passes such criminal fabrication as a prank and practical joke. ... I say those who fabricate records related to a homicide should be prosecuted.

While I tend to agree with his assessments of some assassination related stories - Ricky/Roscoe White, James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker, et al., I don't buy the motive he applies to all these complicated deceptions - publicity and greed.

So you agree that Dave Perry has performed a signal service to JFK research by helping to expose several major hoaxes.

My biggest beef with Dave Perry is in regards to the fabricated DPD report on an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house, which Perry accurately shows is not real, yet he just passes such criminal fabrication as a prank and practical joke. I say those who fabricate records related to a homicide should be prosecuted.

Why not say "Bravo Dave Perry, you have exposed another hoax?"

... Yea, I'm sorry Dave Perry won't join the forum so we can disucss the merits of withholding the names of those who fabricated the DPD police report in order to smear Mark Lane. Fabricating evidence in a homicide is a crime, not a hoax.

Bill, I see your point, but ...!

If I understood it correctly, is it not a fact that this false information was sent to Mark Lane and to Penn Jones, and was in Marguerite Oswald's files at TCU (or somewhere), but was not sent to DPD or to the FBI or to any law enforcement jurisdiction of any kind?

So what's the problem?

To begin with, an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house has nothing to do with any murder. It's perhaps an interesting sidebar or even a bit of background, but is only distantly related to any "investigation of a murder."

Secondly, it was sent to private citizens, not to anyone charged with investigating the crimes. Had the document in question been sent to DPD or the FBI - those officially charged with pursuing the official investigation - then I certainly agree that a crime took place. But since neither Lane nor Jones nor Marguerite Oswald were part of those agencies, no crime took place. Even they did not bring it to police attention (possibly because they, too, thought it a hoax? Well, Lane never even got it, so he doesn't even count here), so no such "evidence" was ever provided to anyone.

There is, for example, a crime - perhaps several by now - of "lying to a federal agent" and/or "providing false information" and/or "obstructing justice," any or all of which are chargeable as a result of you wittingly telling official investigators a mistruth. "I know for a fact that Duke Lane was in the house when Jon Benet Ramsey was killed; I picked him up outside, but didn't know what he'd done at the time" is such an example.

On the other hand, saying the same thing, but saying that "I'm sure because he told me he was" does not make either of us criminally liable since (1) I didn't tell the witting mistruth to the police; and (2) because you did tell them what I told you in good faith. The extra element in this example, however, is that you told the cops, which nobody in the "Bledsoe affair" did.

Even if they had, the person who'd sent that document to them isn't any more liable for fabricating the "evidence" than I would have been about telling you the lie about my being in the Ramsey's house.

Would you hold that I should be arrested for pulling your leg - and going to great lengths to do so - over a beer or ten in a pub?

Oh, I suspect that if you'd brought that information to police, they'd have followed up on it, questioned me and I, of course, would've laughed it off and told them about what a bad dart shooter you were. They might well admonish me about telling things like this to people, that I'd wasted their time (albeit indirectly) about which they were none too happy, and a particularly zealous cop might even arrest me for it, but since I made no attempt to mislead investigators (how was I to know you'd take me seriously and call the cops? Sheesh, that Bill!), it's highly unlikely I'd be convicted ... even if the DA brought me to trial, which I doubt.

So, go ahead and say it: "Bravo, Dave Perry, you've exposed another hoax!"

(Here, let me help: b. b-brrr, brrraaa, b-brrraaa-vo! - C'mon, you can do it! - D-daaave P-p-peeerrrrry! - next sentence now ...! )

[William Kelly]

The crime is the use of the official DPD arrest form, which limits the suspects to those who had access to such official documents, and elevates the crime to include someone with access to official documents that ordinary citizens do not, a person whose salary is paid by tax payers and who works on the public trust.

Those who committed this crime were not just pranksters, but much more sophisticated because of the use of Mary Bledsoe, a major player on multiple levels, and the possibility that such things could happen within the chronology of those mentioned, Oswald actually did live at her rooming house for one acromonious week when such a disturbance could have happened and would explain her antimosity towards Oswald.

That individuals with the public trust who would intentionally fabricate evidence in a homicide in order to publicly embarass the attorney of the primary suspect's mother is certainly a crime of the highest order, whether the victim is a President or a bum on the street.

The criminal justice system does not give brownie points for those who commit capital crimes if their motive was to provoke a practical joke or hoax.

And now we know that the Soviet KGB, according to Mitrokin the KGB Archivist, manufactured the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter in order to embarras Mark Lane, the same motive attributed to Dave Perry's pals who confessed to committing the crime.

I think Dave Perry asked for and got more than he bargained for, and when he asked for new info on the 10th and Patton Investigations, he didn't anticipate getting what he got.

The felony crimes of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice are applicable to those who steal public documents and commit hoaxes as well as those who dissiminate KGB dissinformation and intentionally provide aid and comfort to those who commit political assassination.

It's still a major crime, either way.

BK

[William Kelly]

Why do you have to pollute this forum with the likes of Dave Perry?

While I tend to agree with his assessments of some assassination related stories - Ricky/Roscoe White, James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker, et al., I don't buy the motive he applies to all these complicated deceptions - publicity and greed.

So you agree that Dave Perry has performed a signal service to JFK research by helping to expose several major hoaxes.

My biggest beef with Dave Perry is in regards to the fabricated DPD report on an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house, which Perry accuratly shows is not real,

Why not say "Bravo Dave Perry, you have exposed another hoax?"

yet he just passes such criminal fabrication as a prank and practical joke.

I say those who fabricate records related to a homicide should be prosecuted. \

Now you are well aware that Dave Perry is NOT a law enforcement officer, and if you have a beef with the way the law is being enforced, please do not try to use that to denigrate the work of a respected researcher by insinuating that he is somehow responsible for the failures of Law Enforcement.

DAVE PERRY IS A INSURANCE INVESTIGATOR WHO IS A TRAINED PROFESSIONAL IN IDENTIFICAITON OF FRAUD, ESPECIALLY BOGUS DOCUMENTATION, AND HE KNOWS WHO TO CALL WHEN SOMEONE TRIES TO PASS OF FALSE RECORDS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE MOTIVE IS MONEY OR TO EMBARRAS SOMEONE.

I look forward to Mr. Perry joining the discussion.

Bill Kelly

Before you can expect anyone to consider this a SINCERE invitation, you might want to first APOLOGIZE PUBLICLY to Dave Perry for the gratuitous smears you have tried to perpetrate upon his good name.

THIS IS A SINCERE INVITATION TO DAVE PERRY TO COME HERE AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS POSED - DID HE RECEIVE ANY NEW INFORMATION FROM ISSUING HIS 10TH AND PATTON INVESTIGATIONS BUSINESS CARD?

AND IF HE WAS A JOURNALIST HE COULD HIDE BEHIND THE VEIL OF PROTECTING HIS SOURCES, BUT SINCE HE IS AN INSURANCE INVESTIGATOR HE HAS NO EXCUSE FOR EXPOSING THOSE WHO STOLE OFFICIAL DALLAS PD RECORDS IN ORDER TO COMMIT THE CRIMES OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN A HOMICIDE.

I'M SURE OTHERS ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO DAVE PERRY JOINING THE EDUCATION FORUM TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS AS WELL.

OF COURSE AS A BARRISTER YOU SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIME AND A HOAX.

BK

[Duke Lane]

... OF COURSE AS A BARRISTER YOU SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIME AND A HOAX.

CAPS off; stop yelling, it doesn't become you.

Didn't I once mistake YOU as a lawyer, too? And since I did, shouldn't you be a bit more professional? I can tell the difference between a crime and a hoax, and I'm not a "barrister" either ... and you're not a Brit.

It's okay to be pissed off about this whole case, but I think it's a good idea not to make it personal. You have, and you shouldn't. Your apologies are appropriate, so do it.[/soapbox]

[Pat Speer]

And now we know that the Soviet KGB, according to Mitrokin the KGB Archivist, manufactured the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter in order to embarras Mark Lane, the same motive attributed to Dave Perry's pals who confessed to committing the crime.

BK

Bill, Mitrokhin claimed the Dear Mr. Hunt was not created to embarrass Mark Lane. but the U.S. Government. The KGB forged the letter in an effort to tie Howard Hunt to the assassination at the height of Watergate, but for whatever reason--evidently caution--Penn Jones and other recipients of the letter held up its circulation for several years, by which time many CTs assumed the Hunt in the letter was H.L. Hunt.

While Mitrokhin is often cited by LNs as proof the CT community was commie-influenced, a close read of Mitrokhin's statements indicates the KGB's efforts to infiltrate and influence the CT community failed, and that the CT community was beyond their control.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Pat Speer