The Backyard Photos

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What Carroll's agenda is in denying it escapes me. But as Gene Case said to his pal, Dennis Ford and a Fourth Decade meeting, your agenda sure isn't our agenda.

He then threw him out of his house.

So Gene Case's claim to fame is that he once invited Dennis Ford & a group of others to his house to discuss the JFK case. I wasn't there, but I heard that Mr. Case threw Dennis out because Dennis dared to disagree with something Gene had said. As a longtime New York resident, my only comment is that guys like Gene Case do an effective job of giving New Yorkers a bad name.

Dennis Ford, by way of a distinct contrast, is as decent a guy as you would ever want to meet. His opinions on the JFK case, however, during the short time that I knew him, were purely and simply the product of Obedience to the Authority of Earl Warren, in much the same way as Jim Di Eugenio's opinions are the product of Obedience to the Authority of Jim Garrison.

I have not seen or spoken to Dennis for many years, but I hope he is keeping well. It would not surprise me at all if he has revised his opinions on the JFK case. Dennis was well aware that I am convinced BY THE EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald was an innocent man, and in our last discussions I detected a definite sense of doubt in Dennis's mind.

your agenda sure isn't our agenda.

My agenda is to expose the frauds and fallacies behind EVERY ACCUSATION against Lee Oswald, including accusations made by Jim Di Eugenio and Greg Parker that Lee Oswald was a spy.

Since there is no evidence outside their own imaginations (& fake clues dropped by perpetrators like Helms) that Oz actually was a spy, my job in responding to Messrs. Parker & Di Eugenio is pretty easy, and gives me free time to discuss recreational subjects like GOLF.

My RYDER CUP bet of FIFTY BUCKS on THE COUNTRY of EUROPE still stands, if ONE of you OSWALD ACCUSERS want to take up the challenge.

[Michael Hogan]

Carroll disqualified himself years ago on this Forum.

From back in the cheap seats, the voice of Mike Hogan.

Mike Hogan always has something to say, but it is never anything original.

It is ALWAYS something Mike has copied/parroted from someone else.

Hello Mike. Please keep up the good work.

The cheap seats afford an excellent vantage point from which to observe and note Carroll's special blend of arrogance and ineptitude.

Calling another member a xxxx (caps his), as he did earlier in this thread, demonstrates Carroll's lack of self-control and willingness

to break a Forum rule when it suits him. Obviously, it also speaks to the weakness of his arguments.

Greg Parker and Jim DiEugenio are whitewashing Carroll, just as Robert Charles-Dunne did recently. I can see it from way up here.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

As with all of your constructions - at least of late - they are designed to navigate readers away from any suspicion regarding Marina and Ruth Paine.

Greg:

I have no desire to make war on you. But when ANYONE starts to make insinuations about Marina Oswald, for whom I would gladly lay my head on a chopping block to vouch that she is a good and honest woman, I get VERY ANGRY. (If you don't believe me ask Lee Farley. For the first time in more than five years on this forum I was warned by the moderators (UNANIMOUSLY, I AM PROUD TO SAY) because I used language that was deemed inappropriate while defending Marina against GROSS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION!)

I advise you to cease and desist from making insinuations about people who are clearly INNOCENT VICTIMS, and set your considerable talents to work on identifying the REAL ASSASSINS, and how they accomplished their goal, which included FRAMING Lee Oswald.

With my best wishes!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Her value as a witness in this case is about nil.

JUST FOR STARTERS:

As a Garrison GROUPIE, you -- of all people -- should know that Marina's ALIBI testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw was a TORPEDO that sank Garrison's little TITANIC.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The reason Garrison lost the Shaw case had about as much to do with Marina as it did with the Easter bunny.

For once, you might have the makings of a point, considering the fact that Garrison's case was as real as the Easter bunny himself (Herself?)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I quoted Ray ROcca about their fear Shaw would be convicted. Have you seen these documents?

And Ray Rocca WOULD NEVER DREAM of lying to Jim Di Eugenio.

The BEST DAY the assassins of JFK ever had, with the exception of 11/22 itself, was the day dumbass Jim Garrison announced that:

MY STAFF AND I SOLVED THE CASE WEEKS AGO.

[William Kelly]

Ray: My agenda is to expose the frauds and fallacies behind EVERY ACCUSATION against Lee Oswald, including accusations made by Jim Di Eugenio and Greg Parker that Lee Oswald was a spy.

Since there is no evidence outside their own imaginations (& fake clues dropped by perpetrators like Helms) that Oz actually was a spy, my job in responding to Messrs. Parker & Di Eugenio is pretty easy, and gives me free time to discuss recreational subjects like GOLF.

My RYDER CUP bet of FIFTY BUCKS on THE COUNTRY of EUROPE still stands, if ONE of you OSWALD ACCUSERS want….

I have no desire to make war on you. But when ANYONE starts to make insinuations about Marina Oswald, for whom I would gladly lay my head on a chopping block to vouch that she is a good and honest woman, I get VERY ANGRY. (If you don't believe me ask Lee Farley. For the first time in more than five years on this forum I was warned by the moderators (UNANIMOUSLY, I AM PROUD TO SAY) because I used language that was deemed inappropriate while defending Marina against GROSS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION!)

I advise you to cease and desist from making insinuations about people who are clearly INNOCENT VICTIMS, and set your considerable talents to work on identifying the REAL ASSASSINS, and how they accomplished their goal, which included FRAMING Lee Oswald.

(A5) House Select Committee on Assassinations (13th September 1978)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKSoswald.htm

Richardson Preyer: Did you ever suspect that Lee might be a spy of some sort for either the Soviet KGB or for the U.S. CIA?

Marina Oswald: It did cross my mind sometime during our life in Russia; yes, because he will be sitting with those papers and writing something in English, and I don't know. Maybe he was making reports to somebody and didn't want me to know.

Richardson Preyer: When it crossed your mind, did you think he was a spy for the United States or for the Soviet Union?

Marina Oswald: For United States.

Richardson Preyer: And you based that on the fact that he often was writing notes in English which you did not understand.

Marina Oswald: Yes. ….Porter said that in retrospect, Oswald seemed professionally schooled in secretiveness, ''and I believe he worked for the American government.''

''He was taught the Russian language when he was in the military. Do you think that is usual, that an ordinary soldier is taught Russian? Also, he got in and out of Russia quite easily, and he got me out quite easily,'' said the Russian-born Porter. She had emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1961 after marrying Oswald, who had defected to the Soviets and then changed his mind and returned to the United States.

Porter said she hopes the truth will emerge when the Warren Commission materials are declassified.

''Look, I'm walking through the woods, trying to find a path, just like all of us,'' she said. ''The only difference is, I have a little bit of insight. Only half the truth has been told.''

According to the testimony of his Marine crew commander at El Toro, Lt. John Donovan, :

"Oswald had access to the location of all bases in the west coast areas, all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, and the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentication code of entering and exiting the ADIZ, which stand for Air Defense Identification Zone. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range of our radio. And he knew the range of surrounding units' radio and radar... There are some things which he knew on which he received instructions that there is no way of changing, such as the MPS 16 height-finder radar gear... He had also been schooled on a piece of machinery call a TPX-1, which is used to transfer radio--radar and radio signals over a great distance. Radar is very susceptible to homing missiles, and this piece of equipment is used to put your radar antenna several miles away, and relay the information back to your site which you hope is relatively safe. He had been schooled on this."

[WC Vol. 8 p.298]

[J. Raymond Carroll]

]Richardson Preyer: Did you ever suspect that Lee might be a spy of some sort for either the Soviet KGB or for the U.S. CIA? [/size]

Thank you for posting this Bill. As you undoubtedly know, I greatly enjoy your droll sense of humor, which is amply on display here, though in this instance it may be (partly) unintentional.

Sure, Marina went through every gamut of human emotion in the period following her husband's experience with AMERICAN JUSTICE. At one point she even thought that her husband may have been a spy.

She knows better now, and so should you.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

How do you know what she is saying now?

I have discussed it with Marina in person.

And how do you now she isn't lying now?

In the course of my professional life, I am regularly called upon to make million-dollar judgments on the credibility of witnesses.

Marina comes up ACES!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No surprise. You are not big on primary sources.)

If so, that is only because I have FORGOTTEN more primary sources than you have ever seen.

[Greg Parker]

I sometimes think that closing one's eyes to all the facts is Greg Parker's favorite pastime. Next thing you know he will be quoting hearsay evidence from anonymous US agents who attended Lee Oswald's wedding.

Ray,

The evidence comes from a prominent academic who authored a book about his time as an exchange student in the Soviet Union. It was an Embassy official who mentioned to him at a wedding of another student, that he had recently attended a wedding between a US citizen and a Russian woman in Minsk. This evidence would be accepted in a court of law as an exception to the hearsay rule. "One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions." Such testiminy would likely be allowed under Article VIII Rule 804 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence.

As for me getting some shut-eye... you'd be surprised at how little I get...

Please spell out how this would qualify as an exception, here's a link to the rule

http://www.law.corne...les.htm#Rule801

Rule 804 allows the hearsay where the declarant is unavailable.

For Ray: Rule 805 allows hearsay within hearsay (which is your "double and triple hearsay" or whatever you called it before... but that would only apply here is Prof Graham was exempted from giving testimony. Miss Prissy could then testify as to the discussion she had with Graham.

I'm curious why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding? If true wouldn't it undermine your strange belief he was a spy? Why spy on a spy?

Who said they have lied? No one has ever asked them a direct question about this.

No, it would bot undermine any of my beliefs. It would reinforce them.

And btw, Angleton's whole life was spying on spies.

Also what evidence do you have LHO had access to Radar secrets and passed them on to the Soviets?

The only kind available i.e. the same kind that the WC used to "convict" him post mortem - circumstantial evidence.

[Greg Parker]

If Greg doesn't believe Oswald was a spy, then I disagree with him.

That's okay, Jim. Most people do (disagree with me on this).

He gave the Soviets radar secrets. He did so legally (though covertly) pursuent to the terms of the agreement on exchange of science and technology.

He collected information in Minsk. He did so legally, since he was there legally and collected no information that was prohibited by Soviet law.

His marriage to Marina and bringing her home was part of the package deal which was all about a test ban agreement.

Then Eisenhower was double-crossed by Bissell et al with the U2 business scuttling all hopes for a treaty.

Oswald was a courier - then an asset and a dangle.

He was never a "spy" in the true sense of the word.

But I think Bill would appreciate getting this back on track.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

For Ray: Rule 805 allows hearsay within hearsay (which is your "double and triple hearsay" or whatever you called it before...

Abraham Lincoln described this kind of argument as "about as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death"

[J. Raymond Carroll]

His marriage to Marina and bringing her home was part of the package deal.

Well I gave you FAIR WARNING, GREG:

This is gross CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, based on NOTHING MORE THAN MR. PARKER'S Vicious Hallucinations!

Edited August 2, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Greg Parker]

For Ray: Rule 805 allows hearsay within hearsay (which is your "double and triple hearsay" or whatever you called it before...

Abraham Lincoln described this kind of argument as "about as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death"

That is not an argument. It is a citation.

The soup recipe... is that an old Carroll specialty?

Well I gave you FAIR WARNING, GREG:

This is gross CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, based on NOTHING MORE THAN MR. PARKER'S Vicious Hallucinations!

Whilst your offer of a ceasefire was appreciated, I felt the terms, which had the effect of limiting the ability for relevant facts to be brought to the surface, would therefore contradict your stated aim of solving this mess.

There is certainly no character assassination on my part - and I deny having had any hallucinations since the '70s.