THE PHONEY WORLD OF OSWALD ACCUSERS

[J. Raymond Carroll]

JIm Garrison did not beleive that Oswald shot TIppit or Kennedy.

This is perfectly true. In fact is undisputed.

Further,JG was not asked what part of a conspiracy LHO was.

Yes, maybe he wasn't asked, but the HISTRICAL RECORD IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS that Jim Garrison took it upon himself to accuse Lee Oswald of CONSPIRING TO MURDER JFK.

THESE ARE GARRISON'S own words, from his opening statement at the trial of Clay Shaw:

EXCERPT FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1969,

B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MR. GARRISON:

May it please the Court:

The State of Louisiana is required by law in all criminal trials to make an opening statement to the Jury. This statement is merely a blueprint of what the State intends to prove. It has no probative value and should not be considered as evidence in the case.

The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY.

http://www.jfk-online.com/state.html.

No honest person can deny that Jim Garrison -- in open court -- accused Lee Oswald of conspiring to murder JFK.

Of course Garrison's case was laughed out of court.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Hey Ray! Unless you missed it, Oswald was dead! Got it.

Oh yes, I got it. The fact that Lee was dead, and could not defend himself, only makes Garrison's fake accusations against him all the more scurrilous.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What fake accusations?

The FAKE accusations he made against Lee Oswald (and the equally fake accusations he made against David Ferrie & Clay Shaw (not to mention the fake accusations he made against Dean Andrews)

Like proving in his book and in his interview that Oswald shot no one on 11/22/63?

Well Duh! What a profound observation!

Hey, is Dennis Ford still in your address book?

Unfortunately no. I have lost track of Dennis.

[Michael Hogan]

The guy is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, Jim. Either that, or something else is going on.

So far he states;

i. Marina didn't lie

ii. Anybody accusing her of lying is accusing Oswald of being guilty

iii. There's no credible evidence that Ruth Paine was anything but a well meaning patriot

iv. Marina and Lee is a good book

v. Priscilla Johnson only put off finishing/publishing the book (for 10 years) so she could take up a book contract given to her by the CIA which is perfectly understandable because it was a once in a lifetime job she was offered

vi. JIm Garrison was a fraud

vii. Dave Reitzes is one of the best researchers around, is the greatest living expert on Jim Garrison and we should all go to his website for information

viii. This forum has been "infiltrated" by "limeys"

ix. Oswald wasn't connected to any intelligence agencies, he was just a free spirit

x. There's nothing suspicious about Michael Paine

In addition;

He ignores her testimony about the rifle

He ignores her testimony about the scope

He ignores her testimony about the backyard photos (how, camera used, the amount)

He ignores her testimony about the Walker shooting

He ignores her testimony about the rifle practice

He ignores her testimony about the threats upon Nixon

He ignores her possible meeting of Robert E. Webster

He ignores how she got out of the USSR

He ignores her relationships in the U.S. with the White Ruthenes, John Pic, Robert Fitzgerald

He's really not altogether there. Whether he knows what he's up to or not. He is, without doubt, a complete waste of space, time, effort and energy. And he's definitely got a rod jammed right up his arse, suffers from some extreme form of jingoism (wherever he's from), and is a bigot who not only insults everyone who disagrees with him but also hones in on ethnicity and nationality as areas to attack.

In fact he has displayed not one redeemable quality in any of his posts since 2005.

And Lee that was a first rate post. Really worth reading.

Yes, it was. Lee has shown that he has a keen analytical mind and a willingness to study the evidence.

Some people get it and some people don't. Lee gets it.

[Peter McGuire]

"Oswald" was innocent

Jack

Thank you Jack. I always knew your heart was in the right place.

Just for this I am willing to overlook your mistaken views on the BACKYARD Photos/

This is one of the interesting aspects of this forum discussion. These two guys.

I believe Oswald was an agent our our government, and there is no coincidence that he was in Dallas that fall. Both White and Carroll believe that his function was to divert attention to the real killers; otherwise know as "the patsy."

Yet, Mr. White's, which I am very familiar with, research, confirms the silly backyard photo nonsense as what it is - nonsense and only a fool , I am sorry Mr. Carroll would believe that this was not contrived "evidence." You , of all people, a lawyer, believe that the backyard photos are genuine.

Why, may I ask?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And only your friends can frame you for a murder you didn't commit.

If you care to look it up, you will find that that is almost a DIRECT QUOTE from Vincent Bugliosi.

I'd like a citation for that one.

I thought I made that line up all by myself.

If Bugliosi said it, he must have been quoting, or plagerizing me.

BK

I hope you will take this as a compliment Bill. Bugliosi's book is a big book, and I would not waste my time searching it for most of the silly comedians on this thread, but for YOUR sake I did search & found this quote on Page 967 of RECLAIMING HISTORY:

For instance, if, as the conspiracy theorists

allege, Oswald was set up, and he knew he had been, then surely he would have known

or at least have had some idea who framed him . Page 967

In your first comment here you claimed that

only your friends can frame you for a murder you didn't commit.

Wrong, old sport. only your ENEMIES can frame you.

Someone on this thread claimed earlier that there is no difference between INNOCENCE and GUILT.

I do hope that William Aloysius Kelly can figure out the difference between FRIEND & ENEMY.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

and only a fool , I am sorry Mr. Carroll would believe that this was not contrived "evidence." You , of all people, a lawyer, believe that the backyard photos are genuine.

Why, may I ask?

Now now, Peter. it is not NICE to call a fellow member a fool. But I have thick skin, so I will let it slide.

Any lawyer will tell you that a photograph will be introduced into evidence if it is AUTHENTICATED by the person who made it. In this case, Marina has repeatedly testified that she took the photos, so no lawyer would have a problem introducing them in evidence. Besides, NUMEROUS experts have testified that the photos are genuine.

Since these photos have no incriminating value, As I explained on the thread started recently by Bill Kelly

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16311

I think you are creating a problem where none exists.

[Peter McGuire]

and only a fool , I am sorry Mr. Carroll would believe that this was not contrived "evidence." You , of all people, a lawyer, believe that the backyard photos are genuine.

Why, may I ask?

Now now, Peter. it is not NICE to call a fellow member a fool. But I have thick skin, so I will let it slide.

Any lawyer will tell you that a photograph will be introduced into evidence if it is AUTHENTICATED by the person who made it. In this case, Marina has repeatedly testified that she took the photos, so no lawyer would have a problem introducing them in evidence. Besides, NUMEROUS experts have testified that the photos are genuine.

Since these photos have no incriminating value, As I explained on the thread started recently by Bill Kelly

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16311

I think you are creating a problem where none exists.

My style, as a salesman, is to hit hard and cause the other party to explain.

I am so sorry to use this technique to a fellow member and someone who is on the same side as me, Mr.Carroll.

But how can you say that that their technique of showing those pictures in the aftermath of the assassination was of no value as Oswald was being shown to the world as being the killer?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[J. Raymond Carroll]

But how can you say that that their technique of showing those pictures in the aftermath of the assassination was of no value as Oswald was being shown to the world as being the killer, and these pictures "proved it"?

Sorry Peter, I just became a grandfather for the first time, and life has suddenly become very busy, so I do not have time to go into this in detail right now.

It is true that the backyard photos were used as powerful propaganda AFTER Lee Oswald was dead, but they were only valuable because he was not around to defend himself.

Oswald's accusers , including Jim garrison, have always had this great advantage.

That explains why they had to murder him before he could prove his innocence.

[Bernie Laverick]

But how can you say that that their technique of showing those pictures in the aftermath of the assassination was of no value as Oswald was being shown to the world as being the killer, and these pictures "proved it"?

Sorry Peter, I just became a grandfather for the first time, and life has suddenly become very busy, so I do not have time to go into this in detail right now.

It is true that the backyard photos were used as powerful propaganda AFTER Lee Oswald was dead, but they were only valuable because he was not around to defend himself.

Oswald's accusers , including Jim garrison, have always had this great advantage.

That explains why they had to murder him before he could prove his innocence.

So Ray, are you saying that the photos are genuine and that this was just a bit of marital recreation on their part?

"What shall we do today Honey? Take the kids to the park? Or, maybe I could dress up as a left wing assassin and you could photograph it?"

Under what 'normal' circumstances does a married man ask his wife to take photos of himself posing as an assassin?

And how many did she say she took Ray? Can you please give a definitive figure on EXACTLY how many photos were taken by Marina?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Bernie Laverick

[Bernie Laverick]

But how can you say that that their technique of showing those pictures in the aftermath of the assassination was of no value as Oswald was being shown to the world as being the killer, and these pictures "proved it"?

Sorry Peter, I just became a grandfather for the first time, and life has suddenly become very busy, so I do not have time to go into this in detail right now.

It is true that the backyard photos were used as powerful propaganda AFTER Lee Oswald was dead, but they were only valuable because he was not around to defend himself.

Oswald's accusers , including Jim garrison, have always had this great advantage.

That explains why they had to murder him before he could prove his innocence.

So Ray, are you saying that the photos are genuine and that this was just a bit of marital recreation on their part?

"What shall we do today Honey? Take the kids to the park? Or, maybe I could dress up as a left wing assassin and you could photograph it?"

Under what 'normal' circumstances does a married man ask his wife to take photos of himself posing as an assassin?

And how many did she say she took Ray? Can you please give a definitive figure on EXACTLY how many photos were taken by Marina?

FWIW I think the photos are probably genuine but I sincerely doubt that habitual xxxx, Marina Oswald, was telling the truth when she said she took them. I reckon they were taken in conjunction with Oswald's intelligence work.

Pretty much what I think Martin. I see no reason to risk the plot unravelling for the sake of a couple of faked photos when his handlers could have legitimately (along with his activities the FPCC) instructed him to do so. There could have been any number of seemingly reasonable 'cover' stories as to why it was important it should be done.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I agree.The whole investigation into Oswald has led nowhere.Just where it was supposed to.

Thank you Mr. Wilson. It seems you and I are fairly lonely here in considering Lee Oswald a COMPLETELY innocent man, falsely accused by LN's and CT's alike.

I note that John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, is seldom mentioned on this forum. Newman has gone a long way towards identifying some of the individuals who framed Lee Oswald, but there is one VERY IMPORTANT mistake in his book, where he alludes to Oz being present at the assassination scene with a rifle.

Apart from that, Newman does a brilliant job of tracking down the small group of CIA officers who secretly and carefully monitored Lee Oswald's movements, right up to his employment at the TSBD. The next step, (I think Jim Root has recently pointed this out) was to arrange for the motorcade to pass the TSBD and the grassy knoll AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. Now the plot includes certain members of the Secret Service (and beyond).

Lee Oswald, contrary to misinformed opinion, was no agent of any intelligence agency, and he was not a spy of any kind. He was just a guy who liked to think and act for himself, and of course his views evolved as he learned from life's experiences. John Newman seems to have begun by suspecting that OZ may have been a spy, but a careful reading of Newman's book shows that in the end he is not prepared to accuse Oz of spying for anyone. Newman does make it very clear, however, that Oz was very much the TARGET of spies.

For the benefit of some members here who don't seem to understand, there is a difference between being a spy, and being SPIED UPON.

Precisely because he was totally innocent, and knew nothing whatsoever about the crime, all the endless probing of his life has led precisely nowhere (and as for the know-nothings who insist on probing his wife as well -- don't get me started!)

Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer.

So to all the Oswald accusers out there, whether you consider yourself an LN or a CT, I cite the old Sufi saying:

Oh Pilgrim, I fear you will never reach Mecca

For you are on the road to Turkestan.

[Bernie Laverick]

I agree.The whole investigation into Oswald has led nowhere.Just where it was supposed to.

Thank you Mr. Wilson. It seems you and I are fairly lonely here in considering Lee Oswald a COMPLETELY innocent man, falsely accused by LN's and CT's alike.

I note that John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, is seldom mentioned on this forum. Newman has gone a long way towards identifying some of the individuals who framed Lee Oswald, but there is one VERY IMPORTANT mistake in his book, where he alludes to Oz being present at the assassination scene with a rifle.

Apart from that, Newman does a brilliant job of tracking down the small group of CIA officers who secretly and carefully monitored Lee Oswald's movements, right up to his employment at the TSBD. The next step, (I think Jim Root has recently pointed this out) was to arrange for the motorcade to pass the TSBD and the grassy knoll AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. Now the plot includes certain members of the Secret Service (and beyond).

Lee Oswald, contrary to misinformed opinion, was no agent of any intelligence agency, and he was not a spy of any kind. He was just a guy who liked to think and act for himself, and of course his views evolved as he learned from life's experiences. John Newman seems to have begun by suspecting that OZ may have been a spy, but a careful reading of Newman's book shows that in the end he is not prepared to accuse Oz of spying for anyone. Newman does make it very clear, however, that Oz was very much the TARGET of spies.

For the benefit of some members here who don't seem to understand, there is a difference between being a spy, and being SPIED UPON.

Precisely because he was totally innocent, and knew nothing whatsoever about the crime, all the endless probing of his life has led precisely nowhere (and as for the know-nothings who insist on probing his wife as well -- don't get me started!)

Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer.

So to all the Oswald accusers out there, whether you consider yourself an LN or a CT, I cite the old Sufi saying:

Oh Pilgrim, I fear you will never reach Mecca

For you are on the road to Turkestan.

Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer.

They killed him because he was innocent? If the evidence was so flimsy...why did they arrest him? Then they hold him for 48 hours where presumably Oswald convinces them of his innocense and thus leaving them no alternative but to have him killed so as to cover up a false arrest?

And then stick to that story for another half century???

[Dean Hagerman]

They killed him because he was innocent? If the evidence was so flimsy...why did they arrest him? Then they hold him for 48 hours where presumably Oswald convinces them of his innocense and thus leaving them no alternative but to have him killed so as to cover up a false arrest?

And then stick to that story for another half century???

Good questions Bernie

[Mark Wilson]

I agree.The whole investigation into Oswald has led nowhere.Just where it was supposed to.

Thank you Mr. Wilson. It seems you and I are fairly lonely here in considering Lee Oswald a COMPLETELY innocent man, falsely accused by LN's and CT's alike.

I note that John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, is seldom mentioned on this forum. Newman has gone a long way towards identifying some of the individuals who framed Lee Oswald, but there is one VERY IMPORTANT mistake in his book, where he alludes to Oz being present at the assassination scene with a rifle.

Apart from that, Newman does a brilliant job of tracking down the small group of CIA officers who secretly and carefully monitored Lee Oswald's movements, right up to his employment at the TSBD. The next step, (I think Jim Root has recently pointed this out) was to arrange for the motorcade to pass the TSBD and the grassy knoll AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. Now the plot includes certain members of the Secret Service (and beyond).

Lee Oswald, contrary to misinformed opinion, was no agent of any intelligence agency, and he was not a spy of any kind. He was just a guy who liked to think and act for himself, and of course his views evolved as he learned from life's experiences. John Newman seems to have begun by suspecting that OZ may have been a spy, but a careful reading of Newman's book shows that in the end he is not prepared to accuse Oz of spying for anyone. Newman does make it very clear, however, that Oz was very much the TARGET of spies.

For the benefit of some members here who don't seem to understand, there is a difference between being a spy, and being SPIED UPON.

Precisely because he was totally innocent, and knew nothing whatsoever about the crime, all the endless probing of his life has led precisely nowhere (and as for the know-nothings who insist on probing his wife as well -- don't get me started!)

Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer.

So to all the Oswald accusers out there, whether you consider yourself an LN or a CT, I cite the old Sufi saying:

Oh Pilgrim, I fear you will never reach Mecca

For you are on the road to Turkestan.

Mr.Carroll,Although we agree that Oswald was innocent in the assassination,we differ on your position that Oswald was not involved in any kind intelligence.At a minimum,he was involved in some kind of domestic intelligence involving the FBI.I've come to this conclusion based on,1)his arrest in New Orleans and interview with the FBI,2)his interaction with Hosty, and 3)Waggoner Carr's claim that Oswald was receiving $200 a month from the FBI during the months of 9/62 through 11/63...Hoover later denied this tidbit,but who are you going to believe? Oswald being paid by the FBI at the time he supposedly killed JFK,of course Hoover would deny this..I think Oswald was a good guy.If he was trying to expose the assassination plot,as i think he was,he had to be killed.What other reason can there be that Oswald was in custody for around 2 days and for the most part(less Fritz's notes) there's no real record of any interrogation.