Jump to content
The Education Forum

George de Mohrenschildt Death


Recommended Posts

This is JFK 101 Mr. Colby:

Epstein was writing LEGEND: THE SECRET WORLD OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD. That is why he was talking to DeM. Why would he interview DeM for Agency of Fear? Duh? And Angelton admitted to helping Epstein on that book to jerry Policoff.

As per Angleton specializing in making murders look like suicides, when Aaron Latham did his Roman a Clef about Angleton, he interviewed several people who worked for him. This is what they told him. The book was so full of inside stuff that it disturbed the CIA higher ups, including David Phillips.

And yes there were other people in and around the house.

As per your last, the scenario posed by the way DeM was positioned necessitated an exit from the back of the head. I won't even fully explain why. If you cannot figure that out, what the heck are you doing here?

Jim:

I think we all know what "Colby" is doing here.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is JFK 101 Mr. Colby:

Epstein was writing LEGEND: THE SECRET WORLD OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD. That is why he was talking to DeM. Why would he interview DeM for Agency of Fear? Duh? And Angelton admitted to helping Epstein on that book to jerry Policoff.

Can you provide an exact quote? You have a habit of claiming people said things they didn’t.

As per Angleton specializing in making murders look like suicides, when Aaron Latham did his Roman a Clef about Angleton, he interviewed several people who worked for him. This is what they told him. The book was so full of inside stuff that it disturbed the CIA higher ups, including David Phillips.

Once again due to your habit of misquoting sources can you provide a citation?

And yes there were other people in and around the house.

Who exactly was in the house? Can you cite a source? Are we to believe an assassin (or assassination team) snuck DeM out of the house, killed him somewhere else then snuck his body back in, staged the suicide and created a gunshot sound on the tape without being noticed nor creating any suspicious sounds on the tape other than footsteps?

As per your last, the scenario posed by the way DeM was positioned necessitated an exit from the back of the head. I won't even fully explain why. If you cannot figure that out, what the heck are you doing here?

LOL - So this claim is based on your years of forensic experience? Why would his position or the location where the shooting took place explain the lack of an exit wound?

The death scene photo also poses problems for your speculation there is a considerable amount of blood around the body but people normally bleed very little after their hearts’ stop and there are no signs of foot prints

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this another one of your "I want the phone numbers of the people you are sourcing things"?

And for what? I then give them to you and the quote is verified right.

But then the person says, "Well, I don't put as much stress on the quote as Jim Does."

And then you say, "Well JIm misquoted him." Which is a spin job from you.

Your comment about Hartmann is but one of several examples of you misquoting sources. But since you brought it up let’s start with it. You wrote:

“But the authors [of Legacy of Secrecy] go out of their way to address this charge by saying that they "want to make it clear that they have never worked for the CIA." (p. 768) This may be technically true. But it is not the whole story. And we know this from the proverbial Horse's Mouth. A few years ago, Hartmann was giving a talk in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania about one of his many other books. Two JFK researchers were in attendance, Jerry Policoff and Steve Jones. They were both taken aback by one of his early statements. He admitted quite openly to having past ties to both the CIA and corporate America.”

After I pushed you for details you gave me Policoff’s and Jones’ e-mail addresses and based on what they told me your comments were much further off the mark than Hartmann’s:

1) Perhaps their views mellowed over time but based on what they told me neither was “taken aback” by what he said.Policoff wrote “I don’t think this is as sinister as Jim does… don’t think he is a tool of the CIA”

2) It was quite a stretch to say “He admitted quite openly to having past ties to…the CIA”, according to Policoff, “…a company he ran that involved lecturing on self-help or something of that nature, and the CIA was among his clients…” You could arguee that once having the CIA as one of your company’s clients is ‘a past tie’ but why then didn’t you describe what the tie was, obviously you opted for the vauger description because it sounded more sinister.

3) You indicated this somehow damaged Hartmann’s credibility but neither of your sources backed that conclusion. Jones indicated he agreed with Policoff but since he didn’t give me permission to quote him I won’t quote him in more specific terms.

But as I mentioned that was only one of several examples. Let’s review a few others:

==YOU WROTE: “Is it just a coincidence that the PNAC had said they needed such an event, a New Pearl harbor, in order to invade the Middle East and get rid of Saddam while democratizing the area?”

BUT the fact is the section of the PNAC paper that mentioned “a New Pearl harbor” addressed technological changes they advocated and there was no mention of “invad[ing] the Middle East, “get[ting] rid of Saddam or “democratizing the area” in the paper.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

==YOU WROTE:: PNAC “encourag[ed] a wild and irresponsible defense spending spree”

BUT the truth is they advocated “budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to3.8 percent of the GDP” from the then 3%.which would have been lower than what it was at the beginning of Clinton’s term.

== YOU WROTE: “the [9/11] Commission announce[d] it would simulate the NORAD experiments in time scramble intervals, but then did not”

BUT AFAIK they never made such an announcement, Google searches came up blank and it doesn’t even make any sense. Would they test NORAD’s response times in 2003 -4? How would that be any indication as to what they ‘should’ have been on 9/11? See if you come up with a citation.

== YOU WROTE: “He [JFK] sent [John Kenneth] Galbraith to Saigon to begin a withdrawal plan” [from Vietnam in 1961] when I pointed to an interview where Galbraith himself said the opposite that he went to Vietnam to advise on a plan to send “a division of troops” there you replied:

“As per Kennedy and his mission to Galbraith, this is all detailed in VIrtual JFK, Chapter 3, when Jamie Galbraith discusses what his father told him about his mission to Saigon in 1961. (See p. 69)”

BUT the truth is that Galbraith’s son said essentially the same thing, his father went there “to provide Kennedy with cogent arguments to keep Vietnam on the back burner and to keep combat troops out of South Vietnam”. So even when you give a page number you can’t be counted on to accurately quote your sources.

You aren't trustworthy pal, so that will never happen again. FInd his number on your own.

Uuuh the irony!!!

It should not be too hard, if you know what I mean. (Which, in your misplaced arrogance, you obviously don't.)

LOL that’s rich, when shown to be wrong I admit error, something YOU refuse to do DiArrogante.

As for the rest, look, I am tired of doing free research for someone like you.

Free research!! LOL, given your track record I definatelly would never pay you to do research! All I want you do is comply with forum rule iii): “Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.” If you really “know this stuff. Backwards and forwards” (sic) them it should be no problem.

I know this stuff. Backwards and forwards. I mean you didn't even know what book Epstein was writing when he interviewed DeM. Which is shocking right there.

Yes you do seem eat, drink, breathe and dream JFK relates issues that hasn’t stopped you from claiming that:

- JFK was unaware of the Diem coup and the contents of the Lodge cable ==>BUT according to Howard Jones in Death of a Generation: How the Assassinations of Diem And JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War, which you cited in a few posts, JFK approved the overthrow and he (and Rusk) were made aware of the cables contents over the phone (pgs 314 – 6). Also John Prados wrote:

“The documentary record is replete with evidence that President Kennedy and his advisers, both individually and collectively, had a considerable role in the coup overall, by giving initial support to Saigon military officers uncertain what the U.S. response might be, by withdrawing U.S. aid from Diem himself, and by publicly pressuring the Saigon government in a way that made clear to South Vietnamese that Diem was isolated from his American ally. In addition, at several of his meetings (Documents 7, 19, 22) Kennedy had CIA briefings and led discussions based on the estimated balance between pro- and anti-coup forces in Saigon that leave no doubt the United States had a detailed interest in the outcome of a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm

- Galbraith went to Vietnam in 1961 to work on a pull out, ==>BUT all the sources I looked at, including Galbraith himself and ones YOU cited said the opposite.

- “Ros Gilpatric and John McNaughton…both said that Kennedy had commissioned their boss to devise an exit plan” ==>BUT nothing in the Blight or Jones books supports the notion either man worked under Galbraith or said he was working on a withdrawl plan in 1961

"Then I correct you, and you don't even pause and blink-- "Gad, that was dumb of me. Why would Epstein be interviewing DeM for a book about the DEA? JIm was was right and I was wrong. And it is common knowledge that Epstein considered Angleton his mentor, as anyone can see by reading Legend. After all it is about the whole battle over Nosenko. Which Angleton lost, with the help of Sy Hersh. But I don't know that since I did not read the book. And Jim wrote a long article on Epstein years ago for Probe. Which is one of the best things ever written about the treacherous spook. I should Google it so I don't make ignorant mistakes like that again.""

OK "Gad, that was dumb of me” but as noted above you are hardly one to lecture others about failing to own up to mistakes.

“And Jim wrote a long article on Epstein years ago for Probe. Which is one of the best things ever written about the treacherous spook”

Modest aren’t we? You remind me of Fetzer.

“But you don't do any of that. You just keep plunging forward like a bull in a China shop.

You have about the humility and maturity of DVP. Which means you are not worth debating.”

Quite ironic considering your track record spelled out above.

“OK, Mr. Ike+J. F. Dulles + Allen Dulles= JFK”

OK, Mr. JFK was no more progressive in 1963 then he’d been in 1961

Link to post
Share on other sites

"there is a considerable amount of blood around the body but people normally bleed very little after their hearts’ stop and there are no signs of foot prints."

Len - if anything, this supports the theory of someone having murdered DeMohrenschildt - a suicide shooter will do something like put the weapon in their mouth, will try to commit the act so death is quick - if a third party was involved there was more likely to be some kind of resistance, and the shooting would more likely have been rushed and not necessarily efficiently done - with a quick exit to avoid detection, in such a way that might have left the victim basically bleeding to death, but still alive.

just a theory, but one that, given your thoughts on excessive bleeding, does make more sense than a suicide scenario.

Edited by Allen Lowe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby, this is another one of your overwhelming the reader with volume in order to disguise the fact that you are distorting facts.

Hartmann admitted to having ties to the CIA. Period.

He worked in the import export business and made quite a fortune. And many of those guys end up entwined with the CIA--Clay Shaw for one.. He said this in public. When Steve told me this, he said he was a bit taken aback by it.

Now, what make this interesting is a point you deliberately ignore, and Jerry would not know about since he has not read the books.

And evidently, neither have you. (Par for the course.)

Both the books he and Waldron have worked on, Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy go out of their way to not just paint the Mafia only as killing JFK, but to exculpate any CIA involvement in the crime at all! In fact, one of the most bizarre parts of their work is their insistence at making David Phillips extraneous to the crime. Of saying that Banister's involvement was through Marcello and the Klan. Of not even mentioning Jim Angleton. OF having Oswald in Mexico CIty, and there actually being a photo of him there.

You are quite slick in not putting the two together.

But its even worse than that. And you are irresponsible and negligent in not noting it to the reader.

In the second book, Hartmann and Waldron go even further in their misrepresentations and distortions and omissions of fact. For they now say that not only was there no CIA involvement in the JFK case, but neither was there any in the King case! When in fact, the character of Raul, the guy who manipulated Ray in advance, has CIA stamped all over him.

But its even worse than that. Because they also go on to say that there was also no CIA involvement in the RFK case too! This is incredible since this case may be reopened and is now in the news. And the post hypnotic suggestion used on Sirhan is now all but certain because of the breakthroughs made by Pepper's great expert Daniel Brown. THis, of course, has all the earmarks of previous CIA experiments as exposed in many other books like the Marks book. ANd, of course, Bryan, the chief suspect as programmer, worked for the intel agencies and even bragged about it.

But its even worse than that. Why? Because I was alerted to the fact that Hartmann later admitted on the air not to just having ties to the CIA through his business, but to also having ties to the NSA also. So here you have a guy who markets himself as a progressive, yet on the greatest historical issues of how America went from being a progressive oriented nation to a conservative one--he co authors two books which say that well, it was the Mob, and these lone assassins. Tsk Tsk. In other words, he is misleading people. And make no mistake about it, no one of any knowledge or experience buys that nutty C-Day theory these books endorse. They all think its BS. And probably worse: deliberate BS. In fact, its so bad that they had to go out of their way to make a statement that is not the real truth. And which Hartmann himself exposed. Not once, but twice.

Nice try covering up for him Len.

Even though Hartmann and Waldron are pawing identifiable disinformation they still promote even after being shown to be wrong (ie. the leader of the C-Day coup was on a plane to Congo the day the coup), the part of their theory that the Dealey Plaza operation was originally planned as an assassination of Castro certainly has credence, and is what David Atlee Phillips said happened.

It's just a question as to which plot was misdirected?

They point to the CIA-Mafia plots, which predate the JFK administration, in order to play up the idea the Mafia hijacked the plan, while I believe it was a later plot to kill Castro - and one that entwines the CIA with the military more so than the Mafia - specifically the plan Des Fitzgerald talks about at the Sept. 24th briefing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a day when LeMay was the chief - the plot based on operation Valkyrie - which was an assassination plan.

The Valkyrie plan, which took place ten years prior to Dealey Plaza, included Allen Dulles, his mistress, Volkmar Schmidt's stepfather, the Gestapo and members of the German General staff, and an operation that both Schmidt and DeMohrenshildt alluded to in their conversations with Oswald about general Walker.

JFKcountercoup: Volkmar Schmidt Interview

JFKcountercoup: Valkyrie At Dealey Plaza

JFKcountercoup: JCS Memo FitzGerald Briefing 25 Sept. 1963

JFKcountercoup: JFK Coup - The Administrative Details

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

They point to the CIA-Mafia plots, which predate the JFK administration, in order to play up the idea the Mafia hijacked the plan,

I don't really think this is accurate Bill.

And I don't think anyone has studied their book as long as I have.

What they are saying is that the Mob killed Kennedy by manipulating the C Day plan as a cover up for the operation. I don't detect any taking over of the CIA Mafia plots to kill Castro. In fact, Larry Hancock says that sometimes when you talk to Waldron, he will say Oswald killed Kennedy.

The problem with this thesis is that, to any objective person, there really was no C Day, therefore, how could the mafia build a cover up around it. In fact, one of the dumbest parts of the book is that they date they get, December 1st, is not in any CIA Pentagon document. Its from a mole on the island who is suggesting that date hypothetically since that is a date that Castro wants to pass a new conscription law on.

SO, in other words, there is no connection in reality between their day for C-Day and any Pentagon/CIA plan. Which of course is why there is no massive troop. navy, or logistics build up in FLorida at the time. Compare that to October 1962, when Kennedy sent something like 150, 000 men into Florida in case of an invasion.

It makes no sense for there to be no troop build up, or even a sign of a build up ten days before an invasion. THat is because there is no connection between that Dec 1st date and any military plan. How Waldron and Hartmann do not understand this escapes me. This is why I have my suspicions about Hartmann. I think Waldron is just delusional..

Although, let me say this. I have an informant down in Georgia who has done some digging on him. He says Lamar used to work for the State of Georgia Attorney General's office, and one year at a comics convention, he invited Newt Gingrich as a speaker. What newt had to do with comic books eludes me.

As does the logic of their books.

"...Even though Kennedy's coup plans never came to fruition, three powerful Mafia dons - Carlos Marcello, Santo Tranfficante, and Johnny Rosselli, Learned of AMWORLD through their work for the CIA in other anti-Castro plots.....They did so by infiltrating key parts of AMWORLD.....but their main goal was the death of JFK....." p. 3 - Ultimate Sacrifice (2nd ed. paperback)

I agree with your analysis of their work.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

"there is a considerable amount of blood around the body but people normally bleed very little after their hearts’ stop and there are no signs of foot prints."

Len - if anything, this supports the theory of someone having murdered DeMohrenschildt - a suicide shooter will do something like put the weapon in their mouth, will try to commit the act so death is quick - if a third party was involved there was more likely to be some kind of resistance, and the shooting would more likely have been rushed and not necessarily efficiently done - with a quick exit to avoid detection, in such a way that might have left the victim basically bleeding to death, but still alive.

just a theory, but one that, given your thoughts on excessive bleeding, does make more sense than a suicide scenario.

About 20 – 25% of our blood is in our heads so it is not surprising a gunshot there would produce quite a lot of blood. Jim D. seemed to indicate he thought DeM. had been shot elsewhere (“no one heard the gun blast”), I doubt he would have bled that much if that were the case. And one would how his body was brought there without tracking blood. One also has to wonder how the killer would have gotten away without leaving footprints or (apparently) being heard on the tape. AFAIK no one participating in this discussion has relevant expertise. I only ‘know’ one person who does, Sherry Gutierrez, forensic expert specializing in blood splatter, JFK researcher and member of this forum. I PMed her but she didn’t respond, but since she hasn’t shown up here in a long time she probably didn’t get the message. I also e-mailed her sister (Debra Conway) but haven't heard back from her either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby, this is another one of your overwhelming the reader with volume in order to disguise the fact that you are distorting facts.

Since my claim is that you have a habit of distorting the facts by definition I have to cite several examples to make my case. Other than the Hartmann quote, which is debatable, can you point to any examples of my “distorting facts”? I note you failed to reply regarding your false claims regarding 9/11 and the Diem coup. Speaking of the latter According to Virtual JFK which you have cited repeatedly “…in August he authorizes, and his advisors set in motion, a coup by South Vietnamese officers that does in fact remove the elected government” (pg. 19) JFK’s authorization of the coup is also mentioned on pages 36, 50, 108, 132, 135

Hartmann admitted to having ties to the CIA. Period.

Depends on how you define ‘ties’ you could have described those ties more precisely but chose to be vague, presumably because saying had “past ties to…the CIA” sounded more ominous than saying “a company he ran that involved lecturing on self-help or something of that nature, and the CIA was among his clients”.

He worked in the import export business and made quite a fortune. And many of those guys end up entwined with the CIA--Clay Shaw for one.. He said this in public. When Steve told me this, he said he was a bit taken aback by it.

???? neither of your friends said anything about an “import export business” (or Shaw) so now anyone in import/export is suspect?

Now, what make this interesting is a point you deliberately ignore, and Jerry would not know about since he has not read the books.

And evidently, neither have you. (Par for the course.)

What a bizarre logical fallacy how could I could I “deliberately ignore” something that I, like Jerry, “would not know about”? Do you really teach history and economics in high school?

Nice try covering up for him Len.

I take no position on his books as I have not read them. My only concern is the (lack) of accuracy of your comments about his supposed CIA ties which your own sources/friends don’t support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As per the Galbraith mission to Saigon in 1961 to counter the Rostow-Taylor mission, its in another book Colby did not read: VIrtual JFK

There Jamie Galbraith says: "My father ...was sent to Saigon in November 1961 by Kennedy in order to be equipped to render a negative assessment. That was the reason he was sent. Kennedy wanted a second opinion that he could use as a counter to Taylor and Rostow. And he got one....Kennedy sent my father to talk to McNamara. My father reported that he and McNamara saw the issues in the same way." (p. 129) Galbraith wrote a memo to JFK about that meeting. (p. 370)

1st you said support for your claim was on p. 69 now its supposedly found on p. 129 but there is no indication Galbraith’s mission was to devise a withdrawal plan on either page or apparently anywhere else in the book. Neither withdraw nor any of its variants nor pull out etc. appear between pages 124 and 131. Sorry Jimmy DiE. but rejecting a plan to send combat troops does not equal a withdrawal plan.

"Galbraith wrote a memo to JFK about that meeting. (p. 370)"

The memo referred to a meeting in 1962 and there was nothing in it about withdrawal, once again you are conflating resisting proposals to send in combat troops with a withdrawal.

This is reinforced in the footnotes when Ros GIlpatirc says that McNamara had been commissioned by Kennedy to devise plans to wind down the war. (p. 371)

LOL the claim I’m disputing is that Galbraith was asked to devise such a plan in 1961 and the footnote on page 371 refers to 1963. Here’s the quote:

“Like Marc Selverstone, we have seen no "smoking gun" document from Kennedy to McNamara ordering him to begin withdrawing US forces from Vietnam…According to Gilpatric Kennedy was "particularly restive" throughout 1963 about what he called the "exit point." Gilpatric recalls receiving assurances from McNamara throughout this period that the withdrawal plan "was part of a plan the president asked him to develop to unwind this whole thing." In all likelihood, this was done orally between the president and McNamara…”

It is further bolstered by John McNaughton, an aide to McNamara, who said the same. (NY TImes, 1/20/92)

I assume you are referring to Roger Hilsman’s letter to the times published 1/20/92 he wrote:

“In July 1962 Kennedy ordered Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to start planning for the phased withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from Vietnam, but it was not until May 1963 that the Pentagon produced a plan. Before his tragic death in an airplane crash, John McNaughton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for international affairs, said he understood President Kennedy wanted to close out Vietnam by 1965, "whether it was in good shape or bad."”

None of this supports the notion JFK was considering withdrawal in 1961 let alone that that was the purpose of the Galbraith mission of that year which all sources indicate was to evaluate a proposal to send combat troops. In fact your source once again contradicts you. According to him JFK only “ordered” McNamara to plan for withdrawal from Vietnam more than a year after he sent Galbraith there.

The Galbraith mission was alluded to much earlier by Halberstam in The Best and The Brightest, (p. 152)

?????No one disputes the trip took place, please provide a quote from Halberstam indicating its purposes was to come up with a withdrawal plan.

Thanks for the opportunity to jam again Len. You are a great set up man. Better than Chris Paul.

You are positively delusional Jimmy!

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

to me the best evidence that JFK would have withdrawn from Vietnam - aside from Newman's entire book - are his actions at the Bay of Pigs and during the Cuban Missile Crises (during which he, I say without exaggeration, quite literally saved the world by pretty much doing the opposite what his military advisers told him to do). And let us not forget what LBJ told Galbraith when JKG was resigning over Viet policy - I am paraphrasing here, sorry, but according to Jim Galbraith it was "I know you don't like what I'm doing but if I didn't do it you won't believe what those guys would do" - at which point he picked up a campaign sign that said "all the way with Curtis LeMay."

James Galbraith, btw, is smart and accessible - we have emailed back and forth several times - and is probably already known here; still I would check out this link to get a sense of what JFK was up against in those days:

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

Edited by Allen Lowe
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a main point is, is it impossible to consider (given all of the evidence and some manuals we have from CIA field OPs) that a suicide can be staged? That DeM was a VERY crucial witness and that, while it is always preferred to carefully examine evidence that we, after many years of excellent research and investigations carried out by honest and trained individuals, we have good reasons to assume DeM more than likely was murdered?

I remember Lane's commentary on the matter when he basically (paraphrasing) said that a woman heard the recording of the "suicide" and recognized the "beep, beep.." sound because she too had the same kind of alarm system at that time or another. It basically meant that if DeM was sitting doing whatever he was doing, the alarm apparently went off, it means that there was an intruder. Given that time, DeM ties, the JFK Murder itself, investigations, etc etc etc. I can personally and logically conclude that moreso than not, DeM was silenced. He was an obvious threat to the investigation because of his very sensitive ties to Oswald and various other key figures. It does not take any kind of rocket science to conclude this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people here really crack me up, I mean, rolling on the floor laughing my a** off, instead of researchers doing their due delinquents researching, many of you sound like school kids arguing over who wants to be right, yes! I find that very funny, I guess Pawley didn't kill himself either? Many who were summons to testify before a Warren Commission or HSCA were killed or they commented suicide, but why would they comment suicide if they knew they would probably end up getting killed for testifying? So why not testify? I mean either way you're going to end up in a box for singing right? Well the answer to the question is easy, would it not be easier for one man to die, then for a whole family to parish?

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people here really crack me up, I mean, rolling on the floor laughing my a** off, instead of researchers doing their due delinquents researching, many of you sound like school kids arguing over who wants to be right, yes! I find that very funny, I guess Pawley didn't kill himself either? Many who were summons to testify before a Warren Commission or HSCA were killed or they commented suicide, but why would they comment suicide if they knew they would probably end up getting killed for testifying? So why not testify? I mean either way you're going to end up in a box for singing right? Well the answer to the question is easy, would it not be easier for one man to die, then for a whole family to parish?

John Woods writes:

HI Bill, Per the thread on the death of deMohnrenschildt at The Education Forum. I was able to obtain copies of the photographs, cassette tape, corner'sinquest, toxicolgy report along with the few extra unofficial photographs. Since I'm unable to post at forum please pass on this information to themembers. I obtained his file back in the early 1980's without the objectionsof his wife. George was murdered. All the best to you. johnw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...