The Straus Family

[Greg Parker]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

I'm not the one slinging homo-erotic insinuations, Mr. Martin.

I assume you are talking your new epithet?

One meaning from Merriam-Webster:

Precious: excessively refined : affected

Affected: having or showing an attitude or mode of behavior that is not natural or genuinely felt

Your statement above is just another example of your preciousness.

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch.

I never expect support for anything I write.

What I like is collegial, fact-based counter-argument.

This was not "collegial". "And like Lee Harvey Oswald himself none of it will have anything at all to do with the JFK's murder?" It was a provocation. I know it. You know it. And anyone reading it would take it that way. You are still being precious, Precious.

I'll ask you, sir: What did the people tasked with the murder of JFK need to know about Oswald? What did the people tasked with the murder of Oswald need to know about the JFK assassination other than time and place?

I'm beginning to see the problem here. You are talking about the shooter or shooters. Who gives a flying patootie? Of course THEY didn't need to know about Oswald. FFS. It is the shooters who are immaterial - not Oswald. The planners did know about Oswald. They used historical events and court cases to help frame him. So again - unless you believe the assassination would have gone ahead without any patsy or PATSIES - Oswald is VERY relevant to the assassination AND the cover-up.

If you're interested in who the shooters were, good luck! But it don't mean diddly-squat.

I'm arguing that these operations were compartmentalized.

Why do you have a problem with me making this argument?

As I have explained a number of times already - the problem was your antagonistic opening "question" - it was framed in the rhetorical sense for starters... compounded by your unwillingness to accept the post as was but insisting it should comply with the description given for a three volume set.

Perhaps you could take this very personal vendetta elsewhere and allow the thread to continue without tangential assaults.

I think it is on-topic to point out that the blurb (and it is a blurb, Greg, like it or not - like it or not, your opinion is tainted by bias and shown wrong by a simple dictionary check and the heading put there by Amazon states that the book for sale includes many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself.

But it doesn't.

Says the person who hasn't read it. It has a number of new revelations about Oswald - and Oswald - as patsy - was part of the assassination. Unless you claim the assassination would still have gone ahead without a patsy? Is that your opinion, Precious?

Greg's book shows the beginnings of a method being developed by the intelligence community and how Oswald was coerced into the system. If you read the book you would see how it connects events of the past to the JFK assassination. Yes, I have read the book. And I am anxiously awaiting the second volume's release. (that's a hint, Greg)

Okay, you don't like him, you don't like the way his puts things, but either discuss the case rather than semantics or find something else to do than interrupt the rest of us.

Thank you.

Greg could have saved all this drama by giving my initial question a straight answer.

Nope. You could have saved all this drama by ( a ) leaving the antagonism for your pets and ( b ) understanding that the assassination - without a patsy in place - is aborted - and that therefore, Oswald was a critical factor in the assassination.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Cliff Varnell]

I suppose it's a little ridiculous for me to be defending Greg Parker when people on his own forum have churlishly insulted me and he didn't lift a finger, but Cliff, seriously dude - stop being a bitch. It's clear that you are only trying to goad GP. You bring up no points worth making, you defend no cherished principles, you attack no obvious distortions. You're becoming a nagging wife-harridan and everybody sees it.

I disagree.

I find it important to draw a distinction between the operation which killed Kennedy and the operation to kill Oswald.

I'll argue that the physical evidence of JFK's murder leads to Persons of Interest, while Oswald is a dead-end due to the possibility his handlers were also groomed as back-up patsies.

These are pertinent issues that could be discussed calmly.

You and I have never gotten along, Mr. Valenti, so your take on this issue is of limited concern.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Parker]

I suppose it's a little ridiculous for me to be defending Greg Parker when people on his own forum have churlishly insulted me and he didn't lift a finger, but Cliff, seriously dude - stop being a bitch. It's clear that you are only trying to goad GP. You bring up no points worth making, you defend no cherished principles, you attack no obvious distortions. You're becoming a nagging wife-harridan and everybody sees it.

Mark,

that's like me expecting the owners of this forum to come and defend me here.

These are the terms and conditions at my forum:

Purpose of the site

The purpose of the site is as set out in our Mission Statement. Beyond that, there is a social context and no member shall have restrictions placed upon them as to posting of content, except as set out below:

Content must not contravene any laws within the various jurisdictions in which it can be viewed

Content must be placed in the appropriate section on the site and the forums within

Any content that is flagged 5 times by viewers of the content as being inappropriate will automatically be hidden from further viewing pending a final determination

Moderators may exercise discretion in moving or deleting content without notice and without explanation. It is envisioned that this will mainly be used to control trolling and spamming and will seldom be needed in other circumstances. Any abuse of this discretion may result in the removal of that person from the moderating team. Any complaints about moderated content can be made to the site owner

Indemnity & Liability

The site owner and administrators will take all reasonable care to ensure that these terms and conditions are adhered to, but will not be liable for any content other than the content that they themselves have placed on the site. The same personal responsibility applies to all members.

-----------------------

If anything was said about you, you are free to join the forum and defend yourself. If you were a member, myself or others* might be more inclined to intervene. It has happened a number of times with others.

I do thank you for your support here, and agree you may have had reasonable reservations about doing so. I hope the above helps clear up any misunderstandings.

*More likely others as I try and stay out of such things to avoid being labelled biased.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

I'm not the one slinging homo-erotic insinuations, Mr. Martin.

I assume you are talking your new epithet?

One meaning from Merriam-Webster:

Precious: excessively refined : affected

Affected: having or showing an attitude or mode of behavior that is not natural or genuinely felt

Your statement above is just another example of your preciousness.

Your statement above is just another example of your disingenuity.

If you are going to cast homo-erotic insinuations you ought to man-up and admit it.

To act otherwise is wholly hypocritical.

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch.

I never expect support for anything I write.

What I like is collegial, fact-based counter-argument.

This was not "collegial". "And like Lee Harvey Oswald himself none of it will have anything at all to do with the JFK's murder?" It was a provocation.

For such a tough guy you are incredibly thin-skinned.

I know it. You know it. And anyone reading it would take it that way. You are still being precious, Precious.

I'll ask you, sir: What did the people tasked with the murder of JFK need to know about Oswald? What did the people tasked with the murder of Oswald need to know about the JFK assassination other than time and place?

I'm beginning to see the problem here. You are talking about the shooter or shooters. Who gives a flying patootie?

The shooters lead to why JFK was killed -- or so I'll argue.

Of course THEY didn't need to know about Oswald. FFS. It is the shooters who are immaterial - not Oswald.

I strongly disagree. I'll argue that the shooters were in the direct chain of command under the top perps, while Oswald was surrounded by back up patsies -- or so I speculate.

The planners did know about Oswald. They used historical events and court cases to help frame him. So again - unless you believe the assassination would have gone ahead without any patsy or PATSIES

A patsy-less assassination would have involved a natural-looking death. Given Kennedy's health I don't think that would have been all that difficult.

But they wanted to frame Castro -- or so I speculate -- and thus the public execution.

- Oswald is VERY relevant to the assassination AND the cover-up.

Yes, the cover-up is relevant to the assassination...

If you're interested in who the shooters were, good luck! But it don't mean diddly-squat.

Not if the shooters were in the heroin game. Goes to WHY Kennedy was killed.

I don't think you can get to the WHY of the crime thru Oswald.

[Thomas Graves]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

I'm not the one slinging homo-erotic insinuations, Mr. Martin.

I assume you are talking your new epithet?

One meaning from Merriam-Webster:

Precious: excessively refined : affected

Affected: having or showing an attitude or mode of behavior that is not natural or genuinely felt

Your statement above is just another example of your preciousness.

Your statement above is just another example of your disingenuity.

If you are going to cast homo-erotic insinuations you ought to man-up and admit it.

To act otherwise is wholly hypocritical.

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch.

I never expect support for anything I write.

What I like is collegial, fact-based counter-argument.

This was not "collegial". "And like Lee Harvey Oswald himself none of it will have anything at all to do with the JFK's murder?" It was a provocation.

For such a tough guy you are incredibly thin-skinned.

I know it. You know it. And anyone reading it would take it that way. You are still being precious, Precious.

I'll ask you, sir: What did the people tasked with the murder of JFK need to know about Oswald? What did the people tasked with the murder of Oswald need to know about the JFK assassination other than time and place?

I'm beginning to see the problem here. You are talking about the shooter or shooters. Who gives a flying patootie?

The shooters lead to why JFK was killed -- or so I'll argue.

Of course THEY didn't need to know about Oswald. FFS. It is the shooters who are immaterial - not Oswald.

I strongly disagree. I'll argue that the shooters were in the direct chain of command under the top perps, while Oswald was surrounded by back up patsies -- or so I speculate.

The planners did know about Oswald. They used historical events and court cases to help frame him. So again - unless you believe the assassination would have gone ahead without any patsy or PATSIES

A patsy-less assassination would have involved a natural-looking death. Given Kennedy's health I don't think that would have been all that difficult.

But they wanted to frame Castro -- or so I speculate -- and thus the public execution.

- Oswald is VERY relevant to the assassination AND the cover-up.

Yes, the cover-up is relevant to the assassination...

If you're interested in who the shooters were, good luck! But it don't mean diddly-squat.

Not if the shooters were in the heroin game. Goes to WHY Kennedy was killed.

I don't think you can get to the WHY of the crime thru Oswald.

Who is in red and who is in blue and who is in black and who is in brown?

This is becoming a very pretty thread.

--Tommy

Edited April 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Terry Martin]

I suppose it's a little ridiculous for me to be defending Greg Parker when people on his own forum have churlishly insulted me and he didn't lift a finger, but Cliff, seriously dude - stop being a bitch. It's clear that you are only trying to goad GP. You bring up no points worth making, you defend no cherished principles, you attack no obvious distortions. You're becoming a nagging wife-harridan and everybody sees it.

Mark, I don't know about any attacks on you at another forum. I do like the way you attempted to point out to Carmine a while back about what evidence really is. As much as I agreed with your definitions, I feared it was a losing proposition, falling on deaf ears... and it was.

Kudos for the attempt, however. I would have mentioned it at the time of its occurence but circumstances intervened.

(forgive me for going off topic!)

Edited April 12, 2015 by Terry Martin

[David Josephs]

Tommy's confused and Parker is frothing...

Same Sh!t different Day

Rock on Cliff... Rock on

[Greg Parker]

Who is in red and who is in blue and who is in black and who is in brown?

This is becoming a very pretty thread.

--Tommy

These things come about because of the restrictions on number of quotes. Never really understood the reason for that - though there is no doubt one there somewhere...

[Greg Parker]

Tommy's confused and Parker is frothing...

Same Sh!t different Day

Rock on Cliff... Rock on

Hey... nice work on "sh!t"I Very creative!

And well done, Cliff! You got a supporter here!

[Greg Parker]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

I'm not the one slinging homo-erotic insinuations, Mr. Martin.

I assume you are talking your new epithet?

One meaning from Merriam-Webster:

Precious: excessively refined : affected

Affected: having or showing an attitude or mode of behavior that is not natural or genuinely felt

Your statement above is just another example of your preciousness.

Your statement above is just another example of your disingenuity.

If you are going to cast homo-erotic insinuations you ought to man-up and admit it.

To act otherwise is wholly hypocritical.

This is me now, Tommy, 'k? You're sounding kinda hopeful there, Precious!

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch.

I never expect support for anything I write.

What I like is collegial, fact-based counter-argument.

This was not "collegial". "And like Lee Harvey Oswald himself none of it will have anything at all to do with the JFK's murder?" It was a provocation.

For such a tough guy you are incredibly thin-skinned.

Nothing to do with being tough, or thin-skinned. You falsely labelled your opening question here as "collegial". It was framed as being rhetorical and antagonistic. That has been evident to everyone.

I know it. You know it. And anyone reading it would take . it that way. You are still being precious, Precious.

I'll ask you, sir: What did the people tasked with the murder of JFK need to know about Oswald? What did the people tasked with the murder of Oswald need to know about the JFK assassination other than time and place?

I'm beginning to see the problem here. You are talking about the shooter or shooters. Who gives a flying patootie?

The shooters lead to why JFK was killed -- or so I'll argue.

Then you will be arguing against your previous claim that the whole thing was compartmentalized.

Of course THEY didn't need to know about Oswald. FFS. It is the shooters who are immaterial - not Oswald.

I strongly disagree. I'll argue that the shooters were in the direct chain of command under the top perps, while Oswald was surrounded by back up patsies -- or so I speculate.

See above. You previously accused me of not knowing how compartmentalization works. You have just revealed your own ignorance. In a truly departmentalized plot, the shooters don't know who the top plotters are and vice versa.

The planners did know about Oswald. They used historical events and court cases to help frame him. So again - unless you believe the assassination would have gone ahead without any patsy or PATSIES

A patsy-less assassination would have involved a natural-looking death. Given Kennedy's health I don't think that would have been all that difficult.

But they wanted to frame Castro -- or so I speculate -- and thus the public execution.

Okay, so you are all but admitting that without a patsy, there would be no assassination attempt in DP or anywhere else on the motorcade route. Which is another way of saying a patsy was essential to the assassination AS IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Which of course means, Oswald IS important in figuring out the assassination.

- Oswald is VERY relevant to the assassination AND the cover-up.

Yes, the cover-up is relevant to the assassination...

Okay.

If you're interested in who the shooters were, good luck! But it don't mean diddly-squat.

Not if the shooters were in the heroin game. Goes to WHY Kennedy was killed.

I don't think you can get to the WHY of the crime thru Oswald.

Heroin? LOL. You know, it was said to me once that we all look for answers or connections within our own spheres... e.g. Blakey looked for a mafia plot. It was his specialty. Bugliosi looked for a Lone Nut tag to put on Oswald. It was his specialty as a prosecutor - not known for going out of their way to look for co-conspirators or to exonerate the accused. Canadians look for Canadian connections, no matter how tangential... I have even taken some interest in Australian connections... Heroin... huh? Interesting....

But way out of the ball-park.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy's confused and Parker is frothing...

Same Sh!t different Day

Rock on Cliff... Rock on

Hey... nice work on "sh!t"I Very creative!

And well done, Cliff! You got a supporter here!

Yeah, Greg, he's got an athletic supporter.

LOL

--Tommy

Edited April 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

I tried to read all of this, and like Tommy, I'm totally confused.

With everyone's ok, I'd like to clean this thread up tomorrow, so it can be morereadable. I'm sure anyone can guess what types of things here really don't need to be. (Including this post )

Greg, the only thing I knew about the Straus family before I tried to read this, was the wonderful story of Isidor and Ida Straus, and how they were both offered seats on one of Titanic's life boats. Mr. Straus wouldn't go, so Mrs. Straus stayed with him.

"On the night of the sinking, Isidor and Ida Straus were seen standing near Lifeboat No. 8 in the company of Mrs. Straus's maid, Ellen Bird. Although the officer in charge of the lifeboat was willing to allow the elderly couple to board the lifeboat with Miss Bird, Isidor Straus refused to go while there were women and children still remaining on the ship. He urged his wife to board, but she refused, saying, "We have lived together for many years. Where you go, I go." Her words were witnessed by those already in Lifeboat No. 8 as well as many others who were on the boat deck at the time. Isidor and Ida were last seen standing arm in arm on the deck.

When the survivors of the disaster arrived in New York City aboard the RMS Carpathia, many, including Ellen Bird, told reporters of Mrs. Straus's loyalty and fidelity to her husband. Her story struck a chord with people around the world. Rabbis spoke to their congregations about her sacrifice; articles in Yiddish and German-language newspapers extolled her courage; a popular song featuring the story of Ida Straus, "The Titanic's Disaster", became popular among Jewish-Americans.

Although Isidor's body was recovered, Ida's body was not. A cenotaph at the Straus Mausoleum at Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx is dedicated to Isidor and Ida together. Its inscription reads: "Many waters cannot quench love - neither can the floods drown it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Straus

Kathy,

he was also a blockade runner for the South during the civil war and the whole family had a penchant for eugenics - which was the whole reason they built Youth House and the "poor immigrant" housing. It was all to do with "social hygiene".

I had come across the Titanic reference, but didn't look into it as it didn't appear to have any relevance. Now that you've brought it, I might dig into it some more.

[Cliff Varnell]

The shooters lead to why JFK was killed -- or so I'll argue.

Then you will be arguing against your previous claim that the whole thing was compartmentalized.

I said the shooters lead to "why" JFK was killed.

What I'm describing is a drug gang.

The shooters -- I'd speculate -- were drug gangsters with military cover who worked on CIA projects.

The top drug gangster -- I'd speculate -- was Averell Harriman.

The shooters didn't need to know who was pulling the strings.

Of course THEY didn't need to know about Oswald. FFS. It is the shooters who are immaterial - not Oswald.

I strongly disagree. I'll argue that the shooters were in the direct chain of command under the top perps, while Oswald was surrounded by back up patsies -- or so I speculate.

See above. You previously accused me of not knowing how compartmentalization works. You have just revealed your own ignorance. In a truly departmentalized plot, the shooters don't know who the top plotters are and vice versa.

There was still a direct chain of command with everyone operating on a need to know basis.

The planners did know about Oswald. They used historical events and court cases to help frame him. So again - unless you believe the assassination would have gone ahead without any patsy or PATSIES

A patsy-less assassination would have involved a natural-looking death. Given Kennedy's health I don't think that would have been all that difficult.

But they wanted to frame Castro -- or so I speculate -- and thus the public execution.

Okay, so you are all but admitting that without a patsy, there would be no assassination attempt in DP or anywhere else on the motorcade route. Which is another way of saying a patsy was essential to the assassination AS IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Which of course means, Oswald IS important in figuring out the assassination.

So if Oswald had been killed in a traffic accident the morning of 11/22/63 there would have been no assassination?

Unless you can show a connection to the JFK kill team Oswald is a dead end.

- Oswald is VERY relevant to the assassination AND the cover-up.

Yes, the cover-up is relevant to the assassination...

Okay.

If you're interested in who the shooters were, good luck! But it don't mean diddly-squat.

Not if the shooters were in the heroin game. Goes to WHY Kennedy was killed.

I don't think you can get to the WHY of the crime thru Oswald.

Heroin? LOL.

You think heroin is funny?

Wars have been fought over it.

You know, it was said to me once that we all look for answers or connections within our own spheres... e.g. Blakey looked for a mafia plot. It was his specialty. Bugliosi looked for a Lone Nut tag to put on Oswald. It was his specialty as a prosecutor - not known for going out of their way to look for co-conspirators or to exonerate the accused. Canadians look for Canadian connections, no matter how tangential... I have even taken some interest in Australian connections... Heroin... huh? Interesting....

But way out of the ball-park.

A blanket statement of certainty that is absolutely a-historical.

[Greg Parker]

I said the shooters lead to "why" JFK was killed.

What I'm describing is a drug gang.

The shooters -- I'd speculate -- were drug gangsters with military cover who worked on CIA projects.

The top drug gangster -- I'd speculate -- was Averell Harriman.

The shooters didn't need to know who was pulling the strings.

If the shooters have no connection to the string pullers, how do they lead you to Harriman?

You SPECULATE they were drug gangsters with military cover yada yada

Oh... that's right... speculation based on... speculation.

Impressive.

But I'll stick with the new revelations I'm sitting on. They are what is called "evidence". You may have heard of it your wanderings, despite not appearing too well-acquainted with it.

There was still a direct chain of command with everyone operating on a need to know basis.

But you used your super computer brain to pierce that veil of secrecy; that wall of plausible deniability?

Amazing.

You think heroin is funny?

Wars have been fought over it.

No. I think your suggestion that this was about heroin is funny. No. Hilarious.

Wars have been fought for all sorts of reasons. Not all of them serious - and not all them "real".

A blanket statement of certainty that is absolutely a-historical.

So your rabid speculation is it, then. Case Closed.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Cliff Varnell]

I said the shooters lead to "why" JFK was killed.

What I'm describing is a drug gang.

The shooters -- I'd speculate -- were drug gangsters with military cover who worked on CIA projects.

The top drug gangster -- I'd speculate -- was Averell Harriman.

The shooters didn't need to know who was pulling the strings.

If the shooters have no connection to the string pullers, how do they lead you to Harriman?

You SPECULATE they were drug gangsters with military cover yada yada

Oh... that's right... speculation based on... speculation.

The Secret History of the CIA, Joseph Trento, pgs 334-5:

<quote>

Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: “On instructions from Averell Harriman…. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodge’s own military assistant.”

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Sagon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal.

According to Corson, “John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters,” although Dunn’s role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodge for “special operations,” could act without hindrance.

<quote off>

Did Averell Harriman operate a private militia out of the US Army Special Operations Division?

The Church Committee testimonies of William Colby and Charles Senseney.

http://www.aarclibra...hV1_1_Colby.pdf

http://www.aarclibra..._6_Senseney.pdf

Senseney testified to the existence of a "Staff Support Group" comprised of military personnel attached to the US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, MD, who were working on CIA-related projects like testing blood soluble paralytics and toxins on humans.

The night of the autopsy with the body in front of them the autopsists speculated that JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't leave any trace in the autopsy. FBI SA James Sibert took the idea seriously enough to call the FBI Lab. Although Senseney testified that the FBI was briefed as to the existence of the weapons tested by the "Staff Support Group", SA Killion changed the subject.

Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock, pg 496:

<quote>

[Gary] Underhill's concern was that he had become aware of a "clique" within the CIA--a clique dealing with weapons and gun-running and making money. These individuals had Far Eastern connections, narcotics was mentioned, supposedly the clique was manipulating political intrigues to serve their own ends. Underhill believed that these individuals had been involved with JFK's murder; he felt that JFK had become aware of their dealings and was about to move against them in some fashion. He also believed that members of the clique knew that Underhill was aware of their dealings and that his own life could well be in jeopardy.

<quote off>