Jump to content
The Education Forum

major JFK author dies...and crickets. Can someone explain?

Recommended Posts

OK Vince, my old friend:

After all these years What is your position: Are you an Oswald accuser?

If so, do you accuse him of being a conspirator?

or do you accuse him of being a lone assassin?

Your reply is greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My position since late 2007: Definitely not a lone assassin; doubtful a conspirator. I believe he was a "patsy" like he claimed; a damn good one. Barry Ernest's book and Jim DiEugenio's latest are part of my foundation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Vince, I am still confused about where you stand.

Harry Livingstone wrote in Killing The Truth that

"it doesn't matter whether Oswald was innocent or guilty, it doesn't even matter if he was part of the conspiracy."

Jim Di Eugenio is a Garrison groupie and, as you know, Garrison accused Lee Oswald, in open court, of carrying a rifle to the TSBD

"in furtherance of the plot" to kill Kennedy. I don't know what his latest work is that you refer to, so please specify. I would bet it is another anti-Oswald screed.

[Edit] Just for clarification, the word "Patsy" has caused great confusion. Lee Oswald said "they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a Patsy."

He clearly meant that he was being falsely accused, and knew nothing of any crimes.

Garrison, on the other hand, took the word "Patsy" and gave it a whole new meaning. Garrison created a scenario in which Lee Oswald helped plot the assassination and carried a rifle to work in furtherance of the plot. In Garrison's scenario, Oswald agreed to take the fall for the plotters, and that was what he meant by the word "Patsy."

Please specify which meaning you attribute to the word "Patsy."

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he was set up to take the fall. The rifle traced back to him, some of the shots appeared to come from the 6th floor window, he lived in the USSR, etc. BECAUSE he was the perfect patsy. I believe Oswald was on the second floor lunch room (or, at least, NOT on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting).

Was he an innocent babe in the woods who had 0.0 knowledge of an impending plot/ assassination? was he an angel? I cannot say definitively. My focus is on the Secret Service and, secondarily, the medical evidence. The case for or against Oswald is more other people's realms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Vince.

Just for the record, I am personally convinced that Lee Oswald knew nothing about the assassination.

One of the curious facts in the case is that there was no investigation of the people living with Lee

at the rooming-house on Beckley. I believe a few of them may have been transients. It seems he ordinarily

left his revolver in his room there, and it would have been a simple matter for one of those roomers to obtain

it, fire several rounds, keep the shells and replace the pistol without Lee ever noticing.

That would explain how Tippit's killer was able to drop 4 spent revolver shells at the scene, thus tying Lee

to the Tippit murder.

All this would have been brought out at trial by his defense lawyer, hence the plotters had to murder him

before he could speak to an attorney.

BTW, let me join the chorus of those who say that your work on the Secret Service is extremely valuable

and historic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Harry Livingstone that despised or something?

Thoughts (if you have them)?

Hi Vince:

I knew Harry fairly well over a number of years. In fact he mentions me in one of his books. My impression is that he was motivated by a strong animosity to David Lifton, and Lifton's (perfectly logical) theory that JFK's body was altered.

My problem with Harry is pretty much the same problem I have with the entire research community: In Killing Kennedy he writes,

"It doesn't matter whether Oswald was innocent or guilty. It doesn't even matter if he was part of the conspiracy."

I see much the same attitude here and everywhere else among JFK researchers. A lack of moral clarity is the reason why the JFK research community has been going nowhere.

Lee Oswald was innocent, but nobody cares.

That last sentence is mostly true, The Warren Commission and News media did such a good job of selling the Lone Nut scenario that it quickly became common belief, much as the reality that at least 50% of the population can't name the vice president. Once that was sold, no one cared if it were true or not except some people that actually began looking into the facts. Anyone that actually saw much of the news coverage the first 3 days after the assassination knew when the story started coming out that much that was revealed didn't fit with the known facts. There really was a Mauser found in the TSBD that day, for example, he really was shot in the throat, he really was shot from behind the grassy knoll. All this doesn't fit with the facts as put out by the WC, but no one cared, as far as the general public is concerned, LHO is the Lone Nut.

I suspect I read High Treason back then, I read everything that came out, but I don't recall anything novel about it or if it revealed any new facts back then.

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...