Jump to content
The Education Forum

Prayer Man: A Memo to James Gordon


Recommended Posts

and if mama had balls she'd be daddy

"If" means nothing Ray.

He "was not charged".

Well the record shows that he was charged (in abstentia)

so your post is just a load of codswallop!

Show us Ray... where...

I posted what the court says the charges were... Oswald was not charged at all...

but if you can post the proof, I'd be happy to eat crow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

J. Raymond Carroll,

Oswald was not a defendant in the Clay Shaw trial.

All due respect, Jon, Lee was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

All you have to do is read Jim Garrison's opening statement, which I quoted earlier.

When the jury found that Clay Shaw was innocent of conspiring with Lee Oswald

they also found, by neccessary inference, that Lee was innocent of conspiring

with Clay Shaw.

BTW, Clay Shaw could not provide an alibi for the evening of the alleged conspiratorial meeting,

since Garrison could not specify a date,so Shaw's best witness was Marina, who testified that Lee

was home with her every evening while they lived in New Orleans, and could not possibly have been present.

when the alleged conspiracy was hatched.

Garrison was an idiot, and so are his followers!

As Sylvia Meagher pointed out, so many years ago!

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

But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it).

Dawn

Garrison formally accused Lee Oswald of plotting the murder of JFK,

and the jury of 12 New Orleans citizens took less than an hour

to find that Lee was innocent of Garrison's silly charge.

If you want to be a sucker, Dawn, go ahead and be my guest.

I have never seen you post a useful comment in the history of the Education Forum

So you just avoid my point by attacking me. Typical. I am NOT an Oswald accuser. Was not since day one. Have a good life. Attacks from the likes of you are to be expected. (Mili Cranor has some choice words, but that's another story).

"Raymond can you not read? Parker is NOT a LHO accuser. And the fact that Marina did not reply to you is hardly "proof" of anything. For a lawyer your reasoning here is quite lacking. Maybe she simply is not interested in replying to you.

But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it)."

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Oswald was not charged, how could he be found not guilty?

He was named in Garrison's indictment as a co-conspirator with Clay Shaw.

Garrison could not actually charge him, because he was dead.

The jury found Clay Shaw not guilty of conspiring with Lee Oswald,

ergo

they found Lee Oswald not guilty of conspiring with Clay Shaw.

Like the song says, you can't have one without the other.

Elementary deduction, i.e. inevitable logic.

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

I posted the rule of law that describes who was charged for what... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22035&page=5#entry307772

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1270#relPageId=19&tab=page

This is the CLERK READING THE INDICTMENT Ray... whatever Jim says in opening or closing statements are not official FACTS... he can virtually say anything he wants.

The INDICTMENT does not charge either Oswald or Ferrie with a crime but of being the subject of CLAY SHAW's unlawful conspiring.

The fact the result was SHAW being found not guilty of conspiracy has no bearing on what Oswald would or would not have been charged with or what his verdict would have been.

Now stop being a curmudgeon about the topic as I know Jon and Dawn are lawyers... what was your profession again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so.

Shaw was found not guilty of conspiring with Ferris and Oswald. As neither of Ferrie or Oswald were tried, then neither of them could be found guilty or not guilty. Therefore Oswald was not found "Not guilty"

Logic, Mr Carroll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The indictment clearly states the charge that Clay Shaw conspired with Lee Oswald.

Clay Shaw could not possibly conspire with Lee Oswald

unless

Lee Oswald conspired with Clay Shaw.

A conspiracy, by definition, is an AGREEMENT, a meeting of the minds.

The jury found there was no conspiratorial agreement involving Clay Shaw and Lee Oswald,

ergo

they found that Lee was innocent of Garrison's charges.

There is NO ESCAPE from, and no mealy-mouthed way around

that conclusion

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Garrison suckers"

What are you droning on about old man? If anything Garrison proves the reach and extent of cover-up which was in process in the years following the killing.

Garrison excerpts from Playboy interview:

But to make this whole thing a little clearer, let me tell you the genesis of the whole "Clay Bertrand" story. A New Orleans lawyer, Dean Andrews, told the Warren Commission that a few months before the assassination of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald and a group of "gay Mexicanos" came to his office and requested Andrews' aid in having Oswald's Marine Corps undesirable discharge changed to an honorable discharge; Oswald subsequently returned alone with other legal problems.

Andrews further testified that the day after President Kennedy was assassinated, he received a call from Clay Bertrand, who asked him to rush to Dallas to represent Oswald. Andrews claims he subsequently saw Bertrand in a New Orleans bar, but Bertrand fled when Andrews approached him. This was intriguing testimony, although the Warren Commission dismissed it out of hand

Interestingly, even Garrsion was made aware of LEE's activities designed to incriminate the man Ruby killed.

Radiating out from these key men, the strands of the web include a motley group of political adventurers united only in their detestation of Kennedy and their dedication to the reversal of his foreign policy. One such man was David Ferrie. Another member of this group is an individual who deliberately impersonated Lee Oswald before the assassination in order to incriminate him

Of course, if you really look deeply into this incident, there is no real proof that Oswald was the man who did it; the whole charge rests on the unsupported testimony of Marina Oswald, after she had been threatened with deportation if she didn't "cooperate." It makes little difference, though, whether this incident was prepared in advance to create a cover for Oswald or fabricated after the assassination to strengthen his public image as a Marxist.

A significant point in Walthers' report is his mention of the Freedom for Cuba Party. This appears to be a corruption of the anti-Castro Free Cuba Committee of which Oswald, Ferrie and a small cadre of neo-Nazis --- including the man we believe was the "second Oswald" --- were members

And finally Ray... Garrison basically agreeing with you - so you must be one of those Garrison suckers as well... no ?

PLAYBOY: In regard to Oswald's role in the conspiracy, you have said that "he was a decoy at first and then he was a patsy and then he was a victim." Would you explain what you meant by that?

GARRISON: Oswald's role in the proposed assassination of Kennedy, as far as he seems to have known, was strictly political: not to fire a gun but --- for reasons that may not have been explained to him by his superiors at their planning sessions --- to establish his left-wing bona fides so unshakably that after the assassination, quite possibly unbeknownst to him, the President's murder would appear to be the work of a sharpshooting left-wing fanatic and thus allow the other plotters, including the men who actually shot Kennedy, to escape police attention and flee Dallas. Though he may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building; we've learned that one of the members of the conspiracy was in a position to learn from perfectly innocent Dallas business contacts the route of the Presidential motorcade more than a month before Kennedy's visit. The conspirators --- more than probably not including Oswald --- knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin.

I can't go into all the details on this, but the murder of Tippit, which I am convinced Oswald didn't commit, was clearly designed to set the stage for Oswald's liquidation in the Texas Theater after another anonymous tip-off. But here the plotters miscalculated, and Oswald was not shot to death but was merely roughed up and rushed off to the Dallas jail --- where, you may remember, he shouted to reporters as the police dragged him through the corridors on November 22nd: "I didn't kill anyone --- I'm being made a patsy." The conspiracy had gone seriously awry and the plotters were in danger of exposure by Oswald. Enter Jack Ruby --- and exit Oswald. So first Oswald was a decoy, next a patsy and finally --- in the basement of the Dallas jail on November 24, 1963 --- a victim.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally Ray... Garrison basically agreeing with you - so you must be one of those Garrison suckers as well... no ?

Garrison is all over the map in his out-of-court statements, and often contradicted himself.

The only reason he is important is because he brought charges in court

- and had his ass handed to him.

Garrison's only achievement was to destroy the career of Dean Andrews, whose only crime

was being willing to go to Dallas to defend Lee Oswald.

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

Garrison's only achievement was to destroy the career of Dean Andrews, whose only crime

was being willing to go to Dallas to defend Lee Oswald.

His "only achievement"???? His book "On the Trail Of the Assassins which became the basis for Stone's film caused millions to become aware of the conspiracy and lead to the Assassination Records Review Board releasing a large amount of previously hidden records. That was quite an achievement for the critical community and general public. But conversing with a rabid Garrison hater is akin to trying to reason with a lone nutter. Waste of time. All you can do is hurl insults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His book "On the Trail Of the Assassins which became the basis for Stone's film caused millions to become aware of the conspiracy and lead to the Assassination Records Review Board releasing a large amount of previously hidden records.

Granted that Garrison was a talented writer, and that Oliver Stone's movie led to the release of documents,

but it is a pity that Stone relied on such a misleading book. Stone thus created a "countermyth" that is just

as misleading as the myth he was countering.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
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...