Jump to content
The Education Forum

What interests you the most?


Steve Thomas
 Share

Recommended Posts

What interests you the most about this case?

The ballistics? the autopsy? the witness statements?

I enjoy taking an event or a question and seeing what everyone involved had to say about it. For instance, How did the police FIRST learn that Lee Harvey Oswald lived at 1026 N. Beckley? Please see the online seminars for my take on the question.

Another one is... Was there a Secret Service Agent present during Oswald's first interrogation, which began at 2:20 PM?

Police Chief Jesse Curry, Deputy Chief M.W. Stevenson, Homicide and Robbery Captain Will Fritz, and Detectives Richard Sims and Elmer Boyd said there was.

But who could that Secret Service Agent have been? Forrest Sorrels is the only Secret Service Agent known to have returned to Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Sorrels said that he got back to DPD Headquarters "around 2:00 PM, but Phil Willis said that he saw Forrest Sorrels at the Kodak Lab near Love Field when he got there as Air Force One was leaving Dallas. From Secret Service accounts, we know that took place at 2:47 PM. After Air Force One left and while the Willis's were waiting for their pictures to get developed Sorrels and Zapruder arrived. Willis said he watched the Zapruder film with Sorrels.

And FBI SA James Hosty said that Sorrels didn't arrive at police headquarters until 6:00 PM. So who was this SS Agent present at Oswald's questioning. SS Agent James Patterson said that he waited at Love Field until Air Force One left and then he returned to the office. But he was the person to whom Mary Moorman and Jean Hill gave their pictures to and that was at the Sheriff's office - not the Dallas Police Headquarters.

Steve Thomas

Interrogation, by J. W. Fritz. Draft of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Dallas Police Archives, Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111 http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box15.htm

Testimony of M.W. Stevenson. Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, volume XII, p. 94, as cited in the History Matters Archive,

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0051a.htm

Testimony of Chief Jesse E. Curry. Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, volume XII, p. 30, as cited in the History Matters Archive, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0020b.htm

Testimony of Elmer L. Boyd. Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, volume VII, p. 123, as cited in the History Matters Archive, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0066a.htm

Testimony of Richard M. Sims. Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, volume VII, p. 165, as cited in the History Matters Archive, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0087a.htm

Testimony of Forrest Sorrels. Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, volume VII, p. 352, as cited in the History Matters Archive, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0180b.htm

Ibid. p. 353

Testimony of James Patrick Hosty, Jr. Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, volume IV, p. 470, as cited in the History Matters Archive, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol4_0239b.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nic,

The relationships between the Paines & the Oswalds, currently. It's fascinating that Marina was told by the Secret Service not to talk to Ruth Paine because she was sympathizing with the CIA ( according to her testimony to Jim Garrison ).

I have just been reading the Warren Commission testimony of some of the White Russian community.

According to Natalie Ray, Marina supposedly told the people at one of the parties they went to that the Oswald's lived in Moscow for a year.

She was adamant about that.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ray_n.htm

I had never heard that before.

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

"What interests you the most about this case?"

The lack of concensus on most things. For example a majority of people believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. A majority of people seem to have a theory that they believe about the assassination. But no one seems to be able to bring a majority to believe in one consistant theory. And no one seems willing to give up on their own theory.

The Warren Commissioners did, in my humble opinion, a masterful job of leaving so many unanswered questions open to debate that they successfully hid the forest while putting so many dam trees in the immediate line of sight.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the most interesting thing is the large hole in the back of JFK's head which several people including medical doctors saw but which wasn't there. This is one of the great paradoxes of all time, and perhaps the most remarkable mass hallucination ever to occur, particularly since the hallucination was not mass in the sense of a single occurrence observed by many, but rather occurred at different moments to different people, some of them halfway across the country from each other. This is truly baffling and would take a Peter Jennings to explain.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Autopsy Evidence, Ballistics, Oswald Legend, Lookalikes, but

especially the Nix and Muchmore Films of the braking limousine.

For me, it is the photographs. I spend many hours and a lot of money in photocopies and blow-ups to locate shooters. As Lifton wrote in his book, you can spend nights and nights doing just that and it becomes an obsession. Deaths and murder attempts on witnesses are also captivating. I remember when I read my first book on the subject, Rush To Judgement. I had chills in my back and neck when I was reading it.

Edited by Denis Morissette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there a Secret Service Agent present during Oswald's first interrogation, which began at 2:20 PM?

Police Chief Jesse Curry, Deputy Chief M.W. Stevenson, Homicide and Robbery Captain Will Fritz, and Detectives Richard Sims and Elmer Boyd said there was.

But who could that Secret Service Agent have been?  Forrest Sorrels is the only Secret Service Agent known to have returned to Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Sorrels said that he got back to DPD Headquarters "around 2:00 PM, but Phil Willis said that he saw Forrest Sorrels at the Kodak Lab near Love Field when he got there as Air Force One was leaving Dallas. From Secret Service accounts, we know that took place at 2:47 PM. After Air Force One left and while the Willis's were waiting for their pictures to get developed Sorrels and Zapruder arrived.

Steve,

Sorrels simply had the time wrong, saying he thought he went to DPD around 2 pm but he said that it could have been later. In fact it must have been sometime after 3 when he left Kodak to go to DPD upon learning a suspect was in custody. He entered the Oswald interrogation while it was in progress, but given the vagueness of Fritz and the others about the SS agent present it could have in fact been Sorrels they were remembering. (Boyd says "I think there was a Secret Service man present," and Sims says, "Secret Service agents talked to Oswald some more," which could be an allusion to Sorrels' late arrival.)

Willis said he watched the Zapruder film with Sorrels.

Willis had to be mistaken because Sorrels wasn't there when the film was ready to view at Kodak. Sorrels had left for DPD.

Do you know where I can find Willis's statement about watching the Z film? I'm sure that he did watch it at Kodak because his wife testified to watching it there in the Shaw trial. But this means a false affidavit was signed by the Kodak lab production supervisor Philip Chamberlain, who stated in the affidavit that no one but lab employees viewed the film at Kodak. (Those who actually viewed it there, according to Wrone from a Chamberlain interview, were Zapruder, his partner Erwin Schwarz, newsman Harry McCormick, who had first informed Sorrels about Zapruder's film, and Kodak staff.) So I'm interested in exactly what Willis had to say and how he got to view the film.

FBI SA James Hosty said that Sorrels didn't arrive at police headquarters until 6:00 PM.

Sorrels said that he was "around there" (DPD) after talking to Oswald, but he testified "I don't recall talking to Mr. Hosty at all down there." Sorrels said that it was SA Patterson who talked to Hosty about Oswald.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

"What interests you the most about this case?"

The lack of concensus on most things.  For example a majority of people believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.  A majority of people seem to have a theory that they believe about the assassination.  But no one seems to be able to bring a majority to believe in one consistant theory.  And no one seems willing to give up on their own theory.

The Warren Commissioners did, in my humble opinion, a masterful job of leaving so many unanswered questions open to debate that they successfully hid the forest while putting so many dam trees in the immediate line of sight.

Jim Root

Re Mr. Root's paragraph: a very insightful comment. Years ago, a friend of mine told me (knowing my interest in the case) that she was sure the first thing I would do when I got to Heavan was ask God: "Who really killed Kennedy?" Consistent with Mr. Root's comment (and from a previous post here by someone) God's answer might be: "Well, I have a theory about that."

There are several reasons why there are so many theories about who did it. One reason is that many groups had both the motive and (perhaps) the opportunity to kill Kennedy. For instance, organized crime as a result of RFK's well-organized assault on the mob. (An aside here: many assassination theorists who do not think the "mob did it" suggest that Robert Blakey was using the "mob" to deflect suspicion or investigation of the CIA or rogue elements thereof. There is a far simpler explanation, and that is that Blakey's work in the Justice Department as a member of RFK's task force against organized crime predisposed him to suspect the underworld.) Commentators have made the point that although organized crime does not usually target police officers. judges or public officials, the Kennedy case may have been different because JFK had accepted Mafia help in getting elected so his brother's efforts against the Mafia constituted a "doublecross" that justified retaliation. (Other commentators suggest the genreralization that the Mafia does not usually target politicians or govrernment leaders is overly broad anyway.)

Kennedy's actions with respect to Cuba made him a potential target of both pro-Castro and anti-Castro Cubans. Since the CIA was encouraging efforts to kill Castro right up to the date of the Kennedy assassination, Castro certainly had a strong reason (not retaliation for past unsuccessful assassination efforts against him but defensive to stop the ongoing efforts) to sponsor the assassination. (Since some people argue that JFK was not witting of the ongoing CIA efforts to kill Castro one could also suppose that the assassination could have been organized by elements of Cuban intelligence, to protect their Maximum Leader, but without his knowledge or approval. Cuban plausible denial.)

Some anti-Castro Cubans also had reason to want to kill Kennedy. Some anti-Castro Cubans felt betrayed by Kennedy's decision to withdraw air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Others were upset that the Kennedy administration was "cracking down" on the activities of the independent exile groups. And of couse they were unaware of the "secret" campaign that the Kennedys were continuing against Catro. Another possibility is that anti-Castro Cubans plotted to blame the assassination on Castro (or at least a Castro supporter) to prompt an invasion of Cuba.

John has pointed out that the racist power structure in the South felt that the southern segregated way of life was threatened by JFK's growing support of the civil rights movement and the racists thought (wrongfully, as it turned out) that LBJ would be less supportive of civil rights than JFK was. The killings of civil rights workers in the South adequately demonstrates that at least some Southern racits were willing to commit murder in an effort to stop or delay integration.

I won't cover all of the possible theories here since they have been covered, at length, here and elsewhere. (My exclusion of the other theories is not meant to imply there is not reasonable basis for some people to support them.) The point is, as Mr. Root made it, there are a plethora of theories, each of which has a group of vocal, convinced advocates, who often seem "wedded" to their "pet theory".

Another possible reason why the Kennedy assassination seems a "mystery wrapped in an enigma" may be that the true assassins were clever enough to plant false clues and false leaders pointing to innocent people. John (among others) has suggested this possibility.

I remember reading Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment" as a teen-ager. Having recently looked at the book in the library, I noted an interesting observation Lane made in his closing pages, that ties in with Mr. Root's second paragraph. Lane said (and I will truy to amend to the actual quote) that he feared that the inadaquecies of the Warren Report wold lead to "years of speculation" (words to that effect). I suspect Mr. Lane might agree that when he wrote that passage he had little idea how right he would turn out to be!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What interests you the most about this case?

The ballistics?  the autopsy?  the witness statements?

To solve the assassination of JFK case involves a deep study of the political and economic aspects of the assassination. Therefore my interest is in the activities of politicians and businessmen. See for example my post today on the Suite 8F group and the connections with Halliburton.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2700

I am surprised by the amount of time researchers spend on proving that JFK was killed by more than one man. It is the names of the people who paid for the assassination that we should be concentrating on. These men are of course dead and can never be brought to justice. However, the tradition of businessmen buying politicians in order to gain government contracts continues.

The study of all history is really about the present. The main justification for the study of the JFK assassination is that it might help us expose a scandal that has been taking place in America since the 1930s. Kennedy was just one of these victims. So also were the people killed in Vietnam. So are the people being killed in Iraq today. It is all part of the same conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised by the amount of time researchers spend on proving that JFK was killed by more than one man. It is the names of the people who paid for the assassination that we should be concentrating on. These men are of course dead and can never be brought to justice. However, the tradition of businessmen buying politicians in order to gain government contracts continues.

The study of all history is really about the present. The main justification for the study of the JFK assassination is that it might help us expose a scandal that has been taking place in America since the 1930s. Kennedy was just one of these victims. So also were the people killed in Vietnam. So are the people being killed in Iraq today. It is all part of the same conspiracy.

"It is all part of the same conspiracy." John, I respectfully disagree with you, for several reasons.

First, I think you are saying here that the "conspiracy" was rooted in the desire by members of the MICC to reap the profits of war. You have, of course, argued this before.

But you are arguing in the LBJ seminar that LBJ may have done it to protect himself from criminal liability in the rapidly escalating investigation into the Bobby Baker scandal. I agree that murders are sometimes commited in an attempt by the murdereer to stay out of jail and you raise important points about how close the Baker investigation was closing in on LBJ at the time of the Kennedy assassination. (Of course, the death of JFK did not stop the Baker investigation and LBJ was still trying to smother it in the summer of 1964.) But if LBJ killed JFK to assist in the obstruction of justice in the Baker investigation, then he did NOT kill JFK to assist financially his friends at Brown and Root.

Second, even if one assumes arguendo the premise of Stone's JFK that JFK was killed so the generals (and Brown and Root) could have "your damn war" (as Stone has LBJ say in JFK) AND even if one assumes that the War in Iraq was prompted by nothing other than to regeneratate profits for the American MICC (a proposition from which I would vigorously dissent) it is NOT the SAME conspiracy since the hypothetical conspirators in the JFK case are all dead (as you say).

Perhaps we are just arguing semantics here. If John Smith conspired in 1963 to kill his ex-wife because he was insanely jealous of her relationship with her new lover, and if OJ Simpson conspired to kill Nicole Simpson because he was insanely jealous of her relationship with her new lover, that does not mean that Smith and Simpson were part of the SAME conspiracy. It only means thay had the same motive.

To take my point one step further: one can sometimes hold a corporation, which is, of course, a fictional entity, criminally responsible for the actions of its agents. Let us assume your motivation theory is correct and Hallibutn could be held criminally liable for killing JFK. Let us further assume that Halliburton could somehow be held criminally liable for the War in Iraq. It is still two different conspiracies, even if propmted by the same motivation.

But your post does raise a very important point. Let us assume that everyone involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK is now dead. If so, what is the point of "solving the case" if the conspirators cannot be brought to the bar of justice?

For instance, consider the theory that members of the confederate military conspired with Wilkes to kill Lincoln. Further assaume that we discovered some way to prove or disprove the existence of such a conspiracy. Given the passage of time, is there a reason for proving or disproving a wider conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination?

I would make a second point here too. There is a maxim in the legal field that a lawyer can defeat himself by taking on the burden of having to "prove too much." I think that due to your leadership in this forum its members are gaining increased recognition of the events going on at the time of the Kennedy assassnation that may have contributed to his murder. It is not necessary to try to adopt a "unified theory" that links the events of the 1960s to the political events of the twenty-first century. And by presupposing such a "unified theory" of a "grand conspiracy" you run the risk of not following the evidence wherever it may lead since you would (if even subconsciously) be disposed to reject leads that do not fit into that "unified theory".

You are starting to make a persuasive case that LBJ may have had Kennedy killed to prevent his own incarceration. I do not think the evidence is all there yet but you continue to discover new evidence that may point in that direction.

Respectfully, I think you, and all others interested in solving the "Kennedy case" should follow the evidence where it leads, whether it leads to a small conspiracy or a large one. When the Kennedy case has been solved, then one can start to ponder what implications, if any, its resulution has to today's issues. To BEGIN by assuming the Kennedy case has ANY relationship to today's events, in my opinion, may skewer the search for the truth.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is all part of the same conspiracy."  John, I respectfully disagree with you, for several reasons.

First, I think you are saying here that the "conspiracy" was rooted in the desire by members of the MICC to reap the profits of war.  You have, of course, argued this before.

But you are arguing in the LBJ seminar that LBJ may have done it to protect himself from criminal liability in the rapidly escalating investigation into the Bobby Baker scandal.  I agree that murders are sometimes commited in an attempt by the murdereer to stay out of jail and you raise important points about how close the Baker investigation was closing in on LBJ at the time of the Kennedy assassination.  (Of course, the death of JFK did not stop the Baker investigation and LBJ was still trying to smother it in the summer of 1964.)  But if LBJ killed JFK to assist in the obstruction of justice in the Baker investigation, then he did NOT kill JFK to assist financially his friends at Brown and Root.

This is based on the argument that there can only be one motive for a murder. This is patently absurd. There were several reasons why LBJ wanted JFK dead. This of course does not mean he was definitely involved in the crime.

Second, even if one assumes arguendo the premise of Stone's JFK that JFK was killed so the generals (and Brown and Root) could have "your damn war" (as Stone has LBJ say in JFK) AND even if one assumes that the War in Iraq was prompted by nothing other than to regeneratate profits for the American MICC (a proposition from which I would vigorously dissent) it is NOT the SAME conspiracy since the hypothetical conspirators in the JFK case are all dead (as you say). 

The point I am making is that there has been a conspiracy since the 1930s to corruptly obtain government contracts. Most of this money was made during warfare. This is not to say that the MICC actually started wars. However, it was in their interests to escalate these wars rather than to bring them to an end. Under Bush this policy has escalated to the point where wars are started for the benefit of the MICC. This is indeed all part of the same conspiracy. It of course does not mean the same people have been involved in these events. However, Brown & Root (Halliburton) have been central to this conspiracy.

But your post does raise a very important point.  Let us assume that everyone involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK is now dead.  If so, what is the point of "solving the case" if the conspirators cannot be brought to the bar of justice? For instance, consider the theory that members of the confederate military conspired with Wilkes to kill Lincoln.  Further assaume that we discovered some way to prove or disprove the existence of such a conspiracy.  Given the passage of time, is there a reason for proving or disproving a wider conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination?

Of course it is still important to discover the truth about the death of Abraham Lincoln. As Jim Marrs has pointed out elsewhere, some cases are more important than others. The study of history is always about the present. That is why the Iraq conspiracy is more important that JFK assassination. If Jim is right and that 9/11 was part of that conspiracy, then that is more important than anything else.

I would make a second point here too.  There is a maxim in the legal field that a lawyer can defeat himself by taking on the burden of having to "prove too much."  I think that due to your leadership in this forum its members are gaining increased recognition of the events going on at the time of the Kennedy assassnation that may have contributed to his murder.    It is not necessary to try to adopt a "unified theory" that links the events of the 1960s to the political events of the twenty-first century.  And by presupposing such a "unified theory" of a "grand conspiracy" you run the risk of not following the evidence wherever it may lead since you would (if even subconsciously) be disposed to reject leads that do not fit into that "unified theory".

This is an interesting point. You are right. At the beginning is the political viewpoint of the researcher. From this ideology emerges a theory. The theory is tested by looking at the evidence. More importantly, it means searching for the evidence. The theory determines where you look. I therefore spend my time investigating the politics and economics of 1960s America.

All researchers face the danger they will read too much into the evidence they find. They might also ignore evidence that is available that does not support their basic theory. This problem is further complicated by some researcher’s desire to make money from their activity. It is believed that the researcher who solves the case will make a fortune from books, films, etc. Therefore, once they have invested time (and money) in developing a theory, they will be reluctant to drop it for psychological and financial reasons.

The main purpose of this forum is not to develop a “unified theory”. Instead it is to test out people’s theories. That is what you are doing with your posting. I welcome that. If I am not able to defend my theory against your criticisms, I will have to change that theory.

You are starting to make a persuasive case that LBJ may have had Kennedy killed to prevent his own incarceration.  I do not think the evidence is all there yet but you continue to discover new evidence that may point in that direction. 

Respectfully, I think you, and all others interested in solving the "Kennedy case" should follow the evidence where it leads, whether it leads to a small conspiracy or a large one.  When the Kennedy case has been solved, then one can start to ponder what implications, if any, its resulution has to today's issues.  To BEGIN by assuming the Kennedy case has ANY relationship to today's events, in my opinion, may skewer the search for the truth.

You are wrong to suggest that I started with the theory that we may be dealing with a conspiracy that links the JFK assassination with the Iraq War. If you read my early postings on this forum you will see that originally I believed organized crime was involved in the assassination of JFK. It took be some time before I realized that all I had been discovering was the original conspirators Plan B. My suspicions were raised when I discovered how this information came into the public domain.

It is only over the last couple of months that I have become convinced that the assassination was organized by the MICC. It is only over the last week that I have become aware of the links between the MICC during the Eisenhower Era and the MICC of the modern day. Who knows. If intelligent people question my theory, maybe I will change it once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the most interesting thing is the large hole in the back of JFK's head which several people including medical doctors saw but which wasn't there. This is one of the great paradoxes of all time, and perhaps the most remarkable mass hallucination ever to occur, particularly since the hallucination was not mass in the sense of a single occurrence observed by many, but rather occurred at different moments to different people, some of them halfway across the country from each other. This is truly baffling and would take a Peter Jennings to explain.

Ron

Ron,

I wholeheartedly agree, and the way you phrased it was superb. Most CT's know about the large wound in the rear of the head yet seldom use this as evidence of conspiracy. I can point to the 3 or 4 responses to my seminar on the rear head wound, or the limited response to Pat Speer's seminar. The way I look at it, you have to prove conspiracy first beyond a shadow of a doubt (well beyond "reasonable doubt") before you can tackle the "who done it". One of the things I enjoy most is presenting medical evidence that is overwhelming, then sitting back and listening to LN's stumble through an explanation. It typically is "the witnesses were mistaken" and "Boswell was mistaken when he placed the back wound where he did on the autopsy face sheet, then was mistaken again when he revised it in 1977.

My second great interest is the CIA/Cuban exile connection to the assassination. As most are aware on the forums I visit, I feel 100% sure that the exiles were the boots on the ground in Dealey Plaza. I believe it is well beyond coincidence that CIA and exile types showed up in photos to watch the "show".

RJS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most interesting phenomeon to me is that there is so little outrage from the public in a democratic state while it is so clear they are being lied to. There is no indignation despite the fact they know they are being lied to (given the results of repeated polls)

Wim

"There is no doubt now that there was a conspiracy, yet most of us are not very angry about it. The conspiracy to kill the president of the United States was also a conspiracy against the democratic system --and thus a conspiracy against you. I think you should get very angry about that." - Gaeton Fonzi, Investigator HSCA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What interests the most:

confusion with evidence, disappearing evidence, false evidence, witness testimonies supporting conspiracy, dying witnesses. Evidence of foul play in the investigation of JFK's assassination and Lee Oswald. The impersenations of Oswald, the witholding of evidence and government documents under the excuse of national security....

...national security: I always wonder, are "they" afraid of riots in case the truth emerges, or are they simply afraid of exposing goverment secrets withheld among the documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...