Tim Gratz and the Plot to Kill Wallace

[Mark Knight]

Tim, my failure to address these points you raise was intentional...as I don't want some reactionary threatening to sue ME in case I hurt his widdle biddy feelings.

At this point, I cannot conclude 100% that the charges made against you are false, as I only have YOUR word that they are false. I can only conclude, therefore, that they are UNPROVEN as yet by the evidence I've seen. Or, put more simply, I can't call you "guilty" based upon the evidence, but neither is there sufficient evidence to call you "innocent." Turner, via Sprague, implicated you...justly or unjustly. You claim you're innocent. I'm in no position to say you're innocent simply because you SAY you're innocent. O.J. said HE was innocent...Michael Jackson said HE was innocent...Oswald said HE was innocent...

Without further evidence, it's truly hard to determine who's REALLY a "patsy" and who's guilty as sin...and I don't know the case well enough to judge either way.

So pardon me If I fail to cry out that you've been wronged...because, if I'm being honest, I can't say for sure that you were or weren't falsely accused. I don't find sufficient evidence to make that determination. So all I can say is you MAY or MAY NOT have been falsely accused....any other answer would be dishonesty on MY part.

Edited July 19, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, is not a person innocent until proven guilty?

Also, use your good old common sense. If I objected to Segretti because he proposed printing fake tickets to fund-raising tickets do you suppose I would get involved in a conspiracy to commit a murder?

And, as John once noted, why in the world would I get involved in writing about the Kennedy assassination and joining this forum if I myself had plotted an assassination?

And I might as well say it: I greatly resent your sarcasm about my "feelings". Why the sarcasm? Do you think it unusual that one would take offense at being charged a murderer? If you think that is unusual, well, I just don't know what to say about that!

Edited July 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

I greatly resent your sarcasm about my "feelings".

Tim, I took a page from the Karl Rove notebook here...I never mentioned YOUR name. So I'll also claim the Rove defense, then, that since I never mentioned your name SPECIFICALLY, I therefore committed no wrong. [if it works for ROVE, it should work for ME.] And if you choose to describe yourself as a "reactionary" in order to feel aggrieved, that's your prerogative.

...why in the world would I get involved in writing about the Kennedy assassination and joining this forum if I myself had plotted an assassination?

I dunno, Tim...the same way I dunno why some arsonists turn out to be firemen. But it happens, despite my lack of understanding of their motives.

If I objected to Segretti because he proposed printing fake tickets to fund-raising tickets do you suppose I would get involved in a conspiracy to commit a murder?

I don't know what you would or wouldn't stoop to. To determine that would require a knowledge of evidence I haven't seen. So I refuse to draw a conclusion, because there is insufficient evidence before me to do so.

Mark, is not a person innocent until proven guilty?

That's the THEORY, Tim...but it's not always the reality. Witness Lee Oswald's case...which is why we're all here [or those of us who seek the truth, anyway]. And if you want to find out about "innocent until proven guilty," research the case of Melvin Henry Ignatow in Louisville, KY from the late '80's...a jury found him not guilty of murder, and THEN the photographs that proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt were discovered. In light of such cases, I don't throw the word "innocent" around lightly. A person may be "not guilty," but that doesn't NECESSARILY make them "innocent."

[John Simkin]

Tim, I took a page from the Karl Rove notebook here...I never mentioned YOUR name.  So I'll also claim the Rove defense, then, that since I never mentioned your name SPECIFICALLY, I therefore committed no wrong.  [if it works for ROVE, it should work for ME.]  And if you choose to describe yourself as a "reactionary" in order to feel aggrieved, that's your prerogative.

Karl Rove did not actually name her but instead described the CIA covert agent as being Joseph Wilson's wife. Will your your legal system actually let him get away with this? For a more detailed discussion of this matter see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4297

...why in the world would I get involved in writing about the Kennedy assassination and joining this forum if I myself had plotted an assassination?

I dunno, Tim...the same way I dunno why some arsonists turn out to be firemen.  But it happens, despite my lack of understanding of their motives.

Very interesting comment. I once read an article explaining why some murderers go out of their way to provide clues for the police after the crime has been committed. For example, they return to the scene of the crime and appear to be anxious to help the police to find the murderer. The reason given for this behaviour is that the murderer feels that he is very clever to get away with the crime. The problem is that he is so clever that no one knows he is clever. He therefore finds it difficult not to tell everyone he committed the crime. A side of him wants to be caught. It is only by being caught, that he can reveal how clever he is.

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Mark, then I guess you are as guilty of trying to kill Wallace as I am.

Maybe you wanted him dead because you hated his stand on civil rights. Well, I did too.

So the fact that there is not one scintilla of evidence linking you to the Wallace shooting does not make you innocent (by your theory),

By the same reasoning, you MIGHT be guilty of any unsolved murder in the United States. As might I.

Problem is most people, Mark, think that there ought to be SOME evidence before you even suggest someone MIGHT be guilty of murder.

[John Dolva]

I'm hesitant to say much on this for fear that it might be misinterpreted. And that is perhaps the point I would like to make here. Should the Law that has failed so dismally in the murder of JFK be allowed to dictate in a largely serious attempt to do what the Law should have done in the first place? Should people on this forum be afraid to speak their mind becuse of threats of litigation? The threat of litigation as a means to dictate can reach ridiculous heights, for example in some places of australia play-grounds have closed because councils are afraid that at some time in the future some person may sue them because they have not provided sun shelter over play equipment because the connection between solar radiation and skin cancer is known. Surely there is some room for common sense? This abrogation of responsibility to a Law mentality that is flawed in the first place can't help. This, after all is a murder investigation. In the kitchen sometimes it gets hot. To blame the head chef for someone turning up the temperature may in a legalistic sense be correct. I will weigh into this in support of a position that says John Simkin is not responsible for what I write on this forum. If he were forced by the Law to alter what is a historical document then this forum would stop being the forum that I joined.

Any suggestion that editing beyond simple clarification is acceptable, I reject. I would support John Simkin in any way should he choose to not edit, delete, alter this document. Anything here that isn't intended to go towards the solution of the murder of JFK will die a natural death as the debates will naturally move on and people keep on track. For future researchers, it will certainly be an instructive social document.

Please note I am not making any statement on the accusations thrown about, how could I, I don't know them. I'm not for Tim. I'm not against Tim. I'm not for Shanet. I'm not against Shanet. Whether I am or not is really irrelevant. Whether Kennedy was shot by a bullet that came from the left, right, front, or back IS relevant.

I happen to agree with Shanet that the shot came from the left.

I think also that a correct description of Kennedy's head movements over zframes is "a gradual turning and tilting towards Jackie from sometime shortly after the sign. By zf312, JFK's shoulder is above his ear, possibly higher, this turning and tilting continues for about 2/3 of the time between zf312 and zf313. Then a bullet, possibly two, strikes his head on the top of his head above the hairline to the right of the midline. This massive initial force propels his head to the right where it encounters the structure of the shoulder bones and is deflected downward from where it rebounds to the main position captured in the 1/35-1/40 seconds of a series of impressions on zf313. As his body is kept rigid by an intricate web of back bracing this force also transmits to the seat springs. Further , he is restrained by Jackies hand. As the seat springs rebound the Limousine also accelerates AND diverges from its path to the right. The combination of these forces result in 'back and to the left'.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

I do not think the fact that something is being posted on an internet forum absolves the communication from the libel laws.

The libel laws are designed to protect innocent people.

Protecting innocent people OUGHT to be a LIBERAL value.

In my opinion, the zeal to find the assassins of John F. Kennedy should not excuse us from exercising common decency and morality. And common decency and morality means one does not lightly accuse another of a heinous crime.

One will note that my umbrage was equally apparent when the prominent leftist magazine "The Nation" was being falsely accused of being an accessory after the fact to the assassination. And of course there are many other prominent leftists who disagree with the majority view expressed on this Forum.

It takes something far beyond gall to criminalize dissent.

Now, come to think of it, isn't that what happens in totalitarian regimes?

Edited July 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

Well, Mark, then I guess you are as guilty of trying to kill Wallace as I am.

First, Tim...technically, there IS a difference between being "innocent" and being "not guilty," as I stated in my previous post. And I have NEVER said that you were "guilty."

As far as YOUR guilt or innocence vs. my own, I wasn't the one linked to Segretti in any way, shape, form, or fashion...it is from your being linked--rightly or wrongly--to Segretti, et al, that an allegation has been made--BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME, you should note--that you were involved. I make NO such claim, as I have no evidence.

But because I cannot vouch for your character, I cannot categorically state that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt...again, due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

For a person who's steadfastly trying to remain neutral on your guilt or innocence--AGAIN, based upon the previously-cited lack of evidence--it seems you're certainly taking up an attack mode toward me. I'm not blaming you, but I can't clear you...so I take NO POSITION on your guilt or innocence.

If that makes me a bad guy, then there's something wrong with SOMEONE's value system...and I don't think it's mine.

Edited July 19, 2005 by Mark Knight

[John Dolva]

John, I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

I do not think the fact that something is being posted on an internet forum absolves the communication from the libel laws.

The libel laws are designed to protect innocent people.

Protecting innocent people OUGHT to be a LIBERAL value.

In my opinion, the zeal to find the assassins of John F. Kennedy should not excuse us from exercising common decency and morality.  And common decency and morality means one does not lightly accuse another of a heinous crime.

One will note that my umbrage was equally apparent when the prominent leftist magazine "The Nation" was being falsely accused of being an accessory after the fact to the assassination.  And of course there are many other prominent leftists who disagree with the majority view expressed on this Forum.

It takes something far beyond gall to criminalize dissent.

Now, come to think of it, isn't that what happens in totalitarian regimes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, I appreciate that you and I continue to relate in a respectful manner even though it must be apparent to both of us that we come from different points on the political spectrum. I choose to reply even though I don't want to keep the subject gioing, particularly where I am not a lawyer. I do think that there is an implied environment in these discussions where some people will at times say things that perhaps they shouldn't. I don't think anyone but the person saying it is responsible for it though. Overall, I tend to come down on the side of preserving history, even though some of the things I've said are quite embarrasing to me in hindsight, I don't want to be part of any alterations. Of course, litigation IS an option for anyone, I hope though that common sense will prevail in the first place, Regards and God Bless, JohnD

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, forgive me if I implied you were a "bad" guy.

I hope that this whole matter will someday--soon--be resolved. When it is, I hope it will teach people not to accept every crazy position asserted by some writer merely because the writer shares one's political ideology.

As I said before, I respect Turner. I strongly suspect it was Sprague that got it wrong. I base that judgment on the fact that there is a lot of material in his "book" that I consider nonsense. Whereas I have found Turner's writings to be well-researched and usually accurate.

But if you consider me a "suspect" because of "Segretti" how more clear can it be that I was anti-Segretti?

I mean this is ridiculous, and tiring!

[Pat Speer]

Tim, I was once the chief whistle-blower at a corrupt record company that went down in flames, after being swallowed up by organized crime. Someone got their revenge by going to a record industry chat room I frequented and outing me as one of the crooks involved, and stated further that my assistant and I were gay lovers. It was a low blow, particularly because my girlfriend had left me and miscarried our baby as a result of her fears about my safety. Her father had been murdered and she wasn't about to stick around and see me get killed.

Anyhow, I dealt with the allegations made against me by making a joke out of it. You should have done the same. A blind man could see that Shanet was just talking out of his butt. If you'd have made a joke of it instead of threatening a lawsuit, everyone would have been better off.

There is something beyond being right, and that's being credible. Your bully tactics have won you no friends, and NOBODY'S respect. I suspect you could find the smoking gun against Castro tomorrow, and very few people here would even read your post.

IMHO You need to take a chill pill, apologize to John, apologize to Shanet, and talk to your pal Gerry. If anyone knows how to blow off allegations it's Gerry.

As a man familiar with the justice system you should know that in the eyes of most Americans there are far worse things than being accused of being a murderer, and one of those things is being accused of having no sense of humor. I'm afraid you've proven the latter without so much as a trial.

Edited July 19, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

A blind man could see that Shanet was just talking out of his butt.

Pat the difficulty is that not every member of the Forum shares your intelligence and judgment. And I believe you were the only member who stated what you just said in different words above.

And did you not at one time question me why I had not sued Sprague over his spurious allegation?

Now I think Shanet's comments accusing Sam Papich of being a conspirator are equally absurd as his blast at me. I have repeatedly asked John to disavow that allegation. He has refused to do so.

I do not think Shanet was trying to be "funny"; I think he really thought I was part of some Bremer plot. It was only because I stated that I intended to exercise my legal rights that the truth came out. And I think he is sincere in his apology and that my "promise" to sue opened his eyes.

I see no reason to criticize someone for exercising his legal rights. After what you said, I thought I HAD to.

But efforts to link me to Bremer are as absurd as calling Dillon a conspirator. We waste our time and energy arguing these ridiculous scenarios.

[Terry Mauro]

As I told Shanet in another thread, I appreciate his apology.  He was a gentleman to make it and I think it took him courage to do so.  It is important that he acknowledges that the only basis for his posting was the statement from the Sprague book.

Now on to John.  John, I have repeatedly said that I have the greatest respect for your web-site.  It is a marvelous educational tool.  And although I disagree with most of your political positions, some of your postings are very astute and insightful.

That being said, I find it quite amazing that you should expect me to apologize.  In my opinion, you have every much legal responsibility as the editor of a print medium to prevent the publication of libel.  To state that someone was involved in a conspiracy to murder that resulted in the crippling of an individual is about as libelous as one can get.  From Shanet's posting, it is now evident that the only basis he had for associating me with the attempted Wallace assasination was the statement from the Sprague book.  In my opinion, I believe that you should have immediately deleted Shannon's statement that I was "at the center" of the Bremer attack on Wallace until you determined what basis if any he had for saying that.  Once you determined he had no basis, you should have left the post deleted.

Let me say for the umpteenth time you do not know what IF ANYTHING Turner said.  All you have is a statement from sprague that contains no reference to anything.  As a historian, you should know the standards: he should have cited to either a book, an article, or even to an interview with Turner (identified by date).For all you know, Turner just manufactured the allegation.

You say you find my explanation less than convincing.  All this does is further outrage me.  Let me make this perfectly clear:  I'd never even heard of Bremer before he shot Wallace; my last dealing with anyone from CREEP was when Ulasewicz interviewed me about Segretti.  I asume you have the date of the interview from Ulasewicz's book.  How can my denial be more absolute than that?

Let me point out that it was at least two months after you posted Sprague's book and said how wonderful it was that you noted the comment about me and Bremer.  It seems rather clear you had not even read the entire book for which you were so fulsome in its praise.

I found your statement that you run this forum "to allow members to discuss attempts by governments to mislead their citizens" most curious.  Talk about an agenda.  Perhaps I was wrong; I thought the purpose of the Forum was to attempt to discover who killed Kennedy.

Until you discover anything else (which of course you never will) I think I am entitled to a statement from you that despite the statement in Sprague's book, which you are unable to verify and is unreferenced, you are aware of no evidence to associate me in any way either with Arthur Bremer or with the attempt on the life of George Wallace.  Forget (for the time being) the law.  I think old fashioned morality and decency requires you to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I found your statement that you run this forum "to allow members to discuss attempts by governments to mislead their citizens" most curious. Talk about an agenda. Perhaps I was wrong; I thought the purpose of the Forum was to attempt to discover who killed Kennedy."

But, I thought that's exactly what "the attempt to discover who killed Kennedy", is all about, Tim. "An attempt by our government to mislead its citizens."

I knew that when I was 19 years old.

Sorry, but I'm going to miss Shanet around here, big time.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Terry Mauro

[Tim Gratz]

Terry, perhaps John's choice of words was wrong.

We all agree there was a cover-up.

But the real purpose of the Forum is not to discuss the cover-up but rather to try to determine who killed Kennedy. Who orchestrated the cover-up and why may have some bearing on the ultimate question of who killed Kennedy but we ought always keep our eye on the ultimate question.

[John Simkin]

Terry, perhaps John's choice of words was wrong.

We all agree there was a cover-up.

But the real purpose of the Forum is not to discuss the cover-up but rather to try to determine who killed Kennedy.  Who orchestrated the cover-up and why may have some bearing on the ultimate question of who killed Kennedy but we ought always keep our eye on the ultimate question.

Another example of your arrogance. How can you be as stupid enough to tell me why I set the Forum up. Don’t you think I know why I did it? You only have to take a look at all my postings to see that I am not only concerned with the JFK assassination. This is not some sort of parlour game we are playing here (even though you constantly try to turn it into one). This Forum is about exposing the lies of our governments (all governments). It is an attempt to use the web to reveal the way the conventional media misinforms the public. Therefore my interest in Operation Mockingbird and other government disinformation campaigns. Why I constantly plod away at the activities of the CIA and M15. Why I am interested in exposing the lies they told us about Iraq and how and why governments do deals with corrupt governments in places like Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. It is also about exposing the corrupt actions of people like Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Tony Blair and yes, even John F. Kennedy.

The one reason I did not set this Forum up was to allow it to be used as a cheer leader for any particular political party. That appears to be the way you choose to use the Forum and that is why members become so hostile to you. It is inappropriate to use it in this way. It is also a very ineffective tool for this because people are not passive viewers (unlike with conventional media such as newspapers, radio, television, etc.). It therefore is a terrible place to promote party propaganda . People will argue with you. They will expose the weaknesses of your arguments. The Republican Party controls a great deal of these media outlets in the US. They don’t need this Forum. In fact, this Forum can only harm it. Take my advice, stick to those means of communications you can control.