Tim Gratz Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 (edited) Has Hunt ever taken a public position on the assassination? Do we know if he claims to believe that LHO was a LN; if he claims to suspect Cuban or Soviet involvement (as Angleton clearly did); or if he subscribes to any other theory? Edited August 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Gallagher-Driscoll Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Hi Carrie, I'm very much interested in the statement you made in your bio, specifically that you are personal friends with Marina. In your post above, you mention "if people haven't told the truth by now...". What's your take on Marina? As you know, so many researchers think she feared for her life, was pressured into making statements, etc, yet she has essentially maintained her story over the years, specifically about the Walker shooting, the backyard photos, seeing LHO cleaning the Mannlicher Carcano, taking it out under a raincoat to practice with, etc, etc. She wrote the ARRB when they wanted her permission to get LHO's tax records released, told them that she wanted certain FBI records released, but wouldn't give them what they wanted unless she got what she wanted. Stalemate. IMO she needs to submit to a polygraph to clear up some very important misconceptions. To coin a phrase, what does she know and when did she know it? RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I believe that Marina was a Russian immigrant wife who didn't know her husband as well as she should have because he hid things from her. I also know that she she has changed her opinion about whether she believed Lee did it. As for the backyard photos- she has maintained her former position with me. I will also point out that it is rude to say SHE needs to submit to a polygraph. Why? As I asked before- would you believe her would you just say that they are only 75% accurate and therefore inadmissable in court? Would youd ecide that tehrefore, the polygraph was a moot point? BEsides, I really believe that Marina doesn't know anything. She's striving for information just like you are. She even went so far as to support and cooperate with a group of high school students in the mid 90's to try to get files. I think that with Marina- every one is barking up the wrong tree. -Carrie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 (edited) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I will also point out that it is rude to say SHE needs to submit to a polygraph. Why? As I asked before- would you believe her would you just say that they are only 75% accurate and therefore inadmissable in court? Would youd ecide that tehrefore, the polygraph was a moot point? BEsides, I really believe that Marina doesn't know anything. She's striving for information just like you are. She even went so far as to support and cooperate with a group of high school students in the mid 90's to try to get files. I think that with Marina- every one is barking up the wrong tree. -Carrie <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Rude to suggest Marina take a polygraph? I'm not suggesting she was involved or "knows something". Did she take the backyard photos as she said, or were they faked as nearly every single CT thinks? Did she see Lee carry the rifle out under a raincoat as she said? Some CTs think Lee never ordered the rifle, and never possessed it. Did Lee tell Marina he took that shot at Walker? Most CTs don't think he did. Lee told Marina he buried the rifle. Did he really tell her that? Most CTs think that's absurd. Marina was the closest person in the world to Lee Harvey Oswald, and it is not barking up the wrong tree to verify if what she said was true. She saw things in their everyday life that have been disputed for years. Do you believe the backyard photos were faked? If you do, then Marina lied about taking them, for whatever reason, pure and simple. Personally I think she did take them, and if she did, then they're not fakes, and every CT who believes they're fake is wrong. Inquiring minds want to know. Regarding the polygraph, from Advanced Research Inc: "While the polygraph technique is not infallible, research clearly indicates that when administered by a competent examiner, the polygraph test is one of the most accurate means available to determine truth and deception. Most available statistics report the accuracy as 87% - 95%, which does not include inconclusive test results. Most examiners do not consider an "inconclusive" result as erroneous. Inconclusive results are frequently the result of subdued physiological responses caused by fatigue, lack of sleep or the presence of drugs (legal or otherwise) in the system." http://www.advsearch.com/lie.htm I would believe anything Marina said if she passed a polygraph test. RJS Edited August 20, 2005 by Richard J. Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Gallagher-Driscoll Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 OK... I will apologize for my tone. Yes, I do believe Marina took the photos. Yes, I Marina was told Lee took a show at Walker. Though, after all these years I do believe that the Walker incident has nothing to do with it. That's the problem with all of us researchers (yes, myself included). We spread ourselves so thin, ask so many questions, and try to link so many things that we don't have a clue. We never have. We leave important things alone. And, yes, I think it's rude to even suggest Marina take a polygraph. You're telling everyone on this forum that she's a xxxx. Why would you believe her when she told teh truth it she wrote it on your forehead? All it would do is give vent to more speculation and more accusations. Someone, somewhere would decide that the the polygraph administrator was bought off, Marina was trained in Russia as a double agent to be able to beat it, the questions were phrased wrong, the results were altered. Who knows what ludicrous notions would be brought to the surface. I appreciate everyone's desire for the truth. I really do. But I think certain people need to step back onto the other side of the looking glass. Things look clearer from here. -C Rude to suggest Marina take a polygraph? I'm not suggesting she was involved or "knows something". Did she take the backyard photos as she said, or were they faked as nearly every single CT thinks? Did she see Lee carry the rifle out under a raincoat as she said? Some CTs think Lee never ordered the rifle, and never possessed it. Did Lee tell Marina he took that shot at Walker? Most CTs don't think he did. Lee told Marina he buried the rifle. Did he really tell her that? Most CTs think that's absurd. Marina was the closest person in the world to Lee Harvey Oswald, and it is not barking up the wrong tree to verify if what she said was true. She saw things in their everyday life that have been disputed for years. Do you believe the backyard photos were faked? If you do, then Marina lied about taking them, for whatever reason, pure and simple. Personally I think she did take them, and if she did, then they're not fakes, and every CT who believes they're fake is wrong. Inquiring minds want to know. Regarding the polygraph, from Advanced Research Inc: "While the polygraph technique is not infallible, research clearly indicates that when administered by a competent examiner, the polygraph test is one of the most accurate means available to determine truth and deception. Most available statistics report the accuracy as 87% - 95%, which does not include inconclusive test results. Most examiners do not consider an "inconclusive" result as erroneous. Inconclusive results are frequently the result of subdued physiological responses caused by fatigue, lack of sleep or the presence of drugs (legal or otherwise) in the system." http://www.advsearch.com/lie.htm I would believe anything Marina said if she passed a polygraph test. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I agree with Richard Smith that polygraphs are generally reliable. I think any available witness with key information ought to be requested to take a ploygraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Dawn wrote (re Robert Tannenbaum as a possible investigator): He would be excellent. Had the press not gotten rid of Sprague he'd have been able to do his job. (With its hatchet jobs, leading to the fued with Gonzalez). Tannenbaum retains his interest in the assassination. I notice he participated in the "Wecht conference" in Philadelphia last November. I know Mr. Wexler also did. Is any Forum member in contact with Mr. Tannenbaum by chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Wilkinson Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Like Pat, I would also ask Caroline to have the body exhumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Dawn wrote (re Robert Tannenbaum as a possible investigator):He would be excellent. Had the press not gotten rid of Sprague he'd have been able to do his job. (With its hatchet jobs, leading to the fued with Gonzalez). Tannenbaum retains his interest in the assassination. I notice he participated in the "Wecht conference" in Philadelphia last November. I know Mr. Wexler also did. Is any Forum member in contact with Mr. Tannenbaum by chance? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, I tried contacting him by email about a year ago, and got no response. Here's a good interview with him. http://www.jfk-info.com/pr796.htm RJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Thanks, Richard. I wonder if he is going to attend any of the assassination conferences this year? It would also be interesting to contact him re a statement he made about Diosdado working with Veciana (see the "Diosdado" thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 [quote=Tim Gratz,Aug 21 2005, 11:47 AM] Thanks, Richard. I wonder if he is going to attend any of the assassination conferences this year? I would be very surprised, I have not seen his name on the list of speakers in several years. I did not go to the one Wecht had in PA, so don't know if he spoke, (but I will find out). I half-way expected TIm to try to contradict me on what happened to Sprague....but now we have it in Tanenbaum's own words too. If we could not get the HSCA to give us the truth, I don't see how we could accomplish a new investigation. It took people, the early researchers, and the few members of Congress who truly wanted TRUTH NO MATTER WHERE IT LEAD to get HSCA. And it was an evolution: (Sen. Schweiker, keep in mind, had with Gary Hart, investigated CIA abuses, under Sen Church's Committee. Church and Schweiker were ONTO it. ) But powers ABOVE the Congress did not want truth, so we got, under Blakey, a rerun of the WC. Oh there was that great headline just about New Years' Day 78 (79 forget which year) that HSCA found "conspiracy", but when that is analyzed it was: LHO, with the MBT and a second LN who "missed" on the GK. The government is NOT EVER going to tell us the truth. This investigation has progressed as far as it has due to the efforts of individual citizens who ARE interested in finding truth and justice. Sadly the critical community has been infiltrated from the beginning with what Jim Garrison once called "CIA whores". Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Martin Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 It seems wrong to care about investigating after losing such a great friend, but.. Does anyone think Fink, Boswell, & Humes are worth talking to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Dawn, as I understand it, what happened to Sprague was that he got into a huge acrimonious dispute with Congressman Gonzales. The compromise which was reached was that Gonzales was replaced as chairman of ther committee and Sprague was also replaced. I know that the other Sprague argues that some mysterios power control group somehow brainwashed Gonzales into the fight with Sprague but this seems facially absurd. Sometimes there are just personality conflicts and if the chief staff member cannot get along with the committee chairman, usually it will be the staff member that has to go. That is simple politics. So ironically it was Sprague's clash with Gonzales that ultimately led to his dismissal. I say ironically because it is at least possible that the views of Gonzales and Sprague on the assassination may not have been all that dissimilar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Does anyone think Fink, Boswell, & Humes are worth talking to? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Nic, Humes died in 1999, Finck lives in Switzerland. For an insight into these guys, read the interviews by William Law in In the Eye of History. Finck, in his 1996 ARRB deposition, said "I don't know" and "I don't recall" so many times it was ridiculous. He did, however, make a rather groundbreaking comment about how the back wound was located by using the mastoid process as a starting point: May 24, 1996, ARRB deposition of Dr Finck: Q: Was there any procedure, for example, that should have been performed that was not performed? A: The removal of the organs of the neck. In my training we were trained to remove the organs of the neck. And in this particular case, they were not removed. Q: Isn't that particularly important in the autopsy of President Kennedy in the sense that there is believed to have been a wound that went through the neck? A: Yes. Q: And isn't it important in a medical/legal autopsy to be able to track the course of a bullet through the body? A: Yes. Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy, did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet - A: Yes. Q: - that you referred to as the upper back? A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember. Q: What kind of probe did you use? A: I don't remember. Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies? A: A non-metallic probe. Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body? A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember. Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed? A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful. That's all I can remember. Q: My question is did you find any evidence during the course of the autopsy that would link the wound in the upper back to the exit wound in the throat? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you recall anyone during the course of the autopsy suggesting that the bullet wound in the upper back might have exited from the throat? A: I don't remember. Q: Dr. Finck, are you familiar with the term "fixed body landmark"? A: Yes. Q: For example, would the midline in the cranium be considered to be a fixed body landmark? A: No. Q: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity; would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process? A: No. Q: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity. A: An immobile bony structure is a fixed body landmark. Q: Well, for the identification of the location of a wound in the thoracic cavity - A: Thoracic cavity. Q: - is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark? A: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move. Q: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say? A: Yes. Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you a document that has been marked as Exhibit 6, and I would like to ask you whether you have ever seen the document marked Exhibit 6? [Handing document to witness] MR. GUNN: I will state for the record that Exhibit 6 appears on its face to be a certificate of death, signed it appears by Rear Admiral George Gregory Burkley, dated November 23rd, 1963. [Witness perusing document] BY MR. GUNN: Q: Again, my question to you, Dr. Finck, is whether you previously have seen the document before that is now marked Exhibit 6? A: I don't remember. Q: Do you know who George Burkley was? A: Physician to the President. Yes, I recall now that I see this. Q: Do you recall whether Admiral Burkley was in the autopsy room at the night of the autopsy of President Kennedy? A: I think he was. Q: I would like to draw your attention to the second page of the document, the fourth line down. Do you see the reference there to the third thoracic vertebra? A: I do. Q: For the purpose of locating a wound in the back, would the third thoracic vertebra be considered to be a fixed body landmark? A: Yes. Q: Was Dr. Burkley correct in identifying the posterior back wound as being at the level of the third thoracic vertebra? A: I don't know. Q: Did you make any attempt during the night of the autopsy to locate the upper back entry wound with any vertebra? A: I don't recall. Q: Is there any reason that you would not have attempted to locate the back wound in connection with a vertebra? A: No. Boswell is described an in an interview with Harold Rydberg In the Eye of History as the one who might "crack" someday, being the "weak link". Recall that at the HSCA, Boswell moved the back wound on the autopsy face sheet to the back of the neck. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md159_0001a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Martin Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 Does anyone think Fink, Boswell, & Humes are worth talking to? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Nic, Humes died in 1999, Finck lives in Switzerland. For an insight into these guys, read the interviews by William Law in In the Eye of History. [snip] Boswell is described an in an interview with Harold Rydberg In the Eye of History as the one who might "crack" someday, being the "weak link". Recall that at the HSCA, Boswell moved the back wound on the autopsy face sheet to the back of the neck. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md159_0001a.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't know Humes had died.. That explains why the phone # I had didn't work, then. Thanks. :] I have Finck's address, as well as Boswell's. I might consider writing a letter, then.. Definitely to Humes. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) I believe a letter to Humes would end up in the...ahem..."dead letter office." Edited August 25, 2005 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now