Question: Do You Discount Everything About New Orleans?

[Dawn Meredith]

I M O,

Alot of us wouldn't be here today reading and adding to { or taking away from } this forum if not for the efforts of Jim Garrisson.

Garrisson was wondering through a castle with a candle while today we have spot lights and 20/20 hindsight vision. Without him i think the case would have faded away.

Sure some of you and others were on the case before Garrisson but with no venue. Garrisson and Stone have kept this case in front of the public and that is they're legacy.

I totally agree Jim.

Let's see just when another DA risks his

reprutation, his job and his very life to

try to crack the jfk assassination.

And bravo to Stone for making Garrison's

story. I LOVE that film!!!

Dawn

[Antti Hynonen]

Owen Parsons Posted May 30 2006, 03:33 PM

QUOTE(Pat Speer @ May 30 2006, 12:32 AM)

QUOTE(J. Raymond Carroll @ May 30 2006, 05:42 AM)

QUOTE(Owen Parsons @ May 30 2006, 05:34 AM)

The Nixon incident is invented out of whole cloth. Not even the Warren Commission wanted that one.

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you.

I don't remember where I read it (maybe the Warren Report itself) but I once read a thoughtful explanation of the Nixon "incident." The thoughtful conclusion was that Marina wasn't making the story up, but was confused about which Vice-President Oswald was talking about shooting. It was LBJ, who visited Texas earlier in 63 (or was it late 62?) and it was LBj that Oswald talked about killing. This brings up the interesting question: if the story is true and Oswald wanted to kill Johnson, why would he turn around and kill Kennedy, whom he liked, knowing that it would make Johnson president?

The Warren Commission did float this explanation, but Marina said "there is no question that in this incident it was a question of Mr. Nixon" (source) and later "Yes, no. I am getting confused with so many questions. I was absolutely convinced it was Nixon and now after all these questions I wonder if I am right in my mind" (source). Whether she did mistake Nixon for LBJ (and I don't believe this is the case), this still leaves the issue of Marina's two mutually exclusive stories about how she restrained Oswald. One of these was implausible, the other impossible (as Peter Dale Scott outlined in the link I posted).

Antti: The WC did indeed get its hands on the story, but found it of "no probative value" (source).

Dunn: I have read Shadow Play. It is indeed a valuable book.

Yes Owen, in my opinion, you hit the very essence of the entire thread, with the "no probative value" -quote.

Replying to Question: Do you discount Everything About New Orleans?

No, I do not.

The WC seemed to follow their given guidelines very carefully, which in essence was: Oswald is the guilty party, and he alone is guilty. Make sure the evidence and your investigation supports this, and only this.

So despite some controversy within the commission, the WC used the strategy of ignoring and eliminating all evidence which did not support Oswald's guilt. Jim Garrison and his investigation took a more thorough look, and took into account all the evidence, in particular the New Orleans aspect of a conspiracy. His investigation brought new life to the case, which remains usolved to this day. It also showed the severe flaws of the WC to the general public, and the need to carry forward from where he left off.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Antti Hynonen