Jump to content

John Armstrong [Hold the Harvey and Lee?]


Recommended Posts

Mr. Carroll can correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be at odds with his earlier statement: "I see no reason to doubt Helen Markham's overall account of the Tippit shooting, which she witnessed with her own eyes. No other witness contradicts her basic story and she was corroborated by other witnesses and by circumstantial evidence....."

Mike Hogan

I would draw a distinction between "eyewitness identifications of total strangers" and eyewitness testimony in general.

Because eyewitness identication of total strangers is so unreliable, as is documented in the psychological literature, as well as in the cases of convicted people proven innocent, I give zero credence to the witnesses who subsequently claimed to have seen Lee Oswald with Jack Ruby. If you want to believe them, be my guest. But please tell me how many of them has ever testified to this identification under penalty of perjury?

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

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Carroll wrote:

I give zero credence to the witnesses who subsequently claimed to have seen Lee Oswald with Jack Ruby. If you want to believe them, be my guest.

That's very gracious of you, sarcasm notwithstanding. Nowhere in any of my posts did I indicate I believed anyone's account. In fact I wrote: "As for myself, I just don't know if Oswald and Ruby ever met each other. I admit that there is a good chance that they didn't. However, in my own mind, I believe the possibility exists."

Mr. Carroll also wrote:

But please tell me how many of them has ever testified to this identification under penalty of perjury?

Is this your litmus test of veracity? The people that testified to the Warren Commission were not subject to the penalty of perjury. Nor were the people who gave statements to the FBI. Do you summarily dismiss everyone's account using the same criteria?

You choose to believe Helen Markham. Please tell me if she ever testified in a court of law.

Allow me to reciprocate. If you see no reason to doubt Helen Markham's overall account of the Tippit shooting, if you believe no other witness contradicted her basic story, and that she was corroborated by other witnesses....Please, be MY guest.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll also wrote:

But please tell me how many of them has ever testified to this identification under penalty of perjury?

Is this your litmus test of veracity? The people that testified to the Warren Commission were not subject to the penalty of perjury.

People are more likely to be conscientious when they are under penalty of perjury. Every witness before the Warren Commission was under penalty of perjury, with the exception of Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson, who refused to take an oath to tell the truth.

You choose to believe Helen Markham. Please tell me if she ever testified in a court of law.

I said I did not believe her identification of Lee Oswald, though not really because of any fault on her part. I do not know if Helen Markham ever testified in a court of law, but if she did I know of no reason to doubt that she would tell the truth to the best of her ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll also wrote:

But please tell me how many of them has ever testified to this identification under penalty of perjury?

Is this your litmus test of veracity? The people that testified to the Warren Commission were not subject to the penalty of perjury.

People are more likely to be conscientious when they are under penalty of perjury. Every witness before the Warren Commission was under penalty of perjury, with the exception of Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson, who refused to take an oath to tell the truth.

You choose to believe Helen Markham. Please tell me if she ever testified in a court of law.

I said I did not believe her identification of Lee Oswald, though not really because of any fault on her part. I do not know if Helen Markham ever testified in a court of law, but if she did I know of no reason to doubt that she would tell the truth to the best of her ability.

Silly I'm sure, but I have to ask. Were LBJ and the First Lady asked to be sworn in, and actually said no, or was this a courtesy offerd them because of their position(s).

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly I'm sure, but I have to ask. Were LBJ and the First Lady asked to be sworn in, and actually said no, or was this a courtesy offerd them because of their position(s).

Terry

Not silly at all. LBJ controlled the establishment of the Warren Commission, and the Who What When of their investigation. By not testifying under oath, this was just one more way for LBJ to show the world his complete and utter contempt for the laws of God and Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll gallantly wrote:

If Robert's post gives an accurate picture, it seems that Armstrong has joined the chorus of those who cast aspersions on Marina Oswald Porter, one of the victims of the horrible events of November 22nd, 1963. I had the privilege of meeting Marina, a very lovely and charming human being. Of course Marina is a woman, with all the obstinacy and contrariness that comes with the territory, but for any man to suggest that there is something sinister about Marina -- it makes me wish that duelling was still legal. (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Carroll also wrote:

People are more likely to be conscientious when they are under penalty of perjury. Every witness before the Warren Commission was under penalty of perjury....... (emphasis mine)

In a Warren Commission memorandum, Norman Redlich wrote:

Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world. (Emphasis mine)

This first two quotes above are from the person that told John Simkin (in another thread):

You guys should do some research instead of watching movies.

And from the person that told Owen Parson:

I am not certain that you are yet capable of knowing what a fact is, even when it stares you in the face.

And also to Owen:

But speaking of outward appearances, you must admit that Lynn (Foster) appears to be quite a cute little number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a Warren Commission memorandum, Norman Redlich wrote:

Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world. (Emphasis mine)

Nice of Mr. Hogan to quote from the gospel according to Norman Redlich, but I submit that it would be closer to the truth to say that the FBI, the Secret Service and the Commission lied repeatedly to Marina Oswald on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALthough in his final chapter, Epstein declares for Oswald as a lonely gunman,

those of us who have read LEGEND know the immense importance

of Marina Oswald to her Cold War counter intelligence program handlers.

Another thread today directly claims that George DeMorenschildt was

an agent of George Herbert Walker Bush in the 1960-63 period.

Apparently DeMorenschildt was primary handler for Marina Oswald the "In Place"

Soviet defector .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a Warren Commission memorandum, Norman Redlich wrote:

Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world. (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Carroll responded:

"Nice of Mr. Hogan to quote from the gospel according to Norman Redlich, but I submit that it would be closer to the truth to say that the FBI, the Secret Service and the Commission lied repeatedly to Marina Oswald on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world."

In Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher wrote:

As already mentioned, it (The Warren Commission) relied on Marina Oswald and Helen Markham, both of whom became flagrantly ensnarled in self-contradiction, if not outright falsification.

Meagher's book is rife with documented contradictions and impossibilities in Marina Oswald's testimony.

From Edward Jay Epstein's Inquest:

The Commission hearings began on February 3 with the testimony of Marina Oswald. For the first four days of the Commission's hearings J. Lee Rankin respectfully and patiently questioned Mrs. Oswald about all aspects of Oswald's life. Her answers did not completely satisfy the staff.

At the next staff meeting, on about February 6, some of the lawyers requested that Marina Oswald be questioned further. Rankin, however, announced that the Commission had decided they believed her and that there would be no further questioning of her. The announcement precipitated a heated argument in which one prominent lawyer threatened to resign unless Mrs Oswald was cross-examined. Rankin reportedly "lost control" of the meeting, and there were few formal staff meetings held after this one.

and:

On September 4 the galley proofs of the final draft were circulated among the Commission and staff for final comments. Two days later Wesley Liebler submitted a twenty-six page memorandum attacking the key chapter involving the identity of the assassin. The chapter had to be revised.

On September 7 Commissioners Russell, Cooper, and Boggs went to Dallas to re-exmine Marina Oswald. Under Senator Russell's rigorous questioning, she changed major aspects of her story and altered her previous testimony. (Emphasis mine) More rewriting was necessitated.

And Harold Weisberg in Selections from Whitewash wrote:

Like the devil with the Scriptures, Marina can be quoted from some official source on almost any side of any question, with almost any interpretation of any meaning of events, those occurrences she was in and not aware of, did not observe or participate in, did and did not see, understood and did not understand.

This presented a considerable problem to the Commission's staff. How could they use what Marina said if she said almost everything and everything about every topic?

The solution was of admirable simplicity. In that September hearing Marina said that previously she had been lying. (Emphasis mine) Then she had not been under oath, but now she was sworn. The mature and sophisticated members of the Commission swallowed this whole.

Mr. Carroll impugns Redlich's motives, when it was Redlich that selected the most damaging (and false) parts of Marina Oswald's testimony to try and prove Oswald was a lone assassin. Mr. Carroll has demonstrated a distinct unfamiliarity with the facts of Mrs. Oswald's testimony, yet he is so quick to accuse people (in another thread) like John Simkin and Owen Parson who obviously know more about the Kennedy assassination then he does. Both Owen and John don't need me to defend them, the posts speak for themselves.

In that thread, Mr. Carroll, after a "quick reading" of A Farewell to Justice, disparages the credentials of Dick Russell, Cyril Wecht, Jim Hougan, and Gaeton Fonzi by the simple dismissive that they are supporters of Garrison.

In his efforts to cling to the statement that he wishes he could duel any man (maybe those Mr. Carroll deems to be a "cute little number" get a free pass) that "suggests there is something sinister about Marina," Mr. Carroll stubbornly avoids the written record of her testimony.

I suppose Mr. Carroll will also find a way to disparage the conclusions of Meagher, Epstein, and Weisberg and their characterizations of the conflicting nature of Marina Oswald's testimony. They certainly won't be around for him to duel.

In these and other threads I continuously see Mr. Carroll employ sarcasm, make empty assertions, castigate others, avoid issues, and generally bring no evidence to the table.

Mr. Carroll's attempt to pull rank (as he put it) on Owen and refer to his first law degree in 1971 as means for proving his points means nothing. Showing maturity beyond his years, Owen refused to even respond to such a sophomoric attempt. It's clear to me who knows more about the facts of this case and it isn't Mr. Carroll.

Mr. Carroll deems himself an authority and the final word on so much that he knows so little about.

If Mr. Carroll chooses to reply to this, I expect yet another post that selectively avoids the issues raised. Of course I realized from the beginning that is probably what would happen. I should have known better than to get engaged in a debate.

Mike Hogan

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Mr. Carroll chooses to reply to this, I expect yet another post that selectively avoids the issues raised.

Mike Hogan

I'm not entirely sure what "issues" are raised in Mr. Hogan's post, since he simply rambles in various directions, with no particular end in sight other than to denigrate me personally -- which is all very well because that reveals more about Mr. Hogan's mental processes than it does about me or what I know (or have forgotten) about the assassination of JFK.

But what troubles me is the brutality inherent in Mr. Hogan's attacks upon an innocent person who was victimised first by the assassins who killed JFK and her husband, then by the enormously callous forces of the Federal Government , and now, it seems, even some researchers on this forum can't wait to throw stones at her.

Mr. Hogan, do you really think that throwing stones at a helpless and innocent woman will make you some kind of hero? Would you like to add some insults to her children also, assuming you think they would not be sufficiently insulted if they had the misfortune to read the remarks you have already posted on this forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll wrote:

But what troubles me is the brutality inherent in Mr. Hogan's attacks upon an innocent person.

Mr. Hogan, do you really think that throwing stones at a helpless and innocent woman will make you some

kind of hero?

Would you like to add some insults to her children also.....?

Mr. Carroll professes to be an attorney, yet cites not one example of the above charges. My comments about Marina Oswald were confined to what others had written 40 years ago. Once again, his posts are marked by lack of substance, and in this case, intellectual dishonesty.

I'll leave it to other Forum members to "evaluate my mental processes," as Mr. Carroll claims to be able to do. Whatever Mr. Carroll thinks of them is of little consequence to me.

Mike Hogan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments about Marina Oswald were confined to what others had written 40 years ago. Once again, his posts are marked by lack of substance, and in this case, intellectual dishonesty.

Mike Hogan

Mr. Hogan, if you have nothing to contribute beyond regurgitating what others had written 40 years ago, then you really don't have a helluva whole lot to contribute to this inquiry, now do you?

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

Getting you so pissed off that you made less and less sense each post was too easy. All I had to do was post facts.

If you have posted a single fact on this thread, Mr. Hogan, then I am afraid I missed it. Of course I am quite certain that if I DID miss it, I did not miss much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of these combatants appears to personally know Mrs. Porter nor

have talked to her.

Mrs. Porter now is very different from the 1960s Marina. She made choices

and decisions then that I think she now regrets. I believe she is glad to

to have been given a "second chance" to overcome past mistakes. She

has a new life and new family.

She is personally attractive and intelligent...except for being an endless

chain smoker.

I talked to her in person for more than an hour, plus several long phone

conversations.

After seeing my slide presentation on the MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY

OSWALD, she said to me..."I don't really know now which Oswald I was

married to."

There is no question in 2006 that...

...Marina in Russia had an association with intelligence

...Marina's association with LHO was an "assignment"

...because of her position in the assassination, she necessarily lied or

did as she was told, out of fear

...she believes that the "Lee" she knew was innocent.

Despite her provable lies, I find her a very sympathic figure.She was a

victim of circumstances.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
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...