Jump to content
The Education Forum

Armstrong on Oswald's Employment at Tujagues


Recommended Posts

Reposted from Propinquity: Oswald in NO 1954-1956 thread

what Armstrong has to say about Oswald's employment at Tujague's is very interesting. Keep in mind that Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that when he got out of the service he went to visit Lee and Marguerite:

Mr. Jenner: Did you visit your mother and your brother in New Orleans when you returned from the service in July of 1955?

Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; I did. I did not--yes, sir, it was in July 1955 when I made my first trip from Fort Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La. I had purchased a car the second day I was home from the service, a 1951 Chevrolet, and I drove it on the third day or the second night to New Orleans, La.

Mr. Jenner: Were your quarters in a hotel, or did you join your brother and mother?

Mr. Oswald: I joined my mother and brother.

Mr. Jenner: How long did you stay in New Orleans on that trip?

Mr. Oswald: Approximately 1 week.

Mr. Jenner: And you lived with your mother and brother?

Mr. Oswald: That's correct.

Mr. Jenner: That was in July of 1955?

Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; that's correct.

Mr. Jenner: He was not in school at that time.

Mr. Oswald: No, sir; he was not.

Mr. Jenner: Now, how did you find your brother, as to the state of health and state of mind?

Mr. Oswald: He seemed to be the same to me. He had joined at that time no, sir--he had not at that time been in the Civil Air Patrol. At that time Lee was working I believe for an export firm there in New Orleans. I do not know the name of it. I do not believe I ever heard the name of it. I might have. (Bold added) Mother was also working at that time.

Armstrong writes:

The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony and reported that Lee Harvey Oswald was not employed anywhere in the summer of 1955. They said that he entered the 10th grade at Warren Easton High School in September, dropped out shortly before his 16th birthday (October 18) and only then did he begin working at Tujagues's on November 10, 1955.

And guess what -- Marguerite said in testimony that then when he left school, as I told you, at age 16--the first job was

Tujague and Company...

The WC did not ignore Robert's testimony - they published it. Robert's memories were wrong in other areas, so it's no surprise he got this wrong, as well.

The Commission based their conclusions upon handwritten payroll records and time cards allegedly provided by Mr. Gerald F. Tujague, which could have been created by anyone, and offer no proof of Oswald's beginning or ending dates of employment. The Commission relied on these documents and made no attempt to locate verifiable records such as payroll checks, withholding tax statements, social security records, etc. Without verifiable records, as was the case with Oswald's employment at Dolly Shoe, we are left with only the memories of Tujague employees who knew Lee Oswald in order to learn the real dates of his employment.

But that work has since been, I believe, done by Doug Horne. Isn't it true that Armstrong's only rebuttal of Horne's work is that records must have been altered?

Armstrong traveled to New Orleans and met Frank DiBenedetto, long time employee and close friend of the company's founder, Gerald Tujague. Although not interviewed by the Warren Commission, DiBenedetto told the HSCA, "Oswald worked at Tujague's for a year to a year and a half." He remembered Oswald as well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair. When Armstrong met DiBenedetto, he had taken over the company which was still located at 442 Canal Street, in the same building and floor where Oswald had worked under DiBenedetto's supervision 40 years earlier.

I note the description of Oswald isn't in quotes. Was that part of what DiBenedetto told the HSCA, or is it what Armstrong managed to extract with leading questions?

DiBenedetto gave Armstrong the names of two living former Tujague employees, Gloria Callahan and Jimmy Hudnell who provided confirmation of DiBenedetto's recollections. Armstrong's complete study of Oswald's employment at Tujague's is extensive and beyond the scope of this post. However, this is part of Armstrong's conclusion:

New Orleans school records show that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton as a sophomore from September 8 thru October 10, 1955. But Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's collective memories place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956. Oswald's original employment records from Tujague's disappeared. Therefore, the statements of these people represent the best available evidence to establish the true beginning and ending dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujague's.

Have you ever considered checking what Armstrong claims the record shows to verify it? I ask, because clearly you haven't - otherwise you'd know that Lillian Murret made no such statement.

Here is the only relevant portion of her testimony:

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; and then the next I heard was when he came here, and he didn't want to go to school because he thought he already knew all that they had to teach him, so she must have allowed him to go to work for Tujague's, because he had a job as a runner, going from building to building, delivering messages and things like that.

Mr. JENNER - That was in 1955, would that be about right?

Mrs. MURRET - When he was here; yes.

Thus, what she actually does is confirm Marguerite's memory - not Robert's. Oswald left school in 1955 and started work at Tujagues. Nothing about starting there in July and still being there in '56. That's Armstrong's fantasy.

To make it appear as though one Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton and worked at Tujague's in the fall of 1955 certain records had to be altered and/or destroyed. The school records and memories of students and teachers who remembered (Harvey) Oswald at Warren Easton High School were numerous and irrefutable. But the dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujagues's were known only to a few people, and could be easily manipulated if the original records disappeared and were replaced with fabricated documents. (Armstrong provides extensive evidence of how he believes this was done)

Note: Whoever was responsible for destroying and fabricating Oswald's payroll records knew about the two Oswalds. (Bold added)

Utter nonsense. Why must records have been altered or destroyed? Because those that exist don't comport with this theory which relies so heavily on 30 and 40 year old memories - memories moreover, which have to be taken on faith as being untainted by leading questions, or other manipulations.

Mike, do yourself a favor. Toss all your books and do your own research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack White post Copied from the Propinquity: Oswald in NO thread

The mention of the research of John Armstrong IS NOT HIJACKING of the two

"Propinquity" threads.

Yes it is, no matter how much you scream it's not. That theory was not the subject of the thread.

That erudite word merely means KINSHIP.

Words can't be "erudite", Jack. And propinquity has more than one narrow meaning.

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : nearness of blood : kinship 2 : nearness in place or time : proximity

If you care to actually read what I wrote, it may just become clear to you which of those meanings I had in mind.

Talking of Lee Harvey Oswald as being A SINGLE PERSON is contrary to the

massive evidence of Armstrong,

Ya. Like the NYC school records which don't actually say what Armstrong says they do. Like his misrepresenting of Lillian Murret's testimony concerning Tujagues. Like his suggestion that the person in Bolton Ford incident gave his name as "Lee Oswald" - not just "Oswald". and on and on it goes.

And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?

which clearly shows TWO PERSONS using

that name. Were they KIN to each other? I doubt it.

Good for you. Too bad it's a theory built on misuse of evidence (to put it at its kindest).

Anyone who says mention of Armstrong is "hijacking the thread" is unfamiliar

with HARVEY & LEE.

Ahhh... there it is. Any thread whatsoever can be legitimately turned into a Harvey & Lee-athon and never be off-topic. So sayeth Jack.

Read it.

Send me a copy. My kids are running out of scribble paper.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could consider it as being "coincidental", however, it is nevertheless one of those EEI's when evaluation of the facts is considered.

The "Tujague" family as well as the "Claverie" family, came from the same area in France.

In fact, a female member of the Tujague was married to a male member of the Claverie family there.

Now, I therefore find it NOT coincidental that a descendent of the Claverie family of Louisiana (LHO) would easily find employment with the Tujague family of Louisiana as well.

Irrelevant as to whether or not they knew their exact family association, both families were of the French heredity which came to and settled south Louisiana and New Orleans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

current comments in blue

Reposted from Propinquity: Oswald in NO 1954-1956 thread
what Armstrong has to say about Oswald's employment at Tujague's is very interesting. Keep in mind that Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that when he got out of the service he went to visit Lee and Marguerite:

Mr. Jenner: Did you visit your mother and your brother in New Orleans when you returned from the service in July of 1955?

Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; I did. I did not--yes, sir, it was in July 1955 when I made my first trip from Fort Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La. I had purchased a car the second day I was home from the service, a 1951 Chevrolet, and I drove it on the third day or the second night to New Orleans, La.

Mr. Jenner: Were your quarters in a hotel, or did you join your brother and mother?

Mr. Oswald: I joined my mother and brother.

Mr. Jenner: How long did you stay in New Orleans on that trip?

Mr. Oswald: Approximately 1 week.

Mr. Jenner: And you lived with your mother and brother?

Mr. Oswald: That's correct.

Mr. Jenner: That was in July of 1955?

Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; that's correct.

Mr. Jenner: He was not in school at that time.

Mr. Oswald: No, sir; he was not.

Mr. Jenner: Now, how did you find your brother, as to the state of health and state of mind?

Mr. Oswald: He seemed to be the same to me. He had joined at that time no, sir--he had not at that time been in the Civil Air Patrol. At that time Lee was working I believe for an export firm there in New Orleans. I do not know the name of it. I do not believe I ever heard the name of it. I might have. (Bold added) Mother was also working at that time.

Armstrong writes:

The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony and reported that Lee Harvey Oswald was not employed anywhere in the summer of 1955. They said that he entered the 10th grade at Warren Easton High School in September, dropped out shortly before his 16th birthday (October 18) and only then did he begin working at Tujagues's on November 10, 1955.

And guess what -- Marguerite said in testimony that then when he left school, as I told you, at age 16--the first job was

Tujague and Company...

The WC did not ignore Robert's testimony - they published it. Robert's memories were wrong in other areas, so it's no surprise he got this wrong, as well.

The Commission based their conclusions upon handwritten payroll records and time cards allegedly provided by Mr. Gerald F. Tujague, which could have been created by anyone, and offer no proof of Oswald's beginning or ending dates of employment. The Commission relied on these documents and made no attempt to locate verifiable records such as payroll checks, withholding tax statements, social security records, etc. Without verifiable records, as was the case with Oswald's employment at Dolly Shoe, we are left with only the memories of Tujague employees who knew Lee Oswald in order to learn the real dates of his employment.

But that work has since been, I believe, done by Doug Horne. Isn't it true that Armstrong's only rebuttal of Horne's work is that records must have been altered?

The FBI did find proof that Oswald never worked at Tujague's longer than claimed by that company. They found he started work on Jan 17 1956 with JR Michels Inc located at the same address as Tujague's.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=15

Armstrong traveled to New Orleans and met Frank DiBenedetto, long time employee and close friend of the company's founder, Gerald Tujague. Although not interviewed by the Warren Commission, DiBenedetto told the HSCA, "Oswald worked at Tujague's for a year to a year and a half." He remembered Oswald as well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair. When Armstrong met DiBenedetto, he had taken over the company which was still located at 442 Canal Street, in the same building and floor where Oswald had worked under DiBenedetto's supervision 40 years earlier.

I note the description of Oswald isn't in quotes. Was that part of what DiBenedetto told the HSCA, or is it what Armstrong managed to extract with leading questions?

Under DiBenedetto's supervision? He told the FBI in '63 he had no direct contact with Oswald in or out of working hours.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=12

DiBenedetto gave Armstrong the names of two living former Tujague employees, Gloria Callahan and Jimmy Hudnell who provided confirmation of DiBenedetto's recollections. Armstrong's complete study of Oswald's employment at Tujague's is extensive and beyond the scope of this post. However, this is part of Armstrong's conclusion:

New Orleans school records show that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton as a sophomore from September 8 thru October 10, 1955. But Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's collective memories place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956. Oswald's original employment records from Tujague's disappeared. Therefore, the statements of these people represent the best available evidence to establish the true beginning and ending dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujague's.

Have you ever considered checking what Armstrong claims the record shows to verify it? I ask, because clearly you haven't - otherwise you'd know that Lillian Murret made no such statement.

Here is the only relevant portion of her testimony:

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; and then the next I heard was when he came here, and he didn't want to go to school because he thought he already knew all that they had to teach him, so she must have allowed him to go to work for Tujague's, because he had a job as a runner, going from building to building, delivering messages and things like that.

Mr. JENNER - That was in 1955, would that be about right?

Mrs. MURRET - When he was here; yes.

Thus, what she actually does is confirm Marguerite's memory - not Robert's. Oswald left school in 1955 and started work at Tujagues. Nothing about starting there in July and still being there in '56. That's Armstrong's fantasy.

To make it appear as though one Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton and worked at Tujague's in the fall of 1955 certain records had to be altered and/or destroyed. The school records and memories of students and teachers who remembered (Harvey) Oswald at Warren Easton High School were numerous and irrefutable. But the dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujagues's were known only to a few people, and could be easily manipulated if the original records disappeared and were replaced with fabricated documents. (Armstrong provides extensive evidence of how he believes this was done)

Note: Whoever was responsible for destroying and fabricating Oswald's payroll records knew about the two Oswalds. (Bold added)

Utter nonsense. Why must records have been altered or destroyed? Because those that exist don't comport with this theory which relies so heavily on 30 and 40 year old memories - memories moreover, which have to be taken on faith as being untainted by leading questions, or other manipulations.

Mike, do yourself a favor. Toss all your books and do your own research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence.

Doug Weldon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence.

Doug Weldon

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence.

Doug Weldon

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

Nothing more to add, Doug?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence.

Doug Weldon

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

Nothing more to add, Doug?

Doug,

When I posted that last comment, I was unaware that you are a lawyer. I fully understand now why you don't want to comment on a matter of conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence.

Doug Weldon

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

Nothing more to add, Doug?

Doug,

When I posted that last comment, I was unaware that you are a lawyer. I fully understand now why you don't want to comment on a matter of conflict.

Doug, when I made the above comment, I was being ironic (where did you learn irony btw, from Alanis Morrissette???).

You inserted yourself into this thread, and into the general debate in another thread, dispensing your words of wisdom. Unfortunately, here at least, you completely misunderstood what you were walking into.

Having walked into it and found an unpalatable truth, you are dealing with it by ignoring it, for surely, as a lawyer, you know full well that a conflict of interest was created; that the conflict was undeclared and; that Jack White has dealt with it by contradicting his original claims about his relationship to Kudlaty.

And that is not even going into the fact that none of Armstrong's supporters have attempted to deal with the evidence I posted showing Oswald started work with another company, albeit in the same building, on Jan 17, 1956, and that DiBenedetto originally claimed he had no direct contact with Oswald in or out of working hours. Some supervisor!

You have cast stones at others while ensconsing yourself in a house of glass. Interesting behavior.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence.

Doug Weldon

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

Nothing more to add, Doug?

Doug,

When I posted that last comment, I was unaware that you are a lawyer. I fully understand now why you don't want to comment on a matter of conflict.

Doug, when I made the above comment, I was being ironic (where did you learn irony btw, from Alanis Morrissette???).

You inserted yourself into this thread, and into the general debate in another thread, dispensing your words of wisdom. Unfortunately, here at least, you completely misunderstood what you were walking into.

Having walked into it and found an unpalatable truth, you are dealing with it by ignoring it, for surely, as a lawyer, you know full well that a conflict of interest was created; that the conflict was undeclared and; that Jack White has dealt with it by contradicting his original claims about his relationship to Kudlaty.

And that is not even going into the fact that none of Armstrong's supporters have attempted to deal with the evidence I posted showing Oswald started work with another company, albeit in the same building, on Jan 17, 1956, and that DiBenedetto originally claimed he had no direct contact with Oswald in or out of working hours. Some supervisor!

You have cast stones at others while ensconsing yourself in a house of glass. Interesting behavior.

Greg:

You are correct. I have not followed the thread. I do not mean to cast stones and hide behind anything. If I came across that way, I apologize. I have viewed a number of John's witnesses. I have tried to be clear that I don't agree with everything about John, some evidence I was not impressed by, but there were other things I found extremely interesting and important. I try to glance at a number of threads and sometimes it is easy to look at something out of context and perhaps make an observation that doesn't fit. Perhaps that is the case here. I have caught a lot of stones and I try to be very careful when throwing them,

My best,

Doug Weldon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but

he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past

sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas

school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never

posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance

of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas

before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John

and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas

which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge

of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements

are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several

interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"?

One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified

many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one)

of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking

at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the

Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know

all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview

of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without

knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot

discuss it intelligently.

I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not.

Jack

I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence.

Doug Weldon

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

Nothing more to add, Doug?

Doug,

When I posted that last comment, I was unaware that you are a lawyer. I fully understand now why you don't want to comment on a matter of conflict.

Doug, when I made the above comment, I was being ironic (where did you learn irony btw, from Alanis Morrissette???).

You inserted yourself into this thread, and into the general debate in another thread, dispensing your words of wisdom. Unfortunately, here at least, you completely misunderstood what you were walking into.

Having walked into it and found an unpalatable truth, you are dealing with it by ignoring it, for surely, as a lawyer, you know full well that a conflict of interest was created; that the conflict was undeclared and; that Jack White has dealt with it by contradicting his original claims about his relationship to Kudlaty.

And that is not even going into the fact that none of Armstrong's supporters have attempted to deal with the evidence I posted showing Oswald started work with another company, albeit in the same building, on Jan 17, 1956, and that DiBenedetto originally claimed he had no direct contact with Oswald in or out of working hours. Some supervisor!

You have cast stones at others while ensconsing yourself in a house of glass. Interesting behavior.

Greg:

You are correct. I have not followed the thread. I do not mean to cast stones and hide behind anything. If I came across that way, I apologize. I have viewed a number of John's witnesses. I have tried to be clear that I don't agree with everything about John, some evidence I was not impressed by, but there were other things I found extremely interesting and important. I try to glance at a number of threads and sometimes it is easy to look at something out of context and perhaps make an observation that doesn't fit. Perhaps that is the case here. I have caught a lot of stones and I try to be very careful when throwing them,

My best,

Doug Weldon

Greg:

However it fits I was impressed by Kudlaty. If you know Jack his principles are very high. Again, I will try and read the whole post.

Doug Weldon

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...