I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Tom Scully]

Lots of text there but couldn't actually work out the point you were making. Could you put it simply for me please?

Uhhhh....the crux of this is.... Joan Mellen first met Jim Garrison in 1969. She claimed she conducted 1200 interviews
in the course of authoring her book about Garrison.

In 2006, Joan Mellen participated in a Q&A with Rex Bradford. She named David Baldwin and his brother Edward
as the prominent CIA sponsored harrassers of Garrison and his investigation.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006.
......REX: I - I think -
JOAN: - when Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people.....

No author, not Bill Davy, not Ms. Mellen, nor Jim DiEugenio or even Zachary Sklar was aware the two Baldwin brothers
were actually first cousins of Garrison's wife. Clay Shaw biographer Donald Carpenter discovered a 1967 letter to Clay Shaw from David Baldwin informed Shaw of the cousin relationship and that David Baldwin was also Liz Ziegler Garrison's godfather. Clay Shaw did not disclose the Baldwin Garrison familial ties.

JFK: The Book of the Film : the Documented Screenplay - Page 348
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1557831270

Oliver Stone, ‎Zachary Sklar - 1992 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
The Book of the Film : the Documented Screenplay Oliver Stone, Zachary Sklar. name names. Isn't it a bit unfair of Lemann to ask Garrison to do what these governmental investigators could not do? He had a small staff, was forced to battle the .

Nicholas B Lemann attacked Garrison in print from 1974 to 1992 through the Harvard  Crimson,
Washington Post, GQ magazine, in his sworn statement responsive to the lawsuit by Perry Russo against Lemann's
publisher, GQ owner Conde Nast, and on Charley Rose's televised panel debating Oliver Stone's film.
Lemann broke a basic obligation of a journalist to inform his readers of his conflict of interest because of his family.

Obit of Jim Garrison's wife's father, naming Mrs. Harry Raworth as his sister. Mrs. Raworth was Adele Ziegler,
the mother of David and Edward Baldwin. I hope the last three images displayed below are self explanatory.:


Monte Lemann married widowed Mildred Lyons Crumb in 1947.

New Orleans, Mon Amour - AEI - American Enterprise Institute
http://www.aei.org/publication/new-orleans-mon-amour/
What?s really been happening since Hurricane Katrina? Tom Bethell, dismayed by media coverage, traveled back to the beautiful and tragic city where he once lived for a firsthand view. He found this story of rebirth.
Mar 23, 2007 - Tom Bethell, dismayed by media coverage, traveled back to the beautiful and .... Tommy Lemann, as he is called by nearly everyone, is a colorful figure ... the consumption of oysters now requires a trek into the French Quarter.
.....But as a preliminary step I paid a call on an old acquaintance, Thomas B. Lemann , a lawyer well known to the city?s establishment.....

Again, the point here is no one knows what happened between Garrison and the Baldwin brothers because no
one ever disclosed that the Baldwins were first cousins of  Garrison's wife. No one knows what actually happened,
as far as actual motive for arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw.

[Nicholas Turner]

So when I asked if you could put it more simply for me the answer was no. Oh well.

[Nicholas Turner]

Nothing is more outlandish than the SBT. I am not sure what evidence you are referring to since you have never cited it, but none of it supports the WC's claims.

The evidence doesn't support the WC's claims. My series shows this. Why does an UNSUPPORTED theory make the most sense to you? I really am curious.

We've been here before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

We've been her before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.

Don't worry Nicholas, Rob just enjoys saying there is no supporting evidence. He thinks if he repeats that often enough, it will become a fact. As you know, the reality is that we have the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits from the WC, the HSCA report and volumes, several books such as Reclaiming History and websites such as John McAdams' and David Von Pein. All of these lay out the case for LHO as a lone assassin.

Now, if Rob wants to disagree with all of this that is fine. If he wants to say there are certain things in the original material that actually argue against the LN theory, that is fine (and quite true). However, to say there is NO supporting evidence is just nonsense and hyperbole on his part. And before he starts, no I don't want to waste my time debating someone like him who is working from such a silly position-I have better things to do.

[Rob Caprio]

We've been her before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.

I am not trying to convince you either, but a person who believes in something should have no problem citing or naming the evidence or things that make them believe that way. You seem to be unable to, thus, you are most likely going on faith. For whatever reason you choose to believe that LHO did it alone. That is fine, but you can't expect others to just go along with you.

So you are just here to question those that are brave enough to actually cite the evidence unlike yourself. Got it.

[Rob Caprio]

Don't worry Nicholas, Rob just enjoys saying there is no supporting evidence. He thinks if he repeats that often enough, it will become a fact. As you know, the reality is that we have the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits from the WC, the HSCA report and volumes, several books such as Reclaiming History and websites such as John McAdams' and David Von Pein. All of these lay out the case for LHO as a lone assassin.

Nicholas, and you, should be worried as none of the evidence that you *mentioned* (and of course not cited) supports the claims of the WC. NONE. That is why the LNers have a phobia about citing it.

Heck, I couldn't even get the creator of this thread to cite one piece of evidence that caused his supposed conversion.

Now, if Rob wants to disagree with all of this that is fine. If he wants to say there are certain things in the original material that actually argue against the LN theory, that is fine (and quite true). However, to say there is NO supporting evidence is just nonsense and hyperbole on his part. And before he starts, no I don't want to waste my time debating someone like him who is working from such a silly position-I have better things to do.

And you, and the other LNers, prove my point every time you run from citing the evidence. Only people who realize that the evidence does NOT support the WC claims would display an aversion to citing it. For if it really did support their claims I am quite sure that you wouldn't stop citing it.

Thanks for proving my point.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Heck, I couldn't even get the creator of this thread to cite one piece of evidence that caused his supposed conversion.

The evidence that changed his mind was provided by the HSCA as my review indicates. It consisted of the authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays, the forensic pathology panel, the photographic panel, the study of ?earwitnesses?, the handwriting and fingerprint analysis, the Mannlicher-Carcano firing tests and the firearms panel. It is too voluminous to cite here and you are presumably familiar with it anyway.

[John Iacoletti]

Don't worry Nicholas, Rob just enjoys saying there is no supporting evidence. He thinks if he repeats that often enough, it will become a fact. As you know, the reality is that we have the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits from the WC, the HSCA report and volumes, several books such as Reclaiming History and websites such as John McAdams' and David Von Pein. All of these lay out the case for LHO as a lone assassin.

Yes, they all lay out a case.  But it's a case based on speculation and rhetoric.