I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

To all the CTs here:

The evidence against LHO is very well known and is as solid today as it was in 1963. If LHO had gone to trial, he would have been convicted very quickly. And by the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" he was guilty. We know this because the Dallas Police built a solid case against him. Later, the WC, using the FBI as their investigatory arm, again built a solid case. In this instance, the WC inquiry was a fact-finding body and not a trial. But common sense tells us that the evidence would be more than enough for conviction had it been a legal proceeding. The HSCA again confirmed the WC if you discount the acoustics evidence, which most do at this point in time.

Now, if you want to hold the evidence to some impossible standard and say for instance that each and every piece of information and document etc. (which number in the millions) must point to exactly the same conclusion before LHO can be declared guilty, you are free to do that. But professional investigators know that not all evidence will point in the same direction. In this case, you have earwitnesses that differ for example (and other evidence of course). But the preponderance of the evidence indicates LHO's guilt. And the majority of the media and academia agree.

We had a discussion of much of the evidence in this thread and I see no real purpose in continuing that here. My purpose in this thread is to call attention to what I believe is a good book by Fred Litwin. And the thesis of his book is greatly under represented in the assassination literature IMO.

[Rob Caprio]

To all the CTs here:

The evidence against LHO is very well known and is as solid today as it was in 1963.

No, the unsupported claims against LHO are well-known, but the evidence isn't. That is the problem as most people only hear the unsupported claims over and over again.

You wouldn't be so shy in citing the evidence IF you believed what you wrote.

If LHO had gone to trial, he would have been convicted very quickly.

This only your opinion and who knows what it is based on since you refuse to cite any evidence.

And by the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" he was guilty. We know this because the Dallas Police built a solid case against him.

Again, this is your opinion. They built such a solid case that you are afraid to cite any evidence.

The DPD lost control of the case and the evidence quickly and wouldn't have been able to convict LHO of jaywalking.

Later, the WC, using the FBI as their investigatory arm, again built a solid case. In this instance, the WC inquiry was a fact-finding body and not a trial. But common sense tells us that the evidence would be more than enough for conviction had it been a legal proceeding. The HSCA again confirmed the WC if you discount the acoustics evidence, which most do at this point in time.

LNers always appeal to "common sense" since they have NO supporting evidence. If they really had common sense they would recognize that they are supporting a theory that has no supporting evidence.

Now, if you want to hold the evidence to some impossible standard and say for instance that each and every piece of information and document etc. (which number in the millions) must point to exactly the same conclusion before LHO can be declared guilty, you are free to do that. But professional investigators know that not all evidence will point in the same direction. In this case, you have earwitnesses that differ for example (and other evidence of course). But the preponderance of the evidence indicates LHO's guilt. And the majority of the media and academia agree.

I guess expecting the evidence to actually support the claim that it is tied to is an "impossible standard" to the LNers.

We had a discussion of much of the evidence in this thread and I see no real purpose in continuing that here. My purpose in this thread is to call attention to what I believe is a good book by Fred Litwin. And the thesis of his book is greatly under represented in the assassination literature IMO.

You and the creator of this thread have failed to cite one piece of evidence that supports your claims. That says it all.

[Rob Caprio]

Garrison and Mark Lane are both dealt with in the book. Garrison's "investigation" was a major miscarriage of justice and he was eventually blocked from any further action against Shaw by a court decision. Minority witness statements do not trump the sniper's nest evidence which places LHO on the sixth floor as the shooter.

Why was it a miscarriage of justice? If it was, why wasn't Garrison sued or reprimanded?

[Fred Litwin]

Why was it a miscarriage of justice? If it was, why wasn't Garrison sued or reprimanded?

Why wasn't Garrison sued?  He was.  You don't know that?

Why wasn't he reprimanded?  He was. Judge Christenberry stopped his persecution of Shaw writing
that his "pending prosecution was brought in bad faith and that such bad faith constitutes irreparable injury
 which is great and immediate."

Had Shaw lived, he would have won his $5 million damage suit against Garrison.

[Steve Howsley]

If it was, why wasn't Garrison sued or reprimanded?

I can recommend a good book that might get you up to speed. It's called:

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Ray Mitcham]

"In a 1992 interview, Edward Haggerty, who was the judge at the Clay Shaw trial, stated: "I believe he [Shaw] was lying to the jury. Of course, the jury probably believed him. But I think Shaw put a good con job on the jury."

In On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison states that Shaw had an "...extensive international role as an employee of the CIA." In the September 1969 issue of Penthouse, Shaw denied that he had had any connection with the CIA.

During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America. Like Shaw, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS by the mid-1970s. In February 2003, the CIA released documents pertaining to an earlier inquiry from the Assassination Records Review Board about QKENCHANT, a CIA project used to provide security approvals on non-CIA personnel, that indicated Shaw had obtained a "five Agency" clearance in March 1949."

[W. Tracy Parnell]

No, the unsupported claims against LHO are well-known, but the evidence isn't. That is the problem as most people only hear the unsupported claims over and over again.

You wouldn't be so shy in citing the evidence IF you believed what you wrote.

Some people here are using the strategy that if you repeat something long enough, that the evidence against LHO is "unsupported", it becomes a fact. The Dallas police, the FBI and the HSCA didn't believe my "claims" were unsupported. As far as "citing" evidence, I have posted a link that lays out the case against LHO in a concise manner so that is unnecessary. Now, maybe you guys will get together and form a group that takes your "evidence" to the proper authorities and presents them with a unified theory. Oh that's right-you don't have one you're just fooling around on the Internet.

[Ray Mitcham]

"As recently as last May 2013, a writer named Donald H. Carpenter self-published a biography of Clay Shaw in which he repeats the disinformation that CIA utilized Shaw only for debriefings, as a ?source? of no greater importance than many others. A CIA document dated 1992 tells a different story. This document, issuing from CIA?s History Review Staff, or Historical Review Group, among its PROJFILES at once demolishes the defenders of Clay Shaw. Of course it begins with a disclaimer: Nothing was found in the records, CIA writes, ?that indicates any CIA role in the Kennedy assassination or assassination conspiracy (if there was one) or any CIA involvement with Oswald.?

                       CIA?s History Staff chief, J. Kenneth McDonald, then continues with this jaw dropping line: ?These records do reveal, however, that Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source until 1956.? The key words are ?highly paid? and ?contract.? Shaw may not have been a 9 to 5 ?employee,? but he certainly enjoyed a complex relationship with that Agency."