I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[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."

[John Iacoletti]

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.

What sniper's nest evidence places LHO on the sixth floor as the shooter?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

What sniper's nest evidence places LHO on the sixth floor as the shooter?

There you go again John, pretending evidence doesn't exist. I already posted a link to Von Pein's website where LHO's guilt is summarized. I think you are really aware of the evidence and I am likewise aware of the counter arguments which I reject. Anyway, the point here is to discuss Litwin's book and I think we have done that.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Cite the case.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

The "strategy" is to claim things and then never support them. That is the strategy of the WC defenders.

You are free to cite evidence anytime you wish, but you never do. Instead, like David Von Pein, you appeal to common sense and blame the other person for having an "impossible standard."

Everytime that you run from citing the evidence it becomes clearer that you support a false conclusion.

[Bill Chapman]

Ruby was told Oswald was being moved at 10ish....and where was this supposed CIA assassin...was he there to kill Oswald. No he was in his apartment etc. You know the rest.

There's a lot of confusion over the sightings of Oswald being in the lunchroom and the exact times etc. I haven't seen any 100% documentation or statements that place Oswald anywhere, either in the SN or in the lunchroom, at the time of the shots.

Pretty sure the volatile braggart Ruby wouldn't exactly be at the top of any CIA 'must have' list re choosing a hitter.

[Bill Chapman]

The "strategy" is to claim things and then never support them. That is the strategy of the WC defenders.

You are free to cite evidence anytime you wish, but you never do. Instead, like David Von Pein, you appeal to common sense and blame the other person for having an "impossible standard."

Everytime that you run from citing the evidence it becomes clearer that you support a false conclusion.

Give us an example...