Hugh Aynesworth...Solver of the Kennedy Assassination

[Jerry Freeman]

    From the March 1976 issue of the Texas Monthly...The Man Who Saw Too Much [William Broyles]
Right off the bat--Aynesworth "Broke the story on the whole entire Oswald escape plan"! Yup-- didn't need the FBI after all.
Scroll down to page 88 second column and we see ...
Lie..."Oswald's landlady told the Commission that she saw Oswald get on a bus."
Truth.. Oswald's housekeeper told the Commission that she last saw him waiting at the bus stop north of the rooming house.
Lie..."Then one year later she [the landlady still?] is saying she saw Oswald get into a police car."
Truth...Mrs Roberts [the housekeeper] always maintained that a police car had pulled up in front of the house and honked while Oswald was in his room.
Aynesworth states rather ironically that "people will say anything."
Un-necessary blurb..."one of Garrison's men" claims he "took Oswald into the woods, tied him to a tree, stripped him naked, and worshiped him".
I doubt if any Commission defender ever read a book by Jim Garrison especially Hugh Aynesworth who has claimed that Garrison invited him to come to the New Orleans inquiry and "compare notes" 
Of course Hugh Aynesworth is "One of the most respected authorities on the Kennedy assassination" for the same reason that Gary Mack came to be...a supporter of the Warren Report. If you don't support the official story..you don't know jack about it.
There could be only one reason that the law allowed Aynesworth to have gone into the Texas Theater with them [if that is what really happened]...he was a known informant--but even that is hardly enough of an excuse for a civilian observer.
According to Aynesworth...he didn't seem interested in going down to the jail for the Oswald transfer that day but his wife insisted that he go. What a load! They were both down there in the basement when the fireworks started. [Last paragraph page 114] There was a woman down there? Did they come in with Ruby?
The full jist....   https://books.google.com/books?id=HywEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Charles Collins]

    From the March 1976 issue of the Texas Monthly...The Man Who Saw Too Much [William Broyles]
Right off the bat--Aynesworth "Broke the story on the whole entire Oswald escape plan"! Yup-- didn't need the FBI after all.
Scroll down to page 88 second column and we see ...
Lie..."Oswald's landlady told the Commission that she saw Oswald get on a bus."
Truth.. Oswald's housekeeper told the Commission that she last saw him waiting at the bus stop north of the rooming house.
Lie..."Then one year later she [the landlady still?] is saying she saw Oswald get into a police car."
Truth...Mrs Roberts [the housekeeper] always maintained that a police car had pulled up in front of the house and honked while Oswald was in his room.
Aynesworth states rather ironically that "people will say anything."
Un-necessary blurb..."one of Garrison's men" claims he "took Oswald into the woods, tied him to a tree, stripped him naked, and worshiped him".
I doubt if any Commission defender ever read a book by Jim Garrison especially Hugh Aynesworth who has claimed that Garrison invited him to come to the New Orleans inquiry and "compare notes" 
Of course Hugh Aynesworth is "One of the most respected authorities on the Kennedy assassination" for the same reason that Gary Mack came to be...a supporter of the Warren Report. If you don't support the official story..you don't know jack about it.
There could be only one reason that the law allowed Aynesworth to have gone into the Texas Theater with them [if that is what really happened]...he was a known informant--but even that is hardly enough of an excuse for a civilian observer.
According to Aynesworth...he didn't seem interested in going down to the jail for the Oswald transfer that day but his wife insisted that he go. What a load! They were both down there in the basement when the fireworks started. [Last paragraph page 114] There was a woman down there? Did they come in with Ruby?
The full jist....   https://books.google.com/books?id=HywEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false

According to Aynesworth...he didn't seem interested in going down to the jail for the Oswald transfer that day but his wife insisted that he go. What a load! They were both down there in the basement when the fireworks started. [Last paragraph page 114] There was a woman down there? Did they come in with Ruby?

Interesting article, but I wouldn't count on everything that William Broyles wrote to be accurate. Here is what Hugh Aynesworth wrote in his book "Witness to History" (page 99):

"I woke up about half past nine, turned on the television, and was surprised to learn that Oswald was still at the police lockup, still awaiting transfer that morning to Sheriff Decker's custody. Oh, my God, I thought. Curry's taking a big risk. 'Look', I said to my wife, 'we've got to get down there!' I didn't shave. I didn't eat. We just threw on some clothes, and I drove like mad to City Hall...
...Security was fairly tight. My wife was refused access to the City Hall basement where the transfer was to be made. So she headed off to a downtown breakfast place, where I planned to join her in a few minutes"...


Lie..."Oswald's landlady told the Commission that she saw Oswald get on a bus."
Truth.. Oswald's housekeeper told the Commission that she last saw him waiting at the bus stop north of the rooming house.
Lie..."Then one year later she [the landlady still?] is saying she saw Oswald get into a police car."
Truth...Mrs Roberts [the housekeeper] always maintained that a police car had pulled up in front of the house and honked while Oswald was in his room.
Aynesworth states rather ironically that "people will say anything."

Again, don't count on everything written by William Broyles being accurate. Here is what Hugh Aynesworth said in his interview by Larry Sneed in "No More Silence":

"She told me that day that Oswald came running in while she was watching television and that she tried to talk to him about the President being killed. He didn't want to talk, so he went in, changed his jacket and ran out. She then saw him run off the porch to the left and that was the last time that she saw him. See, there's no mention of what she came up with later that a police car came up and honked and all that crap."

[Jerry Freeman]

Again, don't count on everything written by William Broyles being accurate. Here is what Hugh Aynesworth said in his interview by Larry Sneed in "No More Silence":

OK ..the Texas Monthly article was an interview. If Broyles had just invented the story he would have been subject to libel and sued. The TM would have never published the story to begin with.
The same thing happened to Bill O'Reilly who lied and said he was just outside his door when George DeMorhenschildt killed himself [supposedly] He got caught in a lie and as people usually do... just lied again or ignored it altogether.

[Charles Collins]

OK ..the Texas Monthly article was an interview. If Broyles had just invented the story he would have been subject to libel and sued. The TM would have never published the story to begin with.
The same thing happened to Bill O'Reilly who lied and said he was just outside his door when George DeMorhenschildt killed himself [supposedly] He got caught in a lie and as people usually do... just lied again or ignored it altogether.

Larry Sneed’s words from the introduction section of his book “No More Silence”:

“I originally did not intent to write a book. Instead, I merely was interested in making a series of video taped interviews which I could use in my classroom. When I reviewed the tapes after the first trip, I was sufficiently impressed with the quality of the interviews to justify another trip. And thus the process of preparation repeated itself the following summer.
Interestingly, though, I did not realize the full measure of quality of the tapes until I began to transcribe them and to see the interview in printed form. It then became apparent that what I had were insights into the events that I had not seen previously published and were of such significance that I entertained the idea of writing a book myself. However, I did not want it to be another work based on personal opinions or theories as were so many of the previously published books. Instead, I decided to let the subject of the interview speak for himself or herself and allow the reader to evaluate for themselves the merit of each story and its significance to the assassination. In short, it would be an oral history of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Amazingly, no one else had attempted or at least completed such a project. I decided that a chapter would be devoted to each of those interviewed. The advantage of this decision was that the entire interview would be included thus eliminating the taking out of context and manipulation of language which has been attributed to various theorists and assassination buffs bent on “proving” their theories. This format would also allow the reader to better understand the background of the person prior to the assassination as well as to what happened to them after the events.”


In contrast, the magazine article you posted is entirely different. It has many comments by the author. And is designed for sensationalism typical of magazines trying to sell their product.

[Dale Nason]

I don't see any value to this post other than showing something that was in the news years ago that really doesn't have any bearing. One way or the other. LN'er or CT'er.

[Charles Collins]

I don't see any value to this post other than showing something that was in the news years ago that really doesn't have any bearing. One way or the other. LN'er or CT'er.

It’s a lame attempt to discredit Hugh Aynesworth, just because he says some things that Jerry disagrees with.

[John Iacoletti]

It’s a lame attempt to discredit Hugh Aynesworth, just because he says some things that Jerry disagrees with.

Isn’t that what you’re doing with William Broyles? What’s the difference?

[Charles Collins]

Isn’t that what you’re doing with William Broyles? What’s the difference?

I didn't start a thread with the intent to discredit William Broyles. I pointed out some differences in what Hugh Aynesworth said in his interview with Larry Sneed compared to the article by William Broyles. And I pointed out that Larry's interview was done in a completely different format which was originally intended for education (vs commercialism for the magazine article. I didn't claim that Broyles was lying (Jerry does claim Aynesworth lied) I leave it up to the reader to decide if one of them is lying. Those are the differences.