Hugh Aynesworth...Solver of the Kennedy Assassination

[Charles Collins]

Did you wash your hands before you typed that name? 
The bottom line with Aynesworth is that he used his wife as a go between---Dull is certainly the word and that $2500 figure is just what was reported.
We'll see if the offended return like flies return to....you know
Where did that diary come from really?  But then that is another story.

Is that supposed to be a quote from Aynesworth? Please cite the source with page number. Thanks

[Jerry Freeman]

Is that supposed to be a quote from Aynesworth? Please cite the source with page number. Thanks

Ahhh the keyboard warriors gather. Source to what .....that money stuff? You didn't ever read it I presume. Reply #51

[Charles Collins]

Ahhh the keyboard warriors gather. Source to what .....that money stuff? You didn't ever read it I presume. Reply #51

So, you are apparently using Gary Murr as the source. That is what I wanted to know. Thanks.

[Richard Smith]

Still no explanation or even attempt to explain why Aynesworth was a "lackey" for the "official report."  It is just so.  Keep in mind that Aynesworth challenged hundreds of murder convictions by the Texas Rangers in the Henry Lee Lucas case.   But he was a "lackey" in the JFK case for reasons we are left to ponder in the absence of any explanation much less any evidence of such.  Not just Aynesworth but so many random citizens apparently had it in for Oswald that day.  Quaker housewife, cab drivers, shoe salesman, Oswald's own wife, construction worker, an old lady on the bus....Amazing stuff. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Still no explanation or even attempt to explain why Aynesworth was a "lackey" for the "official report."  It is just so.  Keep in mind that Aynesworth challenged hundreds of murder convictions by the Texas Rangers in the Henry Lee Lucas case.   But he was a "lackey" in the JFK case for reasons we are left to ponder in the absence of any explanation much less any evidence of such.  Not just Aynesworth but so many random citizens apparently had it in for Oswald that day.  Quaker housewife, cab drivers, shoe salesman, Oswald's own wife, construction worker, an old lady on the bus....Amazing stuff.

It's not just LBJ or Hoover or McCone or "the CIA": it's a long list of ordinary people such as waitresses and steamfitters and bus drivers and landladies and housewives. Hell, we can include Cubans and the Soviet embassy officials/KGB agents who said they met Oswald. They're part of this alleged charade too.

Not only did these ordinary people do this (why? never mind) they then kept silent for the rest of their lives. None had any remorse, none had any guilt, none had any second thoughts. Not a one.

But see? It was all so easy. These conspirators were powerful people and they can do anything. Just like that.

We continue to think that we can reason with people who believe this is possible. We can't.

[Richard Smith]

It's not just LBJ or Hoover or McCone or "the CIA": it's a long list of ordinary people such as waitresses and steamfitters and bus drivers and landladies and housewives. Hell, we can include Cubans and the Soviet embassy officials/KGB agents who said they met Oswald. They're part of this alleged charade too.

Not only did these ordinary people do this (why? never mind) they then kept silent for the rest of their lives. None had any remorse, none had any guilt, none had any second thoughts. Not a one.

But see? It was all so easy. These conspirators were powerful people and they can do anything. Just like that.

We continue to think that we can reason with people who believe this is possible. We can't.

It becomes even worse when they not only suggest all the witnesses are lying and the evidence is suspect, but then deny they are suggesting a conspiracy.  How and why all this is happening is left unexplained.  It's a lazy tactic to suggest doubt by any means but without having to prove anything.   The alternative narrative for what did happen if all the evidence is fake is just left unaddressed.  Nothing has to add up or be consistent.  The sole objective is to suggest doubt as to Oswald's guilt by any means without any desire to reach a conclusion about what happened.  They live in a fantasy world of endless possibilities.

[John Iacoletti]

Still no explanation or even attempt to explain why Aynesworth was a "lackey" for the "official report."  It is just so.  Keep in mind that Aynesworth challenged hundreds of murder convictions by the Texas Rangers in the Henry Lee Lucas case.   But he was a "lackey" in the JFK case for reasons we are left to ponder in the absence of any explanation much less any evidence of such.  Not just Aynesworth but so many random citizens apparently had it in for Oswald that day.  Quaker housewife, cab drivers, shoe salesman, Oswald's own wife, construction worker, an old lady on the bus....Amazing stuff.

More unadulterated  from "Richard".

Neither Aynesworth, or Quaker housewife, cab drivers, shoe salesman, Oswald's own wife, construction worker, or an old lady on the bus know who killed JFK any more than you do.

[Jerry Freeman]

More unadulterated  from "Richard".
Neither Aynesworth, or Quaker housewife, cab drivers, shoe salesman, Oswald's own wife, construction worker, or an old lady on the bus know who killed JFK any more than you do.

How do you know that it isn't adulterated BS?  Ignores that the shoe salesman's lies were exposed in threads past. No one "had it in for Oswald" but the Dallas cops and whoever gave him to them.
The Lucas story is fairly accurate. Aynes was no [sole] cracker of that case either. Thing was...in their zeal to close the books on a lot of unsolved murders, the law in several states swallowed Lucas' story. A lot of reporters saw through that. Funny again, how Aynes captured all the credit in the Texas Monthly. They liked him a lot.