The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[W. Tracy Parnell]

What could still be "sensitive" 60 years later?  Embarrassing maybe.

From the article quoting Mark Zaid:

"there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Another Oswald did it book? Another? Really.. another?

It is more a book about how they went about conducting the investigation (Willens shows that the investigation was dilligent and comprehensive). Which I use to counter the argument that the WC was merely a coverup vehicle.

[John Iacoletti]

...and who do these hypothetical sources in their 80s need protecting from?

[Jerry Freeman]

Willens shows that the investigation was dilligent and comprehensive. Which I use to counter the argument that the WC was merely a coverup vehicle.

The WC was merely a coverup vehicle. A rubber stamp followed by other rubber stamps that gave a  to the Dallas police, Secret Service, CIA and the FBI---moderately admonishing  carelessness respectively.
The district attorney of Dallas [Henry Wade] declared the evening of the assassination that "We have our man on all counts"...so what was the need of any further investigation?---There really was no investigation.

Jean Davison, Priscilla McMillan, Gerald Posner, Norman Mailer, Vincent Bugliosi and others have shown that the key to the case lies in a detailed study of the entirety of Oswald’s life. Their work proves that he was a misanthropic loner

Don't leave David Belin and Gerald Ford out. Even if Oswald was a derelict that doesn't prove that he was a cold blooded killer.
Much more sinister motives lie in the assassination and the government chose to ignore them.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

...and who do these hypothetical sources in their 80s need protecting from?

Who knows? You would have to know the circumstances regarding each source to answer that. But they have the right to be protected. I'll give you an example. John Whitten, who famously went by the alias John Scelso in certain documents, wanted his name to be protected because he lived in Europe and reasonably believed he could be in danger if his CIA employment were common knowledge. The ARRB agreed with him. Upon his death, the name was released. And when it was, no one knew anything more about the "JFK assassination truth" than they did before.

[Jon Banks]

Who knows? You would have to know the circumstances regarding each source to answer that. But they have the right to be protected. I'll give you an example. John Whitten, who famously went by the alias John Scelso in certain documents, wanted his name to be protected because he lived in Europe and reasonably believed he could be in danger if his CIA employment were common knowledge. The ARRB agreed with him. Upon his death, the name was released. And when it was, no one knew anything more about the "JFK assassination truth" than they did before.

There are several dead CIA officers’ files still being kept secret.

Why does the ghost of William Harvey need protection?

[Bill Chapman]

    billchapman

Nothing sinister nor any rhetoric needed. Watch this:

Oswald signed off—in full view—at 10th & Patton as a cold-blooded killer
Oswald served himself up on a silver platter and got what he deserved

'What goes around comes around'
What went around came around:

A) Oswald ambushes Tippit
B) Ruby ambushes Oswald
    An eye for an eye
    Justice is served

    And that's the truth




   billchapman