JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on December 04, 2019, 01:46:26 AM
-
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
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
She did not come up with the police car description "later". Mrs Roberts testified under oath to the Warren Commission about the police car long before the Sneed book came out. If Mr Sneed chose not to include that...then perhaps it was he who was being deceptive. No more silence? How about another book called "No More Lies"?
-
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.
Wrong. I demonstrated where Aynesworth was ...untruthful :-\
-
She did not come up with the police car description "later". Mrs Roberts testified under oath to the Warren Commission about the police car long before the Sneed book came out. If Mr Sneed chose not to include that...then perhaps it was he who was being deceptive. No more silence? How about another book called "No More Lies"?
She did not come up with the police car description "later".
Aynesworth was describing his interview with Roberts on 11/22/63, as the first journalist there, just shortly after the police had left. Her WC testimony was much later.
Again, Larry Sneed wrote the following in his introduction to his book:
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. ... 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.
-
Wrong. I demonstrated where Aynesworth was ...untruthful :-\
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."
Your words...
-
I didn't claim that Broyles was lying
Yeah, you kinda did when you said “don't count on everything written by William Broyles being accurate”, just because Aynsworth said something different to Sneed.
-
Yeah, you kinda did when you said “don't count on everything written by William Broyles being accurate”, just because Aynsworth said something different to Sneed.
It was more of an indirect request for corroboration that Aynesworth was lying than a claim.
-
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
Are you mixing up Roberts with Mary Bledsoe who was Oswald's landlady and indicated she saw him on the bus? Regardless, this is more rambling nonsense. Aynesworth was a reporter. This was a big story. So he was at many of the scenes and reported what he saw. Imagine that. Ignore the actual evidence but suggest a news reporter reporting the news has sinister implications.
-
Are you mixing up Roberts with Mary Bledsoe who was Oswald's landlady and indicated she saw him on the bus?
No...Perhaps Aynesworth got them mixed up because where/when did Bledsoe say that Oswald "got into a police car"? I linked it... Why not try reading the article?
-
Aynesworth states rather ironically that "people will say anything." Your words...
No...they are still Aynesworth's. Anyway...it looks like he was impeaching a Warren Commission witness regardless of which woman he was speaking about--- Bledsoe or Roberts :-\
-
No...they are still Aynesworth's. Anyway...it looks like he was impeaching a Warren Commission witness regardless of which woman he was speaking about--- Bledsoe or Roberts :-\
Are the two words (lie) from your original post, that I bolded in that response, not your words? If they are your words then it appears that you are claiming that he lied.
-
It’s a lame attempt to discredit Hugh Aynesworth, just because he says some things that Jerry disagrees with.
Charles, you're approach is black, or white. Facts indicate it is
characterized by subtle shades of meaning or expression.
"Lowe's work has gradually grown more nuanced"
Why not marvel at the details instead of "nothing to see here, Jerry is mistaken, move along, readers...."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19103-did-the-cia-sheep-dip-and-orchestrate-the-tale-of-the-patsy-lee-harvey-oswald/
Tom Scully Posted May 17, 2012
Clover Todd Dulles Wed to Jens H. Jebsen In Chaped of Fifth..
https://www.nytimes.com/1951/04/22/archives/clover-todd-dulles-wed-to-jens-h-jebsen-in-chaped-of-fifth-avenue.html
New York Times - Apr 22, 1951
In a candlelit garden setting of white dogwood and smilax in the chapel of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church yesterday noon, Miss Clover Todd Dulles,..
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldPriscillaJohnsonEleanorThomasElliottAynesworth.jpg)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9636-allen-w-dulles/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-252435
......
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06elliott.html?fta=y
Eleanor Thomas Elliott, Barnard Figure, Dies at 80
By THE NEW YORK TIMESDEC. 6, 2006
....The cause was injuries from a car accident, said her brother-in-law, Osborn Elliott, the former editor of Newsweek and a former dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.....
......Cousin Eleanor had a brother, cousin James Augustus Thomas, Jr.:....
https://archive.is/esTuB#selection-389.0-399.32
Secrets of Newsweek's Osborn Elliott & Hugh Aynesworth, & of Priscilla Johnson
« on: January 31, 2013, 02:24:10 PM »
The news media--a service and a force - Page 26
http://books.google.com/books?id=GSobAQAAIAAJ
Howard Kingsbury Smith, Osborn Elliott, A. Merriman Smith - 1970
.....Let me cite a few other instances of the reporter's involvement in the events he is covering. Take last
summer in Chicago, for example. There is no question in my mind that certain police officers
deliberately assaulted members of the press who were covering events surrounding the convention— and
certainly there was no such question in the minds of eight Newsweek men who were battered by the police
while wearing clear identification as working reporters and photographers. (This was something,
incidentally, that could not be said for the constabulary's own methods of identifying itself; many of
the police officers removed their badges in the parade to make sure they could not be identified.) So
what should the press' reaction have been? In my view, its duty was to report what happened as
dispassionately as possible and later be willing to testify against whichever offending officers could
be identified. This is what our own men did. Or take the coverage of a more recent event—the trial of
Clay Shaw in New Orleans on charges that he conspired in the assassination of the late President
Kennedy. As it happened, Newsweek's chief reporter on the trial had spent literally thousands of man-
hours investigating the assassination itself and was considered a leading authority on the events that
followed. He had witnessed the assassination from close to the Texas School Book Depository and joined
the chase for Lee Harvey Oswald. He interviewed several of the witnesses at the Tippitt murder scene
and was in the Texas Theatre watching when Oswald was apprehended. He was just a few feet from Jack
Ruby when he shot Oswald, and he later interviewed Oswald's widow several times. It was he who
uncovered Oswald's Russian diary in mid-1964. He covered the entire Ruby trial and was the only
reporter inside at Ruby's funeral. In short, quite an expert— and someone that District Attorney Jim
Garrison was anxious to enlist on his side. But this reporter soon became convinced that Garrison had
no case whatsoever, and he made it his business to publicize this fact. The result was one of the first
critical stories published about Garrison— which was followed by a series of intimidating telephone
calls threatening the reporter's life. In Garrison's mind, this reporter and Newsweek had in effect
become co-defendants, and more than 1,100 prospective jurors were asked if they had read Newsweek's
critical story. We left this man on the story because we believed he was the best qualified to cover
it. And to this day, I am satisfied that he did so fairly and thoroughly. But I would not suggest for a
minute that subjectivity had not been involved— once again, in my view, in the interest of the truth.
Some of you may recall that our final story on Clay's acquittal was given only nine lines in the
magazine. It ran under the headline "Fact and Opinion," and in its entirety it read as follows:
"Acquitted: By a jury in New Orleans, exactly two years to the day after his arrest on charges of
conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy, retired Louisiana businessman Clay L. Shaw, 55. Convicted: By a
case that collapsed at every seam, District Attorney Jim Garrison, 47, of incompetence and
irresponsibility as a public official." You can't get much more subjective than that or, in my opinion,
much closer to the truth. There are much larger issues, of course, that involve subjectivity in
journalism— indeed the very largest issues of the day— and for a publication such as my own, which has
no editorial page, they can pose a problem. The news magazines ....
......
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
........
Description of 1969 death of Priscilla's father: (Allen Dulles's cousin was last to see him alive...)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/PriscillaStuartJohnsonDeath033169_2of2.jpg)
http://www.ampltd.co.uk/digital_guides/china_through_western_eyes_manuscript/publishers%20note.aspx
....James Augustus Thomas was born in Lawsonville, Rockingham County, North Carolina, on 6 March 1862. He was the son of Henry Evans Thomas and Cornelia Carolina (Jones) Thomas. He attended the Eastman National Business College, Poughkeepsie, New York, and graduated in 1881. He married Anna, daughter of William Branson of Durham, North Carolina, on 27 April 1918. Unfortunately she died in November 1918. J A Thomas remarried on 21 November 1922 to Dorothy Quincy Hancock, daughter of Sheridan Pitt Read. They had two children: James Augustus Thomas jr and Eleanor Lansing Thomas....
Aynesworth was assigned to "cover" the Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw in 1967 by Osborne Elliott. Elliott's brother was married to Eleanor Lansing Thomas, Allen and Foster Dulles's cousin, who happened to be the maid of honor in Allen's daughter Clover's wedding.
This Dulles cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas Osborne, sister-in-law of Ayneswprth's boss, happened to have a brother, James A. Thomas, Jr., who Priscilla testified to HSCA, instigated, managed, or participated in a "concealed suicide," of Priscilla's father, Stuart Holmes Johnson, in 1969. Priscilla testified to HSCA that this event upset her to the degree she was using it as the primary excuse for the delay in delivering her book, (from 1969 to 1977) "Marina & Lee," to her extremely patient Harper's editor, Marion S. Wyeth. Wyeth happened to be in the wedding party of a close friend of DeMohrenschildt's CIA shadow, Tom Devine.
Wyeth happened to live with his parents just two doors down, on a dead end street, from DeMohrenschildt's wife's father, Philip Sharples. Wyeth's father, an architect, designed both the home of Sharples and of Tom Devine's "best friend in Rochester," Joseph F Dryer, Jr. (before Dryer purchased the house). Devine's best man at his 1973 Jupiter Island wedding was William B. Macomber, Jr., also of Rochester, who, along with his wife, Phyliss Bernau, were two of Foster Dulles's closest Dept. of State, aids. Macomber was also best man in the 1946 wedding of Bush's sister, Nancy.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2544-edwin-walker/page/20/?tab=comments#comment-271096
Tom Scully Posted April 7, 2013.....
.......And an explanation of the following photo of a small section of West Palm Beach, FL. DeMohrenschildst's former
wife, Didi Sharples and her next husband bought the Ocean Front estate of Ailsa Mellon Bruce, labeled with a "B" in
this photo. Up above, the lot just below the "W" in Woodbridge Rd., was the residence from 1940 to 1983 of the architect father
of Priscilla Johnson's second Harper editor, the very patient and understanding Marion S. Wyeth, Jr. Two doors down
from Wyeth, Sr. at the end of very end of Woodbridge Rd. on the left, was the longtime residence of DIdi Sharples' parents,
the Philip Sharples. " Mrs. Philip Sharples, 185 Woodbridge Rd. Georgian brick house. Beautifully landscaped to lake, charming
rock and water garden beside entrance court "
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aMK-fBJxEvQ/UWGNrxjGTBI/AAAAAAAAA3s/MdJgslHfREo/s720/PriscillaWyethSharples.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DevineMacomberBestMan.jpg)
Phyllis Dorothy Bernau Macomber (1924-2014) - Find A Grave ...
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/170276313/phyllis-dorothy-macomber
Born in 19 Jul 1924 and died in 3 Sep 2014 Nantucket, Massachusetts Phyllis Dorothy Bernau Macomber.
Library - FOIA | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/phyllis?page=10
464 items - and his wife, Phyllis, live. at 2235 Carlyle Court, White Bear Lake, with their ... Jordan from Agency, and then passed into intelligence Phyllis Bernau, ...
https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/MEV-10418559
(https://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/medibigoff/933f3b3a7995ae85c7259ab0a1fa7049/mev-10418559.webp)
Stock Photo - Eleanor Lansing Thomas, social secretary to Mr John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State in 1954 pictured going through press cuttings.
http://jfkforum.com/2017/10/01/are-we-there-yet/
OCTOBER 1, 2017 BY ADMIN
Are we there yet? Part I
Marina Oswald Porter: To Forget Is Not To Forgive – The Washington …
......
Devine went on to attend M.I.T. and, just a few months later was residing in the Sigma Chi fraternity house with Garry Coit and fifteen other fraternity mates.
Peter Dryer, another of the not forgotten ten on Devine’s list in the yearbook, was the brother of Joseph F. Dryer, Jr., who met DeMohrenschildt in separate NYC meeting, but on the very same day as Devine, on 25 April, 1963 !
Peter Dryer partnered with brother Joseph in Cuba and then in Guatemala and was also a member of Wyeth’s 1948 Princeton class.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MellenDryer.jpg)
In January, 1964, Garry Coit happened to become the CIA contact of Priscilla Johnson….
Marion Sims “Buz” Wyeth had become by 1949, close enough to Devine’s former classmate to invite Hawley Ward to be an usher in his wedding party.:
......
Priscilla is asked by HSCA counsel in Feb., 1978, about her Harper editor’s (Buz Wyeth) reaction to the 12 year delay of her book…. (Marion “Buzz” Wyeth worked for Harper & Row since 1956) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95330#relPageId=43 Next Page:
...."and my editor since has been M.S. Wyeth https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95330#relPageId=44&tab=page ....
Aynesworth, to my knowledge, reported none of the above relevant and interesting coincidences, despite being on the scene to "catch wind," of at least some of them. I came along, 40+ years later, equipped only with curiousity, an internet connection, and a keyboard.
You can't make this stuff up, at least I cannot. I wouldn't know where to even begin.
-
In view of everything that Mr Everywhere That Weekend Hugh Aynesworth saw and did...you would have thought that he would have been called to testify before the Warren Commission. I wonder why he wasn't :-\
-
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.
That is a rather unformed statement seeing as this entire forum deals with a topic that is over 56 years old.
-
As soon as I walked into Gordon Shanklin's smoke-filled office, I saw the copy of the newspaper lying on his desk. I grabbed it. Staring back at me in bold, black print was the front-page headline: "FBI KNEW OSWALD CAPABLE OF ACT, REPORTS INDICATE."
I quickly scanned the first few paragraphs while Shanklin sat quietly behind his desk puffing away. The story read, "A source close to the Warren Commission told the Dallas News Thursday that the Commission has testimony from Dallas police that an FBI agent told them moments after the arrest and identification of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, that 'we knew he was capable of assassinating the president, but we didn't dream he would do it...'
James Hosty, Assignment: Oswald (1996)
The source was not Jack Revill. Maybe you can call him the designated whistle blower....but the snitch-- was the government informant Hugh Grant Aynesworth.
J. Edgar Hoover came out blasting. He categorically denied the story's contentions. Revill himself partially retracted some of the article's allegations; he told the Dallas Times Herald that the comment that I never dreamed Oswald would kill the president was all someone else's fabrication. But Aynesworth and the Morning News had done the damage. It would prove to be irreversible regarding my relationships with the Dallas police and the Dallas media. Contrary to Aynesworth's assertion, Bryan supported my version of the events. He reported that he did not hear me make any kind of comment suggesting I knew Oswald was capable of killing the president.
The whole purpose of the false leak was further incrimination of Oswald...conformation to the general public that Lee Oswald was indeed the assassin.
-
Quote
As soon as I walked into Gordon Shanklin's smoke-filled office, I saw the copy of the newspaper lying on his desk. I grabbed it. Staring back at me in bold, black print was the front-page headline: "FBI KNEW OSWALD CAPABLE OF ACT, REPORTS INDICATE."
I quickly scanned the first few paragraphs while Shanklin sat quietly behind his desk puffing away. The story read, "A source close to the Warren Commission told the Dallas News Thursday that the Commission has testimony from Dallas police that an FBI agent told them moments after the arrest and identification of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, that 'we knew he was capable of assassinating the president, but we didn't dream he would do it...'
James Hosty, Assignment: Oswald (1996)
The source was not Jack Revill. Maybe you can call him the designated whistle blower....but the snitch-- was the government informant Hugh Grant Aynesworth.
Quote
J. Edgar Hoover came out blasting. He categorically denied the story's contentions. Revill himself partially retracted some of the article's allegations; he told the Dallas Times Herald that the comment that I never dreamed Oswald would kill the president was all someone else's fabrication. But Aynesworth and the Morning News had done the damage. It would prove to be irreversible regarding my relationships with the Dallas police and the Dallas media. Contrary to Aynesworth's assertion, Bryan supported my version of the events. He reported that he did not hear me make any kind of comment suggesting I knew Oswald was capable of killing the president.
The whole purpose of the false leak was further incrimination of Oswald...conformation to the general public that Lee Oswald was indeed the assassin.
the snitch-- was the government informant Hugh Grant Aynesworth.
Please tell us the basis for that conclusion.
Here is another side of the story:
From "Witness to History" by Hugh Aynesworth pages 43-44:
Over at City Hall, Chief Curry was stirring up a storm of his own. After returning from Love Field, where he was on hand at 2:38 P.M. to watch Judge Hughes swear in Johnson, Curry read Lieutenant Revill's report on his basement conversation with FBI Agent Hosty with considerable interest.
"If we had known a defector or extremist was anywhere in the city, much less on the parade route, we would have been sitting in his lap," Curry was later quoted by the Associated Press.
The chief told me that up on DPD's third-floor office complex, "I was stopped going down the hall, and the press wanted to know all about what evidence we had and why a Russian defector had been ignored along the mororcade route. I told them that there was a rifle and a pistol belonging to Oswald. And I guess I stepped a bit too far at that point. I said, "The FBI knew all about this man, knew he was capable of killing the president and so forth."
Within the hour FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover dispatched Gordon Shanklin to Curry's office with a message. The bespectacled Shanklin apologized for being there, Curry told me, but nonetheless insisted that the chief retract his statement.
Curry trusted that Lieutenant Revill's report was accurate, but "at that point," he explained, "I didn't see what all the shouting was about. I knew the truth would come out soon. But when Shanklin told me the bureau had not had Oswald under surveillance, I agreed and did soften that statement a few minutes later."
Shanklin hadn't been entirely truthful with Chief Curry. While Oswald wasn't kept under surveillance, the FBI had been very interested in locating him, particularly after they learned in October that he'd visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City.
But Curry kept his word. As the chief returned to Captain John-known as Will, his middle name-Fritz's office in Homicide and Robbery a few minutes later, he told the big crowd of reporters, "I do not know if and when the bureau interviewed him [Oswald]."
Our story of Jack Revill's memo and Joe Hosty's remarks must have stung sharply over at the Times Herald, for the paper promptly published a poorly considered response that caused embarrassment even to some of its own reporters. The afternoon our story ran, the Times Herald bannered its front page with "FBI Denies Statement on Oswald," and quited Hoover directly. Referring to Revill's recollection the director allegedly said, "That is absolutely false. The agent made no such statement, and the FBI had no such knowledge."
It was a great knock-down of our original story, except for one problem - the Hoover quote was a fabrication. My source for this information was the article's putative writer, George Carter. Angry and deeply embarrassed, George called me to say that not only was his name put on the story without his knowledge but also that the Hoover interview had never occurred. The FBI director would not talk to the Times Herald, Carter told me. He wasn't sure whether the newspaper blithely spliced his name to another official's words or, even worse, made up the quotes altogether.
-
Please tell us the basis for that conclusion
Go get your eyes checked. If you are going to troll my posts...try being a bit more creative. I will enlarge print for your apparent deficient vision.---
About a week after the assassination, Aynesworth, along with Bill Alexander, an assistant district attorney in Dallas, decided to find out if Lee Oswald had been an informant of the Dallas FBI, and of mine in particular. To this end, they concocted a totally false story about how Lee Oswald was a regularly paid informant of the Dallas FBI. At the time, I had no idea what information the Houston Post was relying on; it wasn't until February 1976, in Esquire magazine, that Aynesworth finally admitted he and Alexander had lied and made up the entire story in an effort to draw the FBI out on this issue. They said Oswald was paid $200 a month and even made up an imaginary informant number for Oswald, S172 - which was not in any way how the FBI classified their informants. Aynesworth then fed this story to Lonnie Hudkins of the Post, who ran it on January 1, 1964. Hudkins cited confidential but reliable sources for his story's allegations. The FBI issued a flat denial of the Post story. I was once again prohibited by Bureau procedure from commenting. It was clear that they were pointing a finger at me, since I was known to be the agent in charge of the Oswald file.
James Hosty, Assignment: Oswald
FBI SA James Hosty... --Aynesworth = liar ............source cited
Aynesworth---I am not a liar---trust me [meaning = f**k off]
Whether or not Oswald was actually an informant for the FBI could not be revealed...so we will never know. We do know that Aynesworth supplied mis-information unless this post was read with your eyes closed. I realize that Mr Aynesworth must have really sugar talked you somewhere along the line.
Have him canonized if you wish.
-
Go get your eyes checked. If you are going to troll my posts...try being a bit more creative. I will enlarge print for your apparent deficient vision.--- James Hosty, Assignment: Oswald
FBI SA James Hosty... --Aynesworth = liar ............source cited
Aynesworth---I am not a liar---trust me [meaning = f**k off]
Whether or not Oswald was actually an informant for the FBI could not be revealed...so we will never know. We do know that Aynesworth supplied mis-information unless this post was read with your eyes closed. I realize that Mr Aynesworth must have really sugar talked you somewhere along the line.
Have him canonized if you wish.
Go get your eyes checked.
Your post that you made your claim in doesn't include any basis for your claim. If it is in an earlier post, then I missed it because I didn't look back there. Include something to support your claim in the same post as your claim and you might be able avoid such confusion.
FBI SA James Hosty... --Aynesworth = liar ............source cited
Aynesworth---I am not a liar---trust me [meaning = f**k off]
Whether or not Oswald was actually an informant for the FBI could not be revealed...so we will never know. We do know that Aynesworth supplied mis-information unless this post was read with your eyes closed. I realize that Mr Aynesworth must have really sugar talked you somewhere along the line.
Have him canonized if you wish.
You are now referencing an entirely different event than you did in the post that has your claim and that I responded to earlier. Here is another side of this incident from "Witness to History by Hugh Aynesworth:
One reporter who felt certain Oswald had worked for the government was Alonzo "Lonnie" Hudkins of the Houston Post. Lonnie called constantly, hoping I'd uncovered something to move the story along. In time, I grew tired of Lonnie's queries, especially since I doubted his sources were that good. One day as I was busily juggling deadline stories for Newsweek, where I was then a stringer, and the Times of London as well as a weekend piece for the News, Lonnie called once more and asked me, "You hear anything about this FBI link with Oswald?" Tired of him bugging me, I said to him "You got his payroll number, don't you?"
"Yeah, yeah," Lonnie said.
I reached over on my desk for a telegram and read part of a Telex number to him.
"Yeah, yeah, he said, "that's the same one I've got."
I knew that if Lonnie accepted the number as legitimate, he had nothing. He said he'd check his sources and get back to me.
Weeks passed, and I forgot about the call until January 1, 1964, when Hudkins published a front page article in the Post, alleging that Oswald may have been a federal operative. Naturally the story caused quite a stir. Members of the newly created Warren Commission summoned several top Texas law enforcement officials and advisers to Washingto to discuss the development, including Waggoner Carr, the state Attorney General, Dallas DA Henry Wade, and his assistant Bill Alexander; J. Edgar Hoover of course told the commission that the story was not true. The Texas folks denied any knowledge of where Hudkins got his story, and the story pretty much died - for a while.
Lonnie never disclosed his source for the bogus number, and I didn't admit to it for at least several years.
FBI Agent Joe Hosty was among those upset over the Hudkins story. In Assignment Oswald, he castigated me not only for the Jack Revill story that Jim Ewell and I published but also for being, along with Bill Alexander, the supposed source of Hudkins' fantasy.
When Hosty later called me, it was in part to apologize for that mistake. "Just wanted you to know that I visited with Hudkins later," he said, "and understand that it was his contention, not yours and Alexander's, about the alleged financial connection between the bureau and Oswald. I always admit my errors."
I know that you desperately want to believe Aynesworth is a liar. But it doesn't appear that way to me.
-
I know that you desperately want to believe Aynesworth is a liar. But it doesn't appear that way to me.
And you desperately want to believe that he isn't...illustrating that you never will.
So I might as well continue this particular discussion with the dead as discussed in another post ;)
One thing I did enjoy was about his stuff--- is when Mr Anyesworth called out Bill O'Reilly in his lie about his uncertain presence in Florida [from the BS book 'Killing Kennedy']
I never did like snotty snobby Bill O'Reilly who BTW was too famously heralded also.
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/hugh-aynesworth-talks-about-why-bill-oreilly-would-lie-about-jfk-assassination-7122922
-
Jerry, I appreciate that you have an opinion. However, I think you'd have a much more acceptable opinion if you didn't automatically criticize others opinions or statements. I've made it a point to not get into arguments or heated discussions with others on here because I'm more into learning about facts and new information than getting insulted or criticized because I disagree with someone. I'm not here for the DRAMA. As Joe Friday said in DRAGNET....." just the facts ma'am, just the facts".
-
Quote from: Dale Nason on Today at 06:58:36 PM
Jerry, I appreciate that you have an opinion.
You are also entitled to yours.
-
Charles, you're approach is black, or white. Facts indicate it is Why not marvel at the details instead of "nothing to see here, Jerry is mistaken, move along, readers...."
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldPriscillaJohnsonEleanorThomasElliottAynesworth.jpg)
......Cousin Eleanor had a brother, cousin James Augustus Thomas, Jr.:....
......
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
........
Description of 1969 death of Priscilla's father: (Allen Dulles's cousin was last to see him alive...)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/PriscillaStuartJohnsonDeath033169_2of2.jpg)
Aynesworth was assigned to "cover" the Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw in 1967 by Osborne Elliott. Elliott's brother was married to Eleanor Lansing Thomas, Allen and Foster Dulles's cousin, who happened to be the maid of honor in Allen's daughter Clover's wedding.
This Dulles cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas Osborne, sister-in-law of Ayneswprth's boss, happened to have a brother, James A. Thomas, Jr., who Priscilla testified to HSCA, instigated, managed, or participated in a "concealed suicide," of Priscilla's father, Stuart Holmes Johnson, in 1969. Priscilla testified to HSCA that this event upset her to the degree she was using it as the primary excuse for the delay in delivering her book, (from 1969 to 1977) "Marina & Lee," to her extremely patient Harper's editor, Marion S. Wyeth. Wyeth happened to be in the wedding party of a close friend of DeMohrenschildt's CIA shadow, Tom Devine.
Wyeth happened to live with his parents just two doors down, on a dead end street, from DeMohrenschildt's wife's father, Philip Sharples. Wyeth's father, an architect, designed both the home of Sharples and of Tom Devine's "best friend in Rochester," Joseph F Dryer, Jr. (before Dryer purchased the house). Devine's best man at his 1973 Jupiter Island wedding was William B. Macomber, Jr., also of Rochester, who, along with his wife, Phyliss Bernau, were two of Foster Dulles's closest Dept. of State, aids. Macomber was also best man in the 1946 wedding of Bush's sister, Nancy.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DevineMacomberBestMan.jpg)
Aynesworth, to my knowledge, reported none of the above relevant and interesting coincidences, despite being on the scene to "catch wind," of at least some of them. I came along, 40+ years later, equipped only with curiousity, an internet connection, and a keyboard.
You can't make this stuff up, at least I cannot. I wouldn't know where to even begin.
Well why don't you begin by ringing up Mssr. Aynesworth, Tom? As you said, my mom's cousin Jerry O'Leary and he were 'everywhere' on that dark day. Life is an open secret+
-
Dale's post about criticism leads me to comment that this whole forum is a trove of criticism.
[If you believe in the official report...you are brainwashed..gullible]
[If you don't...then you must be a drooling kook]Spokespeople for the "other side" include Priscilla Johnson McMillan, author of Marina and Lee, and former newspaperman Hugh Aynesworth. It would be petty I suppose to mention that both of them had clandestine relationships with intelligence agencies in the past, CIA in McMillan's case [1] and FBI as well as CIA in Aynesworth's [2]. I do not mean to convey that this is sinister per se; simply that given the many documented failures of these agencies with respect to the JFK murder, it is not too much to expect an acknowledgment of these sources' potential biases. [3] Another of the talking heads, Edward Jay Epstein, has acknowledged that one of his books on the case was written in extensive consultation with James Angleton, former head of CIA CounterIntelligence and himself a "person of interest." [4] Perhaps this film is "art," not journalism, and thus exempt from such disclosures.
Declassified documents show that Dallas reporter Hugh Aynesworth was in contact with the Dallas CIA office and had on at least one occasion "offered his services to us." The files are chock full of Aynesworth informing to the FBI, particularly in regard to the Garrison investigation. See for example an account of lengthy FBI meeting with Aynesworth on 26 Apr 1967 re: Garrison and 5 May 1967 Domestic Intelligence Division note. See also a CIA 27 Dec 1967 account of a phone call in which Aynesworth is said to have offered to secure documents "extracted" from Garrison's files (by William Gurvich). Also of note is a message Aynesworth sent to George Christian at LBJ's White House, in which Aynesworth wrote that "My interest in informing government officials of each step along the way is because of my intimate knowledge of what Jim Garrison is planning."
Aynesworth repeats the "Lassie defense," whereby Ruby, a man who even the Warren Commission acknowledged "frequently resorted to violence," [10] wouldn't have left his dog in the car if he had been planning to shoot Oswald. Priscilla Johnson McMillan reminds us that Oswald the loner "didn't do anything with anybody" and repeats the story of his leaving his wedding ring in a teacup for Marina the morning of the assassination. Epstein adds that "not a shred has come out that would indicate what this conspiracy was. After forty years, none of the theories pan out." Norman Mailer summarizes that "the internal evidence (of conspiracy) just wasn't there."
"Kennedy's Ghost"
A review of Robert Stone's Oswald's Ghost by Rex Bradford , 1 Feb 2008
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Kennedys_Ghost.html
So it is reported that Hugh Aynesworth spent his life beating back conspiracy proponents and their conspiracy ideas.
Then---I find it troublesomely difficult to believe that after all that Hugh Aynesworth [being a dedicated correspondent] had encountered on the assassination weekend..that he had felt no particular inspiration of his own to go down with the other reporters and report on the transfer of Oswald to county jail. He didn't have to run down there like it was to the Texas Theater [which I still consider dubious]
I find it rather unlikely that it would after all be his wife that would prod him to go down there. I also think it rather unlikely that she entered the police basement also... and stood alongside when Oswald was brought down. If there only was corroboration or a photo or something but I have never seen any. 1963 was a men only time when it came to police work and police business and the DPD and vicinity of the inner sanctum was a no girls allowed clique else show me --evidence.
-
Dale's post about criticism leads me to comment that this whole forum is a trove of criticism.
[If you believe in the official report...you are brainwashed..gullible]
[If you don't...then you must be a drooling kook]"Kennedy's Ghost"
A review of Robert Stone's Oswald's Ghost by Rex Bradford , 1 Feb 2008
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Kennedys_Ghost.html
So it is reported that Hugh Aynesworth spent his life beating back conspiracy proponents and their conspiracy ideas.
Then---I find it troublesomely difficult to believe that after all that Hugh Aynesworth [being a dedicated correspondent] had encountered on the assassination weekend..that he had felt no particular inspiration of his own to go down with the other reporters and report on the transfer of Oswald to county jail. He didn't have to run down there like it was to the Texas Theater [which I still consider dubious]
I find it rather unlikely that it would after all be his wife that would prod him to go down there. I also think it rather unlikely that she entered the police basement also... and stood alongside when Oswald was brought down. If there only was corroboration or a photo or something but I have never seen any. 1963 was a men only time when it came to police work and police business and the DPD and vicinity of the inner sanctum was a no girls allowed clique else show me --evidence.
I find it rather unlikely that it would after all be his wife that would prod him to go down there. I also think it rather unlikely that she entered the police basement also... and stood alongside when Oswald was brought down.
Where are you getting that from?
I believe that I have already posted earlier in this thread what Hugh Aynesworth wrote in his book about it. And neither one is true!
-
The Oswald did it-- three shot yarn..........with newer colorful twists ::)
-
I find it rather unlikely that it would after all be his wife that would prod him to go down there. I also think it rather unlikely that she entered the police basement also... and stood alongside when Oswald was brought down.
Where are you getting that from?
I believe that I have already posted earlier in this thread what Hugh Aynesworth wrote in his book about it. And neither one is true!
Glad you asked....
1976 :
https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-man-who-saw-too-much/
The Man Who Saw Too Much
Hugh Aynesworth can’t escape what he witnessed in 1963.
BY WILLIAM BROYLES
DATE MAR 1, 1976
ISSUE MARCH 1976
...converged on the Texas Theater, which was playing War is Hell; out front several Dallas police were preparing to enter. When they did, Aynesworth was with them. From the movie soundtrack came machine guns, grenades, the sounds of battle. As the police and Ayensworth gingerly went down the aisle, a thin man leaped up, pointed a pistol at the belly of Officer Nick McDonald and pulled the trigger. The gun clicked, failed to go off. After a brief struggle, the police held in their hands Lee Harvey Oswald, who shouted, “I protest this police brutality!”
Two days later Aynesworth’s wife suggested they go down to the police station to watch Oswald moved to the county jail. Aynesworth, who had been working night and day trying to piece together Oswald’s escape route, at first didn’t want to go. He was tired; there was no time for idle sight-seeing. His wife, however, prevailed, and both were in the basement when Jack Ruby lunged forward and fired that one shot into Oswald’s stomach.....
Aynesworth also, (reported under his by-line) put a little "special sauce" on William Whaley, transforming Whaley into a war hero, but could not have performed fact checking, or maybe Whaley's "Navy combat award" is classified? Whaley does not "add up". He got three years older, between his 1942 WWII military draft record and his death, and his son, William W. Whaley, Jr., claimed to be the son of Whaley, Sr.'s sister-in-law and her husband. Whaley family "lore" attributes the loss of Whaley, Jr. to "abduction," but the boy was recorded living with his aunt in the 1940 U.S. Census.
Between sketchy witness Whaley, and Mary Bledsoe having the same aunt as Russell Douglas Matthews, the Oswald "post TSBD" saga gets curiouser and curiouser!
"The aunt.": https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/114133448/adelaide-s-germany
(http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleyClaims112863DMN.jpg)
Mary Bledsoe's uncle...his son, Jewell, Jr., obit link (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/87462676/jewell-rawlston-germany), described in his father's 1958 obit, was first cousin of both Mary Bledsoe and RD Matthews:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MaryBledsoeUncleJRgermanyObit1958.jpg)
America Germany Webb, was widow of Joe Webb. Joe Webb was related to Clarice Webb Campbell of Ennis, TX, wife of O.V. Campbell of the TSBD.
-
Go get your eyes checked.
Your post that you made your claim in doesn't include any basis for your claim. If it is in an earlier post, then I missed it because I didn't look back there. Include something to support your claim in the same post as your claim and you might be able avoid such confusion.
FBI SA James Hosty... --Aynesworth = liar ............source cited
Aynesworth---I am not a liar---trust me [meaning = f**k off]
Whether or not Oswald was actually an informant for the FBI could not be revealed...so we will never know. We do know that Aynesworth supplied mis-information unless this post was read with your eyes closed. I realize that Mr Aynesworth must have really sugar talked you somewhere along the line.
Have him canonized if you wish.
You are now referencing an entirely different event than you did in the post that has your claim and that I responded to earlier. Here is another side of this incident from "Witness to History by Hugh Aynesworth:
One reporter who felt certain Oswald had worked for the government was Alonzo "Lonnie" Hudkins of the Houston Post. Lonnie called constantly, hoping I'd uncovered something to move the story along. In time, I grew tired of Lonnie's queries, especially since I doubted his sources were that good. One day as I was busily juggling deadline stories for Newsweek, where I was then a stringer, and the Times of London as well as a weekend piece for the News, Lonnie called once more and asked me, "You hear anything about this FBI link with Oswald?" Tired of him bugging me, I said to him "You got his payroll number, don't you?"
"Yeah, yeah," Lonnie said.
I reached over on my desk for a telegram and read part of a Telex number to him.
"Yeah, yeah, he said, "that's the same one I've got."
I knew that if Lonnie accepted the number as legitimate, he had nothing. He said he'd check his sources and get back to me.
Weeks passed, and I forgot about the call until January 1, 1964, when Hudkins published a front page article in the Post, alleging that Oswald may have been a federal operative. Naturally the story caused quite a stir. Members of the newly created Warren Commission summoned several top Texas law enforcement officials and advisers to Washingto to discuss the development, including Waggoner Carr, the state Attorney General, Dallas DA Henry Wade, and his assistant Bill Alexander; J. Edgar Hoover of course told the commission that the story was not true. The Texas folks denied any knowledge of where Hudkins got his story, and the story pretty much died - for a while.
Lonnie never disclosed his source for the bogus number, and I didn't admit to it for at least several years.
FBI Agent Joe Hosty was among those upset over the Hudkins story. In Assignment Oswald, he castigated me not only for the Jack Revill story that Jim Ewell and I published but also for being, along with Bill Alexander, the supposed source of Hudkins' fantasy.
When Hosty later called me, it was in part to apologize for that mistake. "Just wanted you to know that I visited with Hudkins later," he said, "and understand that it was his contention, not yours and Alexander's, about the alleged financial connection between the bureau and Oswald. I always admit my errors."
I know that you desperately want to believe Aynesworth is a liar. But it doesn't appear that way to me.
Aynesworth turned into the PR man for the official, "Oswald escape from the TSBD" story. Through his "reporting," Aynesworth propped up Whaley and RD Matthews' cousin, Mary Bledsoe's alleged bus driver, Cecil McWatters. McWatters worked for Dallas Transit, owned and managed by brothers who had visited the Carousel Club and happened to be represented by Roy Cohn.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/H%20Disk/Hudkins%20Lonnie/Item%2039.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BledsoeRDmatthewsAynesworthHudkins.jpg)
Weinbergs, employer of Cecil McWatters :
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1990-11-07-1990311082-story.html
Betty Fine Baltimore resident
THE BALTIMORE SUN
Services for Betty Fine, who lived in Baltimore for much of her life, will be held at 3 p.m. tomorrow at Sol Levinson & Bros. funeral establishment, 6010 Reisterstown Road.
Mrs. Fine, who was 80, died early yesterday at the Johns Hopkins Hospital after heart surgery. She lived in the Imperial Condominium.
She was the sister of Harry Weinberg, who died Sunday in Hawaii and left nearly $1 billion to a foundation for the poor. She was the wife of Melvin L. Fine, a lawyer who served as chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Commission and had been a state senator. He died in 1969.
The former Betty Weinberg was born in Galicia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was brought to Baltimore by her father in 1912. They lived in Southwest Baltimore.
She is survived by three sons, Stanley S. Fine and Howard Fine, both of Baltimore, and Robert B. Fine of Salisbury; three brothers, William, David and Nathan Weinberg, all of Pikesville; and seven grandchildren.
Near left side bottom:
....installed he was accompanied by DAVE, NATE and SIDNEY. WEINBERG, owners of the Dallas Transit System, and they went to the Carousel Club. ... BUREAU OF INVESTIOAY 'Y. HARMON SCHEPPS, Presiden -., Schepps Dairy, Inc .,
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1557.pdf
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7053/6960821581_44fe3c8a7b_b.jpg)
Interestingly, Roy Cohn's most famous client, aside from POTUS Trump, was the son of a couple buried in the same small Jewish congregation cemetery in Gloversville, NY. Also in that cemetery of less than 500 graves, are the parents of George Senator, Ruby's roommate who testified that he had worked in the family lunch counter in Gloversville, located within shouting distance of Schine Chain Theaters H.Q. That's right, Senator could not have been closer to the family of Roy Cohn's client, G. David Scine, unless he had been an employee of Schine Chain. G. David Schine just happened to be Gen . Mgr. of the Schine owned, Ambassador Hotel in L.A. in 1968, making Schine the employer of Cesar Eugene Thane.
LNs "know what they know," they've persuaded me of that.
https://www.nytimes.com/1961/05/18/archives/fifth-ave-coach-scores-roy-cohn-tactics-in-dissidents-suit.html
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DallasTransitRoyCohn1961_1of3.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DallasTransitRoyCohn1961_2of3.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DallasTransitRoyCohn1961_3of3.jpg)
WITNESS SAYS COHN AIDED 5TH AVE. COACH - The New ...
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/13/archives/witness-says-cohn-aided-5th-ave-coach.html
Oct 13, 1971 - The first defense witness at Roy M. Cohn's trial yesterday on conspiracy and other charges depicted him as a benefactor of the Fifth Avenue ...
If John Gotti Was The 'Teflon Don', Then Roy Cohn Was The 'Teflon Rogue'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jameszirin/2014/07/08/if-john-gotti-was-the-teflon-don-then-roy-cohn-was-the-teflon-rogue/#6aca9bb73680
Jul 8, 2014 - If John Gotti was the “Teflon Don,” Roy Cohn was the “Teflon Rogue. ... harbored some sort of political grudge against him, and wanted to settle old scores. ... the group brought when the City seized Fifth Avenue Coach Lines.
-
From the Aynesworth bio...
Aynesworth reported that activity converged upon the Texas School Book Depository, and that he did not enter the building possibly for fear of running into a gunman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth
Now if you watch the video posted above starting @ 15:25 ...Aynesworth reflects how he turned into a swat officer armed with a pencil barging into a suspected fugitive holdup...apparently shirking all this fear that he previously had.
He can't remember where he got it...but Mr Aynesworth obtained the address where Oswald lived 22:10
27:25 - He relates that he ran down to city hall for Oswald's transfer apparently on his own initiative ...No mention of his wife.
So the story morphed from... she was in the basement with him [The Man Who Saw Too Much] to...she didn't go down to the basement ...to just maybe she simply didn't go downtown after all.
28:15...Calls Jack Ruby a "self promoter" and mentions how Ruby was always saying "Let me tell you what I saw" :)
-
From the Aynesworth bio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth
Now if you watch the video posted above starting @ 15:25 ...Aynesworth reflects how he turned into a swat officer armed with a pencil barging into a suspected fugitive holdup...apparently shirking all this fear that he previously had.
He can't remember where he got it...but Mr Aynesworth obtained the address where Oswald lived 22:10
27:25 - He relates that he ran down to city hall for Oswald's transfer apparently on his own initiative ...No mention of his wife.
So the story morphed from... she was in the basement with him [The Man Who Saw Too Much] to...she didn't go down to the basement ...to just maybe she simply didn't go downtown after all.
28:15...Calls Jack Ruby a "self promoter" and mentions how Ruby was always saying "Let me tell you what I saw" :)
Jerry, if you are going to start a thread in an effort to discredit Hugh Aynesworth, then ignore what he wrote in his book (after it is pointed out to you). And instead, insist that what someone else wrote about him is grounds to discredit him, then sorry, but you lose all credibility with me.
-
... an effort to discredit Hugh Aynesworth,... but you lose all credibility with me.
Saying I had credibility previously? Hugh Aynesworth seemed to have no problem discrediting anyone who disagreed with him. In fact...he made it his life's work.
Hugh Aynesworth reflected how he had gone to Dealey Plaza to watch the motorcade and after the shooting-- stayed some 45 minutes or until he heard about the police involved shooting [he said]... taking notes on a couple of slips of paper. Yeah OK.
Of all the pictures taken at Dealey Plaza in the aftermath I have failed to see even one of him there.
He heard about the cop being shot on the police radio and he told a couple of TV reporters about it and they all left with haste.
They seemed to know exactly where to go. There are no pictures of Aynesworth at the Tippit scene...the Texas Theater...the Oswald house or the Ruby shooting. Mr Everywhere was camera shy?
Even before the Report was issued...Hugh Aynesworth offered to help hang Oswald with the killings. It was Aynesworth who "discovered" the mysterious Oswald Russian diary..which was shown to be a fake diary as it turned out but not before he made some big bucks from it along the way. Someone sat down and manufactured that diary but by now no one cares anyway.
-
Aynesworth turned into the PR man for the official, "Oswald escape from the TSBD" story. Through his "reporting," Aynesworth propped up Whaley and RD Matthews' cousin, Mary Bledsoe's alleged bus driver, Cecil McWatters. McWatters worked for Dallas Transit, owned and managed by brothers who had visited the Carousel Club and happened to be represented by Roy Cohn.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/H%20Disk/Hudkins%20Lonnie/Item%2039.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BledsoeRDmatthewsAynesworthHudkins.jpg)
Weinbergs, employer of Cecil McWatters :
Near left side bottom:http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1557.pdf
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7053/6960821581_44fe3c8a7b_b.jpg)
Interestingly, Roy Cohn's most famous client, aside from POTUS Trump, was the son of a couple buried in the same small Jewish congregation cemetery in Gloversville, NY. Also in that cemetery of less than 500 graves, are the parents of George Senator, Ruby's roommate who testified that he had worked in the family lunch counter in Gloversville, located within shouting distance of Schine Chain Theaters H.Q. That's right, Senator could not have been closer to the family of Roy Cohn's client, G. David Scine, unless he had been an employee of Schine Chain. G. David Schine just happened to be Gen . Mgr. of the Schine owned, Ambassador Hotel in L.A. in 1968, making Schine the employer of Cesar Eugene Thane.
LNs "know what they know," they've persuaded me of that.
https://www.nytimes.com/1961/05/18/archives/fifth-ave-coach-scores-roy-cohn-tactics-in-dissidents-suit.html
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DallasTransitRoyCohn1961_1of3.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DallasTransitRoyCohn1961_2of3.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DallasTransitRoyCohn1961_3of3.jpg)
Good persuations, Tom. Thank you very much !
-
Jerry, if you are going to start a thread in an effort to discredit Hugh Aynesworth, then ignore what he wrote in his book (after it is pointed out to you). And instead, insist that what someone else wrote about him is grounds to discredit him, then sorry, but you lose all credibility with me.
Charles, if you look a little closer, you may find that, according to the footnote, the source for this comment in the Wikipedia bio;
Aynesworth reported that activity converged upon the Texas School Book Depository, and that he did not enter the building possibly for fear of running into a gunman.
is Larry Sneed's book "No more silence"..... the same book you relied on earlier in this thread when you discussed Earlene Roberts.
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."
-
Good persuations, Tom. Thank you very much !
All in a day's work, Mark! Wasn't it just fourteen years after, almost to the day, Trump's "William Barr, I" aka Roy Cohn, threatened RFK, that RFK was assassinated in the basement of G. David Schine owned and managed, Ambassador Hotel? Not subtle, not in the least!
Posters seem to have difficulty "wrapping their minds," around many of these "snippets," and this is not a failure exclusive to LNs. Our minds apparently are not capable of "taking it all in," just accepting that truth is stranger than fiction and cherry picking from the buffet of facts is what we all do to confirm our biases.
THE ORDEAL OF LESTER CROWN - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/07/magazine/the-ordeal-of-lester-crown.html
Dec 7, 1986 - Lester Crown's hair is just beginning to show signs of gray. He is ..... Wilmette on Chicago's North Shore with his wife, the former Renee Schine.
...The family turned to A1bert E. Jenner Jr., a lawyer and longtime friend who is on the board of General Dynamics. ''Whenever the kids got into trouble,'' Jenner says, ''they never bothered the old man. They talked to me, and I got them out of trouble.'' In return for his cooperation with the grand jury, Lester Crown was granted immunity from prosecution...
MISS RENEE SCHINE BECOMES A BRIDE; Married to Lester ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 1950/12/29 › archives › miss-renee-schine-beco...
MISS RENEE SCHINE BECOMES A BRIDE; Married to Lester Crown of ... New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of ... Henry Crown of Evanston, Ill., and the late Mrs. Rebecca Kranz Crown, took ...
LESTER CROWN BLAMES THE SYSTEM - The New York ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 1985/06/16 › business › lester-crown-blames-the...
Jun 16, 1985 - New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view ... He is Lester Crown, a company director whose 8.9 million shares of General ... As the son of Henry Crown, the legendary Chicago financier who once ...
J. MYER SGHINE, 78, HOTEL MAN, DEAD - The New York ...
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/10/archives/j-myer-sghine-78-hotel-man-dead-65-sale-of-his-150million-holdings.html
May 10, 1971 - Schine, J Myer. ... New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to ... Mass., and Mrs. Renee Crown of Chicago, the wife of Lester Crown, son ...
https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/64955/knesseth-israel-cemetery?
Knesseth Israel Cemetery
LOCATION Clyde Street
Gloversville, Fulton County, New York, USA
MEMORIALS 572 added (45% photographed)
Hildegarde Feldman Schine23 Mar 1903 – 7 Sep 1994
96866894
Junius Myer Schine
Junius Myer Schine 28 Feb 1890 – 8 May 1971
Abraham Senator3 Sep 1873 – 12 Dec 1934
128378672
Anna Schul Senatorunknown – 4 Jul 1950
(http://jfkforum.com/images/TrumpRoyCohnSchineRFK.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/TrumpRoyCohnSchineRFK_2of3.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/TrumpRoyCohnSchineRFK_3of3.jpg)
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/elyse-goldweber/
TRUMP’S SHOWDOWN
Elyse Goldweber Former Justice Dept. lawyer
Elyse Goldweber is an attorney who runs a practice specializing in family law and business partnerships. She began her career as a trial attorney for the Justice Department’s Fair Housing Section in the Civil Rights Division, where she worked on a federal housing discrimination suit against Donald Trump and his father, Fred, for refusing to rent to African Americans.
This is the transcript of an interview with FRONTLINE’s Michael Kirk conducted on May 23, 2018. It has been edited for clarity and length.
TEXT INTERVIEW: Highlight text to share it.
Let’s start with the facts of the case. What are they?
.....We filed in the Eastern District of Brooklyn. … As soon as we filed the lawsuit, the Trumps, mainly Donald, hired Roy Cohn, who was quite infamous even at that time.
… How do you discover that it’s Roy Cohn? Does his name show up on a piece of paper?
Well, what our practice was at the Department of Justice, they knew we were looking at them. I mean, we had requested documentation. By the end they knew I was there, etc. And then the FBI helped us and interviewed other people for me. So we called them and told them they were being sued. That was our standard practice in civil injunctive actions.
Then the next thing we knew was that Roy Cohn, the older Mr. [Fred] Trump and Donald Trump, appear in The New York Times, and they sued the government. … Now, you can't sue the federal government; they have sovereign immunity. That's how we found out about Roy Cohn.
What was your reaction when you saw the story at the Times?
“Oh, my gosh, this is going to be really, really interesting,” because I was very interested, just personally, in the Army-McCarthy hearings, so I knew a lot about that, and I knew more than—because I was interested in that more than, I guess, the normal person about Roy Cohn.
What did you think of Roy Cohn? What were your thoughts?
Well, they weren't good. They weren't good. I mean, I thought he was a terrible guy.
And the idea of them countersuing even though there was sovereign immunity?
Right, right. It’s always upsetting.
But it seems almost frivolous, right? What were they doing, a publicity stunt?
Right, correct. And that got them a lot of attention. That was Page 1 of the Times.
And your strategy?
Our strategy was just to continue working hard. They made a motion to dismiss, and so our first court appearance was in front of Judge Nair, who was a Republican judge. Really at that time, certainly because you were a Republican or a Democratic federal district court judge… —I mean, it was a very prestigious job, and it was sort of irrelevant what party they were from.
How old were you?
I was the same age as Donald, so I was 27.
And Donald's aspect? What was he like when you first saw him?
Well, the first time I saw them was our first court appearance, where it was pouring. I had a hard time getting to court. The subway was broken; I had to take a cab. And we're in court, and because it’s their motion, they get to argue first. And Judge Nair let him speak uninterrupted for 45 minutes, of which of course I'm having a heart attack. Am I going to live through this?
What do you mean? Why?
Well, the guy, Roy Cohn, is just talking for 45 minutes uninterrupted. That's not what usually happens in court. People just don’t get to speak for a long, extended period. There are lots of questions, etc.
What's he saying?
Just how this is a horrible thing; that the power of the state to bring this to tell people who they can rent to, who they can't rent to, the usual. … Then I got up, and I was very nervous. But what turned out to make it a lot better, he—I didn't get to talk for two minutes uninterrupted. He asked questions, and that is easier to respond to.
The judge asked questions?
Yes. So he asked questions for about a half hour, 40 minutes.
And here you are, up against—
Yeah, my first job, my first court appearance. I mean, it is remarkable.
You're up against Roy Cohn.
Yeah. It was very exciting.
So what happens next?
What happens next is something that is unusual, that doesn't always happen, is the judge ruled from the bench, and he denied their application for dismissal of the case. Then we set what's called the discovery schedule. The way I recollect it is we took the depositions of Fred and Donald Trump maybe two or three days later. They were made available. So my boss—of course we thought at that time that Fred was the more important guy, so he took Fred, and I took Donald. We also had croissants on the side, and coffee and water.
So take me there cinematically. Describe from the beginning to the end what it felt like.....
-
Saying I had credibility previously? Hugh Aynesworth seemed to have no problem discrediting anyone who disagreed with him. In fact...he made it his life's work.
Hugh Aynesworth reflected how he had gone to Dealey Plaza to watch the motorcade and after the shooting-- stayed some 45 minutes or until he heard about the police involved shooting [he said]... taking notes on a couple of slips of paper. Yeah OK.
Of all the pictures taken at Dealey Plaza in the aftermath I have failed to see even one of him there.
He heard about the cop being shot on the police radio and he told a couple of TV reporters about it and they all left with haste.
They seemed to know exactly where to go. There are no pictures of Aynesworth at the Tippit scene...the Texas Theater...the Oswald house or the Ruby shooting. Mr Everywhere was camera shy?
Even before the Report was issued...Hugh Aynesworth offered to help hang Oswald with the killings. It was Aynesworth who "discovered" the mysterious Oswald Russian diary..which was shown to be a fake diary as it turned out but not before he made some big bucks from it along the way. Someone sat down and manufactured that diary but by now no one cares anyway.
There are no pictures of Aynesworth at the Tippit scene
From "With Malice" by Dale Myers, location 3797 (kindle version):
(https://i.vgy.me/vV89Uc.jpg)
Feeling foolish Jerry?
-
Charles, if you look a little closer, you may find that, according to the footnote, the source for this comment in the Wikipedia bio;
is Larry Sneed's book "No more silence"..... the same book you relied on earlier in this thread when you discussed Earlene Roberts.
Yes, and I already discussed the differences:
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.
-
Yes, and I already discussed the differences:
On page one of this thread you rely on and quoted from Larry Sneed's book to show what Hugh Aynesworth said in contradiction to what William Broyles, who you imply not to be accurate, wrote in a the magazine article. By itself, that's fair enough.
But now Jerry Freeman uses another quote from Larry Sneed's book to show that Aynesworth told a different story in his interview than what he wrote in his own book about the same event.
Sneed published a verbatim interview with Aynesworth. It's either credible or it isn't. You don't get to cherry pick parts by claiming there somehow is a difference, because there isn't one.
-
There are no pictures of Aynesworth at the Tippit scene
From "With Malice" by Dale Myers, location 3797 (kindle version):
Concede--- picture of the back of everybody's head reprinted in 1997. Not exactly front page stuff.
I have read enough of "With Malice" [on line] to glean that much of the content was slanted.
No I don't 'feel foolish'. I stand by exposing this vendetta that was launched against those who disagreed with the Warren Commission Report.
Mark Lane and Jim Garrison...their ideas may have skewed...there was no proof that Ruby and Oswald knew each other but the conclusions of the Report was no less so.
Hugh Aynesworth stood as a point man for the establishment going after any dissension..... He knows more about the assassination than anyone else alive...just ask him.
Excerpt and original text Copyright © 2003, Hugh Aynesworth
In my view, were it not for the pervasive influence of a handful of individuals, there would be no plague of conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination.
The first of these regrettable characters was Jack Ruby, who by stealing the executioner's role, created generations of doubters, and not unreasonably so. It was an audacious, desperate act that would seem to make sense only if Jack Ruby had a very powerful, rational motive for killing Lee Harvey Oswald.
The truth is that he did not; the hard evidence in the case supports no other conclusion.
Based on indisputable facts, I believe that Ruby acted spontaneously in the basement at City Hall. The opportunity to kill Lee Harvey Oswald suddenly presented itself, and Ruby acted accordingly. He could just as well have been driving home from the Western Union office at that moment.
The second key character was Mark Lane, for whose predations I must shoulder some blame.
Had I not foolishly given Lane a packet of then-secret witness statements in December of 1963, believing him when he said his single motive was to act as devil's advocate for Oswald ("I want to represent this boy," Lane told me. "I don't think he did it."), I wonder if people such as Lane, and later Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone, would be viewed today as brave souls who fought to bring the light of "truth" to the assassination story.
Lane, an attorney and one-term New York Democratic state assemblyman from the JFK wing of the party, in early December wrote a lengthy piece in The National Guardian laying out a litany of reasons that made him conclude Oswald could not have killed Kennedy. The story was published well before Lane ever visited Dallas, spoke to any witnesses or investigators or contacted me. It was riddled with inaccuracies and unsupported suppositions.
When he first called me in December, I told him I was very busy, but agreed to meet with him at my apartment the next evening.
"Do you know anybody who knows Jack Ruby well?" he asked. I said that I knew Ruby well enough to intensely dislike him. "Really?" Lane replied, his interest plainly apparent.
"Well, there's no doubt that he and Oswald were involved," he said, "but we don't know exactly how."
Then he mentioned he had an appointment scheduled for the next day with a Dallas business figure who had seen Oswald and Ruby plotting together, just a few weeks before the assassination. "I talked with him on the phone and he sounds like the real thing," Lane offered.
"How many people have you interviewed so far?" I asked.
"Well, you may be the first," he said. "Then this other source, this lawyer with an impeccable memory. Maybe I'll get to him tomorrow. But I will share it with you if you will help me."
"Who's footing the bill for your investigation?"
"I am, completely," he assured me. "I am certainly not in it for the money. This will cost me plenty, but I think it's very important."
Lane came by the apartment again the next evening. He said his good source, the one who could put Ruby and Oswald together in the Carousel Club, had bowed out, for the time being.
"He's had some threats," said Lane, "and he needs some time to think it over. We're going to talk again tomorrow."
At this point, I had not yet met Carroll Jarnagin. But I'd heard about him from Johnny King, who had said Jarnagin was "a nice-enough guy, but a bad lush" and that he thought I should talk to him eventually, if only to discount the story.
"He's told us other stories," King laughed. "One about LBJ that we would have loved to believed, another about John Tower. The guy gets around-especially in his own mind."
At this early stage in the story, I was still running down what at first often looked like great leads that connected Oswald with others in the shootings. It was too soon to dismiss possibilities. And under the general rule that even a blind pig can sometimes find an acorn, I was deeply curious to learn the identity of Lane's source, hardly guessing who he would turn out to be.
Lane tried to impress me with how much he knew about the assassination, which wasn't much at all. I'd recall this conversation three years later when I first sat down with Jim Garrison. The New Orleans DA didn't know much either.
Lane would mention this source or that eyewitness, and I would contradict him. "No, he didn't say that." Or, "She wasn't in a position to hear that."
"But how do you know?" he kept asking.
Because, I explained, in some cases I conducted the first interview with the individual in question, or knew something about them that called their word into question. A lot of them changed their stories as time passed, too.
"A few days after somebody got to them," Lane added, conspiratorially.
There also was another reason I was sure of my facts.
"I know what they said to the cops, too, within hours of the shootings," I said. "They might have 'refined' the facts later, but I know what they originally said." "What makes you so sure?" Lane asked.
Like a dummy, eager to prove my point to this opportunist, I went into the next room, grabbed a stack of papers, came back and tossed them on the coffee table.
"There are the eyewitness accounts," I said, "made the afternoon of November 22nd."
"Where did you get these?" Lane was amazed.
I could not divulge my source, I said. But the reports were real and legitimate.
Lane began to read; we didn't speak for a long time.
"The only reason I'm showing you these," I finally broke the silence, "is that you made many, many misinterpretations in your article. If you are truly interested in giving Oswald a fair shake from a historical standpoint, I think you need to know what the investigation shows so far."
"Oh, yes," Lane agreed.
He glanced at his watch and asked, "Could I use your telephone? I was supposed to call Oswald's mother about now. I'm meeting with her tomorrow and don't want to miss her, or call too late."
"Are you representing her?" I asked, thinking back over my recent, testy confrontations with Marguerite.
"Not yet. But I intend to."
"Then be my guest," I said, pointing out the telephone resting on a table in the adjoining room.
We lived in a small, one-bedroom apartment at the time, so I couldn't help hearing Lane's conversation even if I tried, which I didn't. Three or four times he said to her, "I really don't think it will make much difference."
When he finished, I softly eased into the subject. "I couldn't help but hearing Mark, what was all that 'doesn't matter' stuff about?"
"Oh, she is quite an opinionated woman," he said. "She thinks Lee was a paid informant of the FBI and she asked how much difference that would make. I told her it probably doesn't matter either way."
He changed the subject.
"You know, you are an important contributor to the truth in this case," Lane said, exuding sincerity.
"Will you help me find the truth? I have to go back to New York in a day or so, and I was wondering if I could borrow these statements for a few days. I want to contact these people to see what, if any, pressure has been brought on them, and if they have something different to say now."
All these years later, I could still kick myself for this next sentence: "Of course. I'm not writing anything more about the witnesses, at least not for now."
I didn't even take the partial precaution of making Lane go photocopy the pages. In part, that was not so simply done in 1963 as it is today; public photocopy machines were not common. Plus, I had made good notes on all the most important witnesses.
Lane, despite his promises, did not return the witness reports to me immediately. But I was busy with other parts of the assassination story, and saw no reason to distrust the earnest young lawyer from New York. I did call his office a few times. He was never in.
Then I began seeing wire service stories from Europe, reporting the fund-raising activities of so-called "Who Killed Kennedy?" committees across the continent. The dispatches said that British philosopher Bertrand Russell was involved with the committees, and reported that Mark Lane was their executive director. I also read about Lane appearing at a press conference, waving a fistful of documents in the air, proclaiming that the papers proved that witnesses in Dallas contradicted the authorities.
I had made a horrific mistake.
A few days later came a telephone call from Bertrand Russell himself in London. "First," the old man said in an authoritative British accent, "I want to congratulate you on stealing all those statements from the Dallas police. I don't profess to understand how you did it, but you have done the world a great service."
Famous as he was, I confess to little detailed knowledge of Russell's thought processes. I knew nothing of his politics and I had no idea why he was calling me. I wasn't even positive, at first, that Bertrand Russell was really on the phone. Were it not for that aristocratic accent, I would have suspected some jokester at the paper. But nobody I knew could sustain such an accent for long.
I told Russell that I had not stolen anything from any investigative agency, and I didn't know where anyone would get that idea, surely not from me.
"Oh, Mr. Lane informed me you would say just that," he replied with a chuckle.
Russell said he had some questions for me "about some of the stories you have written." I advised him to submit his queries in writing and I'd be please to answer them as best I could. This did not please him. He seemed accustomed to people doing as he instructed them. The conversation soon ended.
Yet he did write me three times over the ensuing months, exploring all possibilities of official chicanery, falsification and the like. The only subject I wouldn't touch is one I still don't touch today. I do not know exactly how to explain Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. The Warren Commission might be correct or might be totally wrong about its much-maligned "Single Bullet Theory," the allegation that one shot careened through the president's back and throat and then into Gov. Connally.
But I do know that I heard three distinct shots that afternoon; so did several others whom I interviewed shortly thereafter.
On Feb. 7, Lane finally responded to my demands that he return the files. He also offered me a job as his investigator, assuring me in a letter that "our communications and contacts would be priviledged [sic.] and I need not divulge them to anybody."
I never answered his letter and thought I was through with him at that point. But less than a month later, Lane testified before the Warren Commission about his secret source: Carroll Jarnagin.
Lane told the commission that he considered his informant "a reliable and responsible" person who had been present at an assassination plot meeting at the Carousel Club attended by Ruby, Weissman, and Officer J.D. Tippit! The alleged session occurred a few days before the assassination.
The lawyer told the commission that he would try to convince his informant to testify. Of course that never happened. The commission pleaded with him and finally paid Lane's airfare from Europe to testify. Still he would not divulge his source.
Perhaps Lane knew of Jarnagin's attempt to sell his ever-changing story or had been told that he had miserably failed a polygraph given by the district attorney's office. For whatever reason, Lane resisted.
Chief Justice Warren didn't like it.
"We have been pursuing you…with letters and entreaties to give us that information so that we might verify what you have said-if it is a fact or disproving it if it is not a fact," Warren said.
The surprise to me was not that Lane would not back up his tale; he had made many, many assertions that were untrue to this point. I was more amazed at the commission's poor background investigation.
Several people in Dallas were well aware of Jarnagin's tale, and that he later admitted making it all up.
Henry Wade and Chief Curry testified before the commission, at length. No one thought to ask them about Jarnagin, even though Wade had personally arranged for Jarnagin's polygraph and later told me "it went off the charts-far off the charts."
This is the sort of evidence Lane typically produced in support of his various conspiracy theories of the JFK case and, later, the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., which he has argued was the work of off-duty FBI agents under J. Edgar Hoover's personal control.
To dismiss Lane's imaginative scenarios as rubbish, as I did at first, is to completely miss the point.
Lane found that he could make almost any assertion about the assassination-even under oath-with impunity. He almost single-handedly invented the lucrative JFK conspiracy industry.
No wonder he and Marguerite got along so well.
His book, Rush to Judgment, was a mishmash of unproven and unlikely allegations and off-the-wall speculations. Fifteen publishing houses turned it down, because they were too far behind Lane on the manufactured-controversy learning curve.
Only Holt, Rinehart and Winston guessed the true potential for profits in Rush. They issued the book as a $5.95 hardback in 1966 and sold 30,000 copies in just two weeks. It was a publishing home run, and it showed the way for legions of other buffs to get rich and famous.
In addition to Ruby and Lane, the third leg of the conspiracy stool was Jim Garrison, the unhinged New Orleans district attorney who by virtue of his office lent reassuring, mainstream legitimacy to the wildest theories-governmental sanction for just about any crackpot claim.
As Rush rocketed to the top of the bestseller lists in the autumn of 1966, Garrison happened to meet Louisiana senator Russell Long on an airplane trip from Washington to New Orleans.
Long, who always believed there had been a conspiracy behind the 1935 assassination of his father, Huey Long, the famous "Kingfish," harbored doubts about the Kennedy case too, and urged Garrison to look into the matter.
In late 1966, the district attorney began checking out volumes of the much-maligned Warren Commission report from his local library.
Fast forward to mid-January 1967. Jack Ruby had just died of cancer. I was just starting my new job at Newsweek in Houston, when I received a call from Garrison. He invited me over to discuss the Kennedy assassination.
"I keep running into your name." he said. "I think you have information that could help me in an ongoing investigation-and I'm very sure I have information you would consider more than just interesting."
Jim Garrison (originally Earling Carothers Garrison) at the time enjoyed a favorable press. A few months earlier Jim Phelan had published an admiring profile of the hulking one-time FBI agent in The Saturday Evening Post.
Garrison told me he was investigating the Kennedy assassination, and thought I could "fill in some holes" for him. Sensing this might be the start of a great story, I agreed to what would become a long series of encounters with Garrison.
-
On page one of this thread you rely on and quoted from Larry Sneed's book to show what Hugh Aynesworth said in contradiction to what William Broyles, who you imply not to be accurate, wrote in a the magazine article. By itself, that's fair enough.
But now Jerry Freeman uses another quote from Larry Sneed's book to show that Aynesworth told a different story in his interview than what he wrote in his own book about the same event.
Sneed published a verbatim interview with Aynesworth. It's either credible or it isn't. You don't get to cherry pick parts by claiming there somehow is a difference, because there isn't one.
But now Jerry Freeman uses another quote from Larry Sneed's book to show that Aynesworth told a different story in his interview than what he wrote in his own book about the same event.
Please be more specific. I was responding to your post. I have re-read it looking for this and do not see what you are talking about. Thanks.
-
Concede--- picture of the back of everybody's head reprinted in 1997. Not exactly front page stuff.
I have read enough of "With Malice" [on line] to glean that much of the content was slanted.
No I don't 'feel foolish'. I stand by exposing this vendetta that was launched against those who disagreed with the Warren Commission Report.
Mark Lane and Jim Garrison...their ideas may have skewed...there was no proof that Ruby and Oswald knew each other but the conclusions of the Report was no less so.
Hugh Aynesworth stood as a point man for the establishment going after any dissension..... He knows more about the assassination than anyone else alive...just ask him.
Hugh Aynesworth stood as a point man for the establishment going after any dissension.....
Yet, based on what he says, it appears to me that Hugh Aynesworth isn't entirely onboard with the single bullet theory. Go figure... ::)
-
Concede--- picture of the back of everybody's head reprinted in 1997. Not exactly front page stuff.
I have read enough of "With Malice" [on line] to glean that much of the content was slanted.
You were right the first time. A furniture store is not “the Tippit scene”.
-
Hugh Aynesworth stood as a point man for the establishment going after any dissension..... He knows more about the assassination than anyone else alive...just ask him.
And there’s a difference between knowing about the assassination and parroting the official narrative as if it’s factual in every respect.
-
But now Jerry Freeman uses another quote from Larry Sneed's book to show that Aynesworth told a different story in his interview than what he wrote in his own book about the same event.
Please be more specific. I was responding to your post. I have re-read it looking for this and do not see what you are talking about. Thanks.
You merely repeated what Sneed wrote in his book. You couldn't be any less specific than that. All it told me is that he used verbatim interviews so people can make up their own mind.
On the other hand, my reply to you couldn't be more specific. Jerry showed you that Aynesworth told two different versions about the same event. If you don't (want to) understand that, that's not really my problem. All that tells me is that you are either disingenuous or not so bright. Which one is it?
-
You merely repeated what Sneed wrote in his book. You couldn't be any less specific than that. All it told me is that he used verbatim interviews so people can make up their own mind.
On the other hand, my reply to you couldn't be more specific. Jerry showed you that Aynesworth told two different versions about the same event. If you don't (want to) understand that, that's not really my problem. All that tells me is that you are either disingenuous or not so bright. Which one is it?
You have had two chances to show me specifically where Jerry showed me whatever it is you are claiming. Either you don’t know what you are talking about or you don’t have a valid point. Which one is it?
-
Hugh Aynesworth stood as a point man for the establishment going after any dissension.....
Yet, based on what he says, it appears to me that Hugh Aynesworth isn't entirely onboard with the single bullet theory. Go figure... ::)
Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a *'white-wash'.
Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed.**
There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest.***
by line....James Richards [Australia]
* I don't think that if Walker was involved in the assassination he would have ever said that.
** "Strange"? Gee do you think? :-\
*** Aynesworth [to this day] will not reveal the source of this diary. I understand that Asst DA Bill Alexander was probably the source.
-
Aynesworth [to this day] will not reveal the source of this diary. I understand that Asst DA Bill Alexander was probably the source.
I gleaned the 'probably' based on the following by line [Gary Murr --Canada]On Saturday, June 27, 1964, the Dallas Morning News ran a front-page article written by/accredited to Hugh Aynesworth under the heading caption, “Secret Diary – Oswald’s Thoughts Bared.” This was supplemented with a full page copyrighted article captioned, “The Lee Harvey Oswald Diary – October 16, 1959: I Want Russian Citizenship.” The article thereafter received (understandably) wide dissemination, not to mention notoriety, including synopsised versions in the various Washington, D. C. newspapers on the following day, Sunday, June 28th. The FBI’s original memorandum constructed in conjunction with the publication of the article, a memo written on June 28, 1964, by Walter Sullivan and addressed to Alan Belmont, stated that “the original diary was delivered by the Dallas Police to the Bureau and a photographic reproduction of it appeared as Exhibit 36 in the Bureau’s initial report on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.” The Sullivan memorandum went on to further state that “Aynesworth’s article carefully follows the diary and quotes voluminously from it. It is obvious he has a copy of the diary and that this is the basis for his article.” On this same date, June 28, ASIC of the Dallas FO was telephonically contacted by Bureau HQ at which time he advised Washington that he and the DFO “did not know the source of the information for Aynesworth.” However, it was further reported that “Aynesworth is a police reporter for the Dallas Morning News and has been anti-Bureau throughout the whole investigation.”(FBI: Record No: 124-10369-10009; Record Series HQ: Agency File No. 62-117290-Admin. Folder – V8; specifically: Record No. 124-10030-10464: Record Series HQ: FBI Case File No.: 105-82555-4377)
In this same memorandum Kyle Clark revealed to Bureau HQ that on repeated occasions Dallas Assistant DA, William Alexander, had “contacted the Dallas office and wanted photographic copies of all the property obtained by the police department and turned over to the FBI.” Alexander’s rationale for these requests was in order to aide DA Henry Wade in his testimony before the Commission. The requests were rebuffed by the Dallas FO and Alexander had been referred to the Dallas Police Department “as they had been given photographs of all of the property.” Because of the information Aynesworth had included in his article, and other items mentioned by Aynesworth, “ASAC Clark and SAC Shanklin are of the opinion that Alexander is probably the source of the (Aynesworth) leak.” At the time of the article, only the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department, and the FBI had copies of the Oswald diary. The Bureau “know we did not furnish the material to Aynesworth,” ruled out the Commission as the source of the leak, and concluded by “suspecting that Alexander or someone in the Dallas Police Department” as the source of the Aynesworth leak. The original memorandum constructed concluded further action “without making any direct inquiry,” instead alerting the Dallas office to “try and learn the source of the leak and advise the Bureau.”
The following day, June 29, 1964, Kyle Clark had a meeting with Capt. Will Fritz of the DPD at which time Fritz indicated that he had been unable, “to date,” to determine if the diary had been furnished to the Dallas Morning News “by anyone on the Dallas Police Force.” In response to this reply, Clark asked for, and obtained permission, to indicate to Fritz that the DFO felt that “it was William Alexander, the County Attorney, who sought the material in question” in the first place and thus was potentially under suspicion. Fritz’s reaction to this news was not recorded by Clark in his covering memorandum of the interview. On the same date, June 29, 1964, James Malley, FBI liaison with the Commission, discussed the article with J. Lee Rankin, advising Rankin “that reporter Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News was not friendly and that while the Bureau would handle the Commission’s request if desired, it appeared a better approach would be for the Commission to directly contact the newspaper and request information from the newspaper as to the source of the article.” Rankin indicated to Malley that the matter would be discussed at an afternoon session with members of the Commission and the Bureau would be informed of future action.
On July 1, 1964, the Bureau received a letter “from J. Lee Rankin of the President’s Commission dated June 30, 1964, requesting a thorough investigation concerning the publication of the Lee Harvey Oswald diary by the Dallas Morning News. The letter contained the actual resolution passed by the President’s Commission,” and based upon this resolution, “ASAC Kyle Clark of the Dallas Office…was instructed to conduct immediate investigation in order that the results could be furnished to the President’s Commission at the earliest possible time.” Hoover made sure that this became “news” and an article captioned “FBI Requested to Investigate Leak of Portions of Oswald’s Diary” was published in both the Washington Post and the Washington Times Herald on June 30, 1964.
The eventual “investigation” lasted for almost eight weeks with the FBI questioning individuals from the Dallas Morning News, CBS News, Time-LIFE, the DPD and the DA’s office, though the main content of the matter was resolved, to the satisfaction of the Bureau and the Commission, by the first week of August, 1964. There were numerous investigative speed bumps along the way, with perhaps the largest one being an incident that arose on July 8, 1964. On that date Detective H. M Hart, Criminal Intelligence Section, DPD, relayed a letter to Captain W. P. Gannaway, Special Service Bureau, DPD, the “SUBJECT” matter of which is listed as: “Diary of Lee H. Oswald.” According to Hart, “confidential informant T-1” stated to Hart “that Representative Ford (fnu), a member of the Warren Commission, sold SUBJECT (i.e. Oswald diary) to the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Ford had a copy of the diary and took it to executives of LIFE magazine and also Newsweek magazine. Source states that these executives paid Marina Oswald, widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, $16,000.00 for the world copyright of the diary. Source further states that proof of this is in the hand of the Dallas County District Attorney’s office.” In an “Evaluation” statement added to the bottom of his letter, Detective Hart further indicated: “Informant considered reliable; possibly true.”(A copy of this correspondence can be found at two different locations within the Dallas City Archives holdings of the Dallas Police Department: Box 13, Folder 4, File # 51; and Box 18, Folder 4, File # 12)
Two days after the Hart letter, July 10, 1964, LIFE magazine published an article that included, once again, information from Oswald’s diary. On this same date, J. Lee Rankin sent Hoover a second letter in which “the President’s Commission requested the Bureau to conduct appropriate investigation concerning circumstances surrounding the obtaining and publication of Oswald’s diary in the July 10, 1964 issue of “Life” magazine.” J. Lee Rankin had been informed of the alleged Gerald Ford leak/sale of the diary, precise date unspecified, though surviving documentation would appear to indicate that this revelation took place no later than July 10, 1964. The confidential Hart “source”, informant T-1, was revealed in a Rosen to Belmont memorandum dated July 13, 1964, to wit: “Assistant District Attorney William Alexander, Dallas County, has intimated that Representative Ford was the source of the leak of Oswald’s diary to the news media.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10054-10322: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4401)
The day after the Rankin-to-Hoover letter, Supervisor Ludwig Oberndorf of the Washington Field Office “advised that the interview with Representative Gerald R. Ford, a member of the President’s Commission, had been approved…Representative Ford has requested that he be interviewed in order that he could go on record concerning this matter.” This particular communiqué had been “submitted for record purposes” only, by Rosen, though there appears little doubt that Rankin was informed of the identity of informant T-1. By the following day, July 14, 1964, the Bureau were identifying the
”two matters” of the Dallas Morning News article of June 28 and the LIFE magazine article of July 10 as being “directly related” and over the next three weeks numerous individuals were interviewed by members of the FBI though everyone interviewed “either denied or have refused to identify the source of the diary.” The investigation eventually involved members of the Washington, New York, Houston and Dallas Field Offices with a “breakthrough” occurring on July 22, 1964. On that date the Dallas FO furnished the Bureau Lab “one roll of 35 mm positive film containing photographs of the diary, as well as one roll of 35 mm negative film of this positive and Xerox prints of the pertinent pages of the Oswald diary. These 35 mm films and prints were obtained from the District Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas. In addition, the New York Office has furnished the original Xerox prints of the 12 pages of the Oswald diary that “Life” magazine obtained and published in their July 10, 1964 issue.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10048-10258: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4509) As a result of comparative analysis of this material, “Laboratory examination of these items has established that the 35 mm rolls of film obtained from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office contain imperfections in their original state that are reproduced in the Xerox copies used by “Life” magazine. This shows that the “Life” magazine copies originated from the 35 mm rolls of film from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office.” Further legwork established that the Dallas DA’s office acquired their copies of the Oswald diary material, and other evidence, from the Dallas Police Department, their film “taken to the Recordak Corporation in Dallas where a 35 mm positive, 35 mm negative and 3 sets of hard copies were made for the District Attorney’s office. The “Life” magazine prints are these same ‘hard copies’ or are ‘hard copies’ subsequently made from the District Attorney’s 35 mm film.” Though the correspondence on this issue is theoretically from W. D. Griffith and addressed to Bureau Lab Chief, Ivan W. Conrad, the stenographic notations present on the documentation clearly indicate that the comparative analysis and resulting conclusions were the work of “LLS,” Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. On the same date as the lengthy “Shaneyfelt” memorandum on this matter, July 22, 1964, the information and results of the FBI Lab analysis were supplied to the President’s Commission by way of a letter sent to J. Lee Rankin. A memorandum attached to the letter that was to be sent to the Commission (Rankin) indicated the following, by way of updated “background” information: “Extensive investigation has been conducted by our Dallas, New York, and Houston Offices in this matter. Regarding the publication of Oswald’s diary in “Life” magazine, we have now determined arrangements for the publication were handled through Paula Aynesworth, who is the wife of Hugh Aynesworth, reporter for the Dallas Morning News and who published Oswald’s diary on June 27 and 28, 1964. Paula Aynesworth received $2500 for this information from “Life” magazine.”(Ibid prior footnote in this section, as well as: FBI: Record Number: 124-10034-10316: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-1st numbered document after serial 3524)
The FBI identification of Paula Aynesworth as a paid source of information on the Oswald diary is accurate and confirmation of this is found within the surviving papers of Holland McCombs, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. On June 27, 1964, Holland McCombs sent Natalie Kosek, Life Picture Bureau, Head Office, New York, a “Rush” memorandum and package. Addressed to Will Lang, Life Magazine, Time and Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, McComb’s indicated the impending arrival of a copy of “Oswald Russian Diary,” a package air expressed via American Airlines, Flight # 92, due to arrive at Kennedy Airport at 9:43 pm on the evening of June 27, 1964, Waybill # 886657. In the package were “photostatic” copies of 12 pages from the diary, but there were attached McCombs constructed stipulations to be followed prior to publication in LIFE magazine: “In page 6 should cross out three or four lines that describe Zeger. Page 7…where ‘Zeger advises me to go back to the U.S.A., etc…page 9. ‘I confided in Zeger, ‘etc… Our thoughts are that Mr. Zeger would be seriously hurt by the Communists if this were run verbatim. In the writings of Hugh Aynesworth he has changed the name to Andrei Tovli when it was something risky and left Zeger in it as a place where Oswald partied occasionally…even mentioned the part about the daughters etc.” (Holland McCombs Collection, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. Box 153, Folder F-9)
In addition to the Oswald diary package, McCombs included a copy of a signed agreement between LIFE magazine and Paula Eby Aynesworth, a document dated June 27, 1964. The terms of this agreement stipulated that Paula Aynesworth was to receive the sum of $2500.00 “in cash or via Western Union money order addressed to 729 North Buckner Blvd., Dallas 18, Texas, by Tuesday, the thirtieth of June, 1964.” There were other clauses in this document, including the “understanding” that Paula Aynesworth would not be held responsible in the event that “copies of above document are released by other parties than Paula Eby Aynesworth.” In his letter of accompaniment McCombs boasts of him and LIFE having a “fast leg up” on the Oswald diary material with the added comment that “here’s hoping it will be worth the $2,500.” McCombs even went so far as to suggest that Time-Life send him a “rush check…first thing Monday morning…” so that he could cash same “and hand over the cash to Mrs. Aynesworth…” McCombs also enclosed a verbatim copy of “Aynesworth’s story of diary in Dallas Morning News.”
On July 27, 1964, five days after he received original communication on the Lab examination of the 35 mm film and hard copies, J. Lee Rankin received a second letter from Hoover, a document that once again was ghost-written by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. In the concluding paragraph, the following was indicated: “The Xerox copies of the diary obtained from the District Attorney’s Office and the Xerox copies obtained from “Life” magazine were all examined for latent fingerprints. Seventeen latent fingerprints and three latent palm prints were developed on the copies from “Life” magazine. Five latent fingerprints and four latent palm prints were developed on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office. One of the latent fingerprints on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office is identical with the left thumb print of a William Franklin Alexander, who may be identical with William F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, Texas. The other fingerprints and palm prints have not been identified.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-3567.) This Hoover-to-Rankin letter was two pages in length, but there was a third page “Note For Dallas” attached to the letter, a note not sent to Rankin: “The Dallas Office should obtain, if possible, the fingerprints and palm prints of William F. Alexander and W. H. Davis, Jr., of the District Attorney’s Office. They should also obtain, if possible, fingerprints and palm prints of Hugh Aynesworth and Paula Aynesworth for comparison with the unidentified latent fingerprints and palm prints…”
On July 29, 1964, an interesting “Airtel” was sent to SAC, Dallas, from the Director. This three page document contained a number of suggestions for clarification for the individual responsible for generating reports on the Oswald diary information “leak,” SA Robert P. Gemberling of the Dallas FO. The very first “clarification” was a note that Gemberling’s report of his “interview with Holland McCombs, Dallas Correspondent for “Life” magazine, should not be included in the next Oswald report.” The airtel contained numerous follow-up suggestions for Gemberling, as well as omissions to be clarified, and concluded with this statement: “Investigation indicates W. F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas County, Texas, is a strong suspect and our laboratory has determined that copies of Oswald’s dairy in possession of “Life” magazine originated from the film that was in possession of the Dallas District Attorney’s office furnished by District Attorney Henry Wade.” Five days later, August 3, 1964, aspects of the investigation were halted in Dallas. In an Airtel sent to SAC Dallas, Shanklin was “advised against” fingerprinting the individuals described in the prior Airtel of July 27, 1964 because “newspaper officials were touchy about this matter and instructed their employees to clear any interviews concerning the diary with managing editor. We have proven ‘Life’ magazine’s copies of diary came from Dallas DA’s office and any effort to obtain prints from principals involved could result in unwarranted publicity or possible embarrassment. It is recommended no prints be sought from these people unless Commission specifically requests.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: 105-82555-4559) As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Warren Commission pressed this issue no further. In a two page letter that accompanied the Hoover-to-Dallas Airtel of August 3, 1964, time was taken to once again lash out at the DA’s office, this script though assigned to Hoover actually the prose of “RDR” – Richard D. Rogge: “Since the initiation of this investigation District Attorney Wade has been a thorn in the side of the Bureau by his impulsive manner of making inaccurate press releases resulting in confusion. Wade’s Office has been negligent in the handling of evidence and he has shown a lackadaisical attitude in this regard. Further, in his testimony before the President’s Commission Wade raised several points which apparently were construed by the Commission to substantiate uninformed charges that Oswald could have been an informant of this Bureau. This necessitated an unusual amount of work on our part to refute.”
The investigation dwindled onward, Marina Oswald denying on August 8, 1964, that though she had been contacted repeatedly by Hugh Aynesworth and had been interviewed by him “she told Aynesworth she did not care to discuss the diary.” Gerald Ford was interviewed by Cartha “Deke” DeLoach on August 17, 1964, at which time “he desired to unequivocally state, and to furnish a signed statement if necessary, that he did not leak the information in question.” This information was presented to the Commission, by way of a wrap-up letter dated August 26, 1964, from Hoover to Rankin, a communiqué that ended: “No further action is being taken by this Bureau concerning the leak of Oswald’s diary to the Dallas Morning News and Life magazine in the absence of a specific request from you.” None, it would appear, ever came thereafter from Rankin.
In the end it would appear that the “leak” of the Oswald diary to the media came about as a result of acquisition of materials from the District Attorney’s Office by the Aynesworth’s. Thereafter Mrs. Aynesworth at least got something out of it - $2500.00 – while the Bureau and the Commission investigated, to a dull conclusion, the entire affair. On July 13, 1964, William Alexander was interviewed by the FBI, vehemently denying any knowledge of the entire matter. It was further reported that Alexander stated, “President Johnson, John Edgar Hoover, the FBI and the Warren Commission ‘could kiss my a—‘…” On the same date, “Mr. William A McKenzie, attorney for Marina Oswald, on 7-6-64 said he sold publication rights of the diary to Life Magazine on 7-1-64. A Mr. Schad of Life Magazine obtained the diary from Hugh Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News. It is noted Aynesworth appears to be deeply involved in this matter and when interviewed, has refused to reveal the source of his information and was uncooperative.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10172-10043: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4522)
In addition to the document references indicated in this posting, one can also find relevant materials in: FBI: Record Number: 124-10369-10009: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder-V8; and: FBI: Record Number: 124-10371-10183: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder – E11:
-
In which we learn that because a newspaper reporter allegedly got a few details incorrect - like stating someone was Oswald's landlady instead of housekeeper - that he is potentially implicit in the conspiracy or frame up of Oswald. Honestly - get a grip. If you think Aynesworth is complicit in some plot to frame Oswald, then you have a tenuous grasp on reality. That is far out tin foil out UFO nonsense for which there is not one iota of proof after 50 plus years. If you are just suggesting he was a sloppy reporter and got some minor details wrong, then so what? What difference would that make other than to attempt to falsely imply that something more sinister is going on.
-
In which we learn that because a newspaper reporter allegedly got a few details incorrect - like stating someone was Oswald's landlady instead of housekeeper - that he is potentially implicit in the conspiracy or frame up of Oswald. Honestly - get a grip. If you think Aynesworth is complicit in some plot to frame Oswald, then you have a tenuous grasp on reality. That is far out tin foil out UFO nonsense for which there is not one iota of proof after 50 plus years. If you are just suggesting he was a sloppy reporter and got some minor details wrong, then so what? What difference would that make other than to attempt to falsely imply that something more sinister is going on.
he is potentially implicit in the conspiracy or frame up of Oswald.
No one has stated that.
If you think Aynesworth is complicit in some plot to frame Oswald
No one stated that either.
Merely observed that Hugh Aynesworth is a lackey for the Official Report in every way-- just like Richard Smith seems to be.
Only who has ever heard of Richard Smith?(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
No one has stated that. No one stated that either.
Merely observed that Hugh Aynesworth is a lackey for the Official Report in every way-- just like Richard Smith seems to be.
Only who has ever heard of Richard Smith?(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Good. So we can agree there is no point whatsoever to your endless posts on the topic. Just passing the time beating up Aynesworth because he believes (correctly) that Oswald is guilty. Time well spent. We are left to ponder from this amazing revelation why Aynesworth is a "lackey" (whatever unspecified definition your are applying to that term if you are not implying he was involved in the conspiracy) for the official report (cue sinister music). He believes, as any reasonable person does based on the evidence, that Oswald is guilty. If he made a few misstatements over the last 50 years about minor nonsense like someone being a landlady vs housekeeper then who cares? Only pedantic nuts who grasp at any straw in a desperate attempt to equate a mountain of evidence with a handful of pebbles that they have frantically searched for over the last fifty years and counting.
-
No one has stated that.
No one stated that either.
That’s why he is known as Strawman “Smith”. ::)
-
Good. So we can agree there is no point whatsoever to your endless posts on the topic. Just passing the time beating up Aynesworth because he believes (correctly) that Oswald is guilty. Time well spent.
It pales in comparison to the time you spend telling everyone (incorrectly) that there is a “mountain of evidence”.
-
Good. So we can agree there is no point whatsoever to your endless posts on the topic. Just passing the time beating up Aynesworth because he believes (correctly) that Oswald is guilty. Time well spent. We are left to ponder from this amazing revelation why Aynesworth is a "lackey" (whatever unspecified definition your are applying to that term if you are not implying he was involved in the conspiracy) for the official report (cue sinister music). He believes, as any reasonable person does based on the evidence, that Oswald is guilty. If he made a few misstatements over the last 50 years about minor nonsense like someone being a landlady vs housekeeper then who cares? Only pedantic nuts who grasp at any straw in a desperate attempt to equate a mountain of evidence with a handful of pebbles that they have frantically searched for over the last fifty years and counting.
So we can agree there is no point whatsoever to your endless posts on the topic.
If you don't like to see the posts...then don't look at them anymore---simple as that. Agreed?
-
Writers have constantly referred to Earlene Roberts as Oswald's 'landlady'...
#17 -While in his room for approximately three to four minutes, his landlady, Earlene Roberts, saw a Dallas Police Department squad car pull up “directly in front” of the residence with two police officers inside. The driver honked the horn twice before driving away. Moments later, Oswald left the house wearing a dark colored jacket. Earlene last saw Oswald standing across the street waiting at the bus stop for a bus that would have taken him in the opposite direction of where Dallas PD Officer J.D. Tippit was about to be killed (a murder Oswald would be blamed for).
https://medium.com/@j.l.pattison/25-facts-about-lee-harvey-oswald-you-were-never-told-about-3e372e216ffa
In the video interview Aynesworth reflects that the landlady [not mentioned by name] offered to give him the 'receipt' that had the name O H Lee.
This was never mentioned in testimony by anyone...& one wonders--Why would she do that anyway?
-
Jim Ewell:'Everything in me ached'
One couldn't help hearing the blare over the police car radios around me. I heard Sgt. Gerald Henslee, the chief dispatcher, dispatching cars to Oak Cliff on a report a cop had been shot.
Aynesworth ran up to me and asked if one of us shouldn't go to Oak Cliff."
Take off, I''ll stay here," I told Aynesworth. I saw him run toward a carload of cops.
Police Capt. W.R. Westbrook and a Sgt. Stringer headed for a car and asked if I wanted to come along.
I piled in and rode with them across the Houston Street Viaduct.
I kept wondering if my decision to leave the book depository had been a mistake, but I wanted to know what cop had been shot.
The police radio talked of a suspect running south from the 400 block of East 10th Street, and squads were converging on this area.
I left the squad car at a 7-11 store on East Jefferson and called the city desk, getting Bogen on the line.
I told him I needed a photographer, that the cops were running all over the place for someone who had shot an officer.
When I rejoined cops I knew they were searching a ancient 2-story apartment house on East Jefferson. I saw Asst. DA Bill Alexander cross the balcony porch with pistol drawn.
I remember thinking, "Well, Bill is getting to use his gun." Bill has long carried a pistol which had made him the butt of many jokes among newsmen.
I saw Sgt. Hill and asked him what cop had been shot.
"J.D. Tippit," he answered. I didn't recognize the name.
Hill said Tippit was probably DOA.
It was in my mind and I think it was in the minds of most cops that Tippit's shooting had some connection with the assassination.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/220112_jfk-jimewell.html
Another point of contradiction...In his video [starting @ 14:10] Aynesworth states that he heard about the policeman shooting ...reported it to the other newsmen and jumping in the TV van--joined the newsmen in the dash to Oak Cliff. Which reporter scooped who?
"It was in my mind and I think it was in the minds of most cops that Tippit's shooting had some connection with the assassination."
That was also what Aynesworth stated in the interview. Almost like it was supposed to be that way :-\ Wasn't it nice of Westbrook to invite Ewell to come along ?
I never have found a report..statement...affidavit...deposition...or any kind of testimony of that day from William Alexander --Assistant District Attorney turned homicide cop.
Oh..that video again....
-
If you don't like to see the posts...then don't look at them anymore---simple as that. Agreed?
That's great advice. I think everyone else here has already taken it. I was just trying to give you an opportunity to make a point thinking erroneously that perhaps there was one. Once it became clear that your only motivation was to beat up on Aynesworth because he dared to believe Oswald was guilty then it is a waste of time.
-
That's great advice. I think everyone else here has already taken it. I was just trying to give you an opportunity to make a point thinking erroneously that perhaps there was one. Once it became clear that your only motivation was to beat up on Aynesworth because he dared to believe Oswald was guilty then it is a waste of time.
Then certainly don't waste anymore [yet here you are] :D your only motivation was to beat up on Aynesworth
Wrong about that [and I think you know that]
-
At the end of his book on the assassination, "Witness to History", Aynesworth concluded with these words:
"I have never disputed the possibility of a conspiracy, or conspiracies, behind the Kennedy assassination. Do not doubt that's a story I'd love to break. However, the proof of such a plot continues to elude us.
"So let me add, after fifty year of covering the Kennedy assassination, I am open to any new information if it comes to light and would welcome it no matter where it would lead."
-
Aynesworth concluded with these words:
"I am open to any new information if it comes to light and would welcome it no matter where it would lead."
New information? There was nothing wrong with the old.
-
No one has stated that. No one stated that either.
Merely observed that Hugh Aynesworth is a lackey for the Official Report in every way-- just like Richard Smith seems to be.
Aynesworth the "lackey" for the official report? LOL. You mean the same reporter who wrote a front page article in the Dallas paper criticizing the Texas Rangers for falsely implicating Henry Lee Lucas in hundreds of murders? Yes, he sounds like a real lackey for the authorities. Imagine the spineless coward who takes on the Texas Rangers in Texas by questioning hundreds of murder they claimed to have solved. You have never explained why Aynesworth was a lackey for the "official report" (cue sinister conspiracy music). You went into hysterics when I suggested you were implying his involvement in the conspiracy/frame up. So take a shot and explain why Aynesworth was a lackey for the official report. What was his motivation for doing so?
-
New information? There was nothing wrong with the old.
If you put 10 JFK conspiracy believers in a room they'll come up with 87 different explanations as to what happened in Dallas that day. And some of you will believe every bit of each of the 87 explanations; even if they completely contradict each other.
Because this is how JFK conspiracists think. Conspiracies everywhere.
-
If you put 10 JFK conspiracy believers in a room they'll come up with 87 different explanations as to what happened in Dallas that day. And some of you will believe every bit of each of the 87 explanations; even if they completely contradict each other.
Because this is how JFK conspiracists think. Conspiracies everywhere.
Sounds like fun, eh
-
If you put 10 JFK conspiracy believers in a room they'll come up with 87 different explanations as to what happened in Dallas that day.
Much better to make up a story that you can’t prove and just believe that.
::)
-
Much better to make up a story that you can’t prove and just believe that.
I watched with glee while your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades for the gods they made
I shouted out, "Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all, it was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reach Bombay
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game
-
More incoherent nonsense but still no explanation for why Aynesworth was a "lackey" for the official report. Another mystery for us to ponder like why a random shoe salesman, Quaker housewife, cab driver, and many others were out to link Oswald to the crime. It is just so.
-
Aynesworth the "lackey" for the official report? LOL.....
Yak yak---I would say that post was all just so much strawman blab-- but that would be insulting to strawmen everywhere.
While Officer Thomas D. McMillon testified that he heard Ruby say, “You rat son-of-a-As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.', you shot the president,” the television footage clearly showed McMillon far removed and even looking away from the incident.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/jack-ruby
The statement was incorporated into Aynesworth's book anyway....
A book that he decided to write 50 years later for some reason---$$$ perhaps?
-
Yak yak---I would say that post was all just so much strawman blab-- but that would be insulting to strawmen everywhere. https://allthatsinteresting.com/jack-ruby
The statement was incorporated into Aynesworth's book anyway....
A book that he decided to write 50 years later for some reason---$$$ perhaps?
Try to focus. I know that is difficult for a kook but give us some explanation for why Aynesworth was a lackey for the "official report" (cue sinister music). Don't be afraid Jerry. Give it a shot. It's your claim. That Aynesworth lied or made up stuff to implicate Oswald. So tell us why you think he did that or apologize for defaming him. Have some guts and at least TRY to defend your nutty baseless claims. You don't even have to provide any proof. Just tell us why a random reporter would be untruthful regarding your hero Oswald.
-
Try to focus. I know that is difficult for a kook but give us some explanation for why Aynesworth was a lackey for the "official report" (cue sinister music). Don't be afraid Jerry. Give it a shot. It's your claim. That Aynesworth lied or made up stuff to implicate Oswald. So tell us why you think he did that or apologize for defaming him. Have some guts and at least TRY to defend your nutty baseless claims. You don't even have to provide any proof. Just tell us why a random reporter would be untruthful regarding your hero Oswald.
Go re-read the thread and then blow up your date for tonight--- LOL
-
More incoherent nonsense but still no explanation for why Aynesworth was a "lackey" for the official report. Another mystery for us to ponder like why a random shoe salesman, Quaker housewife, cab driver, and many others were out to link Oswald to the crime. It is just so.
Uh, “Richard”.....
The random shoe salesman, Quaker housewife, and cab driver witnessed no crime.
-
@CT StrawGraspers
From the Annals of Conspiracy-Monger Pulp Fiction:
> 42(ish) shooters
> 84(ish) groups
> 213(ish) participants
Easy to write a book and not have to prove anything
-
@CT StrawGraspers
From the Annals of Conspiracy-Monger Pulp Fiction:
> 42 shooters
> 84 groups
> 213 participants
(ish)
More nonsense Bugliosi rhetoric from the master of cut-and-paste without attribution.
-
Being There: Oswald @Tippit
Sticks to him like ugly on a moose
Brewer and others were just observers along the way as the little prick passed through their lives, however briefly.
Brewer: Saw/Said what he saw.
Quaker Ruth: Saw the uninvited Oswald at her home on the eve of the assassination where there was a rifle, and then there wasn't.
Both contributed. Can't see why they would need to see a crime being committed in order to simply report what they saw. They were just part of Oswald's baggage along the way to his becoming a somebody.
-
More nonsense Bugliosi rhetoric from the master of cut-and-paste without attribution.
OMG
-
@CT StrawGraspers:
"At one time or another, doubters of the lone gunman theory "have accused 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people of being involved in the assassination," said author Vincent Bugliosi
-Dave Perry
-
Can't see why they would need to see a crime being committed in order to simply report what they saw.
They wouldn’t. But “Richard” claimed that they linked Oswald to the crime.
-
@CT StrawGraspers:
"At one time or another, doubters of the lone gunman theory "have accused 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people of being involved in the assassination," said author Vincent Bugliosi
-Dave Perry
Nice of you to admit that you were lifting Bugliosi without attribution in your previous post.
“Bugliosi said it so it must be true” - LN strawgraspers
-
@CT StrawGraspers
The idea that Aynesworth is the most knowledgeable person on the JFK assassination is laughable and sad. In 1979 he told a reporter from Dallas PBS affiliate KERA: "I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy...*I just refuse to accept it and that's my life's work."
Researcher Shirley Martin wrote in a 1967 letter: "In the summer of '64, I had a long talk with Mr. Aynesworth, introducing myself to him as a friend of a relative to General Clyde Watts, ex-Major General Edwin A. Walker's close friend and attorney (Oxford). Mr. Aynesworth mistakenly assumed that I was a political conservative and immediately deluged me with disgusting anti-Kennedy stories. ("Kennedy needed a trip to Dallas like a hole in the head," etc.) At the same time Mr. Aynesworth heaped what seemed to me to be inordinate praise on the city of Dallas, the Dallas police (Lt. George Butler, Captain Fritz, Chief Curry, etc.), and the Dallas Morning News (for which newspaper Aynesworth was working at the time). He confided, too, that Tom Buchanan (Paris) was a "fairy" and detailed for me a number of extremely slanderous alleged incidents in the life of Mark Lane. In addition, Mr. Aynesworth definitively labeiled Mr. Lane a "communist." ... In addition, Aynesworth boasted that a Commission attorney had already confided to him (in July) what the Commission verdict was to be (in September). Oswald would be named, but according to Aynesworth it was in reality "...a communist plot. Warren will do a cover-up for Moscow." Aynesworth insisted that Marina had had an affair with him after the assassination, and that during this period she had revealed to him that she and Ruth Paine had shared a Lesbian relationship prior to November 22, 1963. Aynesworth also declared that he had been on 10th Street "looking down on the Tippit murder scene at 1:05pm, not later than 1:10..." on November 22nd." (This would be remarkable, since the Warren Commission placed the time of the murder several minutes later).
Jim DiEugenio wrote: "He has maintained that on November 22, 1963 he was in Dealey Plaza and a witness to the assassination --- although there is no photograph that reveals such. At times, he has also maintained he was at the scene where Tippit was shot --- although it is difficult to locate a time for his being there. He has also stated that he was at the Texas Theater where Oswald was arrested --- although, again, no film or photo attests to this. Further, he has written that he was in the basement of the Dallas Police Department when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby. Like Priscilla Johnson, Aynesworth soon decided to make his career out of this event... With the work of the Assassination Records Review Board, many more pages of documents have been released showing how tightly bound Aynesworth was with the intelligence community. It has been demonstrated that Aynesworth was - at the minimum - working with the Dallas Police, Shaw's defense team, and the FBI. He was also an informant to the White House, and had once applied for work with the CIA. As I have noted elsewhere, in the annals of this case, I can think of no reporter who had such extensive contacts with those trying to cover up the facts in the JFK case. And only two come close: Edward Epstein and Gerald Posner."
Book review--- https://www.amazon.fr/JFK-Breaking-News-Aynesworth-2003-11-02/dp/B01K3N930G
*I refuse to accept the official report and I get bashed for it :-\
-
Nice of you to admit that you were lifting Bugliosi without attribution in your previous post.
“Bugliosi said it so it must be true” - LN strawgraspers
OMG
-
They wouldn’t. But “Richard” claimed that they linked Oswald to the crime.
OMG
-
Somebody nudge Chapman. He’s stuck in an “OMG” loop.
-
Go re-read the thread and then blow up your date for tonight--- LOL
Keep running. I'll give you a start:
"Aynesworth was a lackey for the 'official report' because (fill in). This makes a difference to us over fifty years later because (fill in). Although this behavior is in direct contrast to his front page report casting doubt on hundreds of murder convictions solved by the Texas Rangers in the Henry Lee Lucas case, it is still conclusive due to the following evidence (fill in)."
Now just fill in the blanks.
-
Somebody nudge Chapman. He’s stuck in an “OMG” loop.
OMG
-
His inflatable doll has a leak.
Guttersnipe
-
Guttersnipe
OMG
-
That's gutta snipe dog... whatcha be homie----?
-
Regarding a communique from J Walton Moore regarding Hugh Aynesworth notifying him that he had applied for a visa to Cuba.
A document declassified by the United States in 1966 is a CIA report written on October 10, 1963 when J. Walton Moore, the head of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Division, reported to the chief of the Contact Division on “the possibility of Hugh Grant Aynesworth making a trip to Cuba.” [4] In other words, one month before the assignation J. Walton Moore – the same CIA agent who had been meeting regularly with the accused assassin’s (Oswald’s) best friend/CIA handler George DeMohrenschildt, was also meeting with Hugh Aynesworth about going to Cuba.
Hugh Aynesworth has been revealed by released government documents, to be a CIA media asset who in the 1960’s coordinated with the Johnson White House and the FBI and the CIA in covering up the JFK assassination. Aynesworth was also working hand in glove with Clay Shaw’s defense team in New Orleans to undermine New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
https://townhall.com/columnists/rogerstone/2014/03/19/the-establishment-media-and-the-jfk-assassination-n1811500
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55194#relPageId=30
Concerning the statements...Travel restrictions to Cuba were imposed in 1963. Gee, do you figure that is why Aynesworth received no visa after ''eleven months''? He was contacted by the Czech Embassy who asked if he was still interested. I am not all that up on the history of those travel restrictions but like today...the issuer of a visa lies with the embassy or consulate of the country receiving the request. Cuba didn't have one in the USA in 1963. Why didn't Aynesworth just go to Mexico and do like [they said] Oswald did ...visit the Cuban Embassy? How/why did the Czechs want to get involved?
This Classified document was submitted some 6 weeks before the assassination.
-
OMG
:'(
-
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."
"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.
Yes, and Mrs Roberts gave a description of the Jacket..... She said it was a dark colored Jacket. The police claimed that they found the Jacket that Lee had discarded in the alley behind Ballew's Texaco station. Was the Jacket the police found a "dark colored Jacket" ??
-
"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.
Yes, and Mrs Roberts gave a description of the Jacket..... She said it was a dark colored Jacket. The police claimed that they found the Jacket that Lee had discarded in the alley behind Ballew's Texaco station. Was the Jacket the police found a "dark colored Jacket" ??
Yes, and Mrs Roberts gave a description of the Jacket..... She said it was a dark colored Jacket. The police claimed that they found the Jacket that Lee had discarded in the alley behind Ballew's Texaco station. Was the Jacket the police found a "dark colored Jacket" ??
Hugh Aynesworth was told by Earlene Roberts that he was the first reporter on the scene at 1026 North Beckley. And that the police had just left after searching the place. Here is what she said to Hugh: “He came in running like the dickens,” she said, and didn’t respond when she asked him his hurry. “He just ran in his room, got a short tan coat, and ran back out.”
(Page 50 and 51 of “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth.)
I don't consider "tan" to be dark, just my opinion...
-
Yes, and Mrs Roberts gave a description of the Jacket..... She said it was a dark colored Jacket. The police claimed that they found the Jacket that Lee had discarded in the alley behind Ballew's Texaco station. Was the Jacket the police found a "dark colored Jacket" ??
I don't consider "tan" to be dark, just my opinion...
Charlie, Mrs Roberts said that the jacket she saw Lee putting on was a DARK COLORED jacket.....This was a spontaneous statement by Mrs Roberts. And I'd agree that "tan" is not a dark color.... But WHERE did you get "tan" from Mrs Roberts statement, that the jacket that she saw Lee putting on was DARK colored.
-
Charlie, Mrs Roberts said that the jacket she saw Lee putting on was a DARK COLORED jacket.....This was a spontaneous statement by Mrs Roberts. And I'd agree that "tan" is not a dark color.... But WHERE did you get "tan" from Mrs Roberts statement, that the jacket that she saw Lee putting on was DARK colored.
These are the words that Hugh Aynesworth wrote regarding what Roberts told him on 11/22/63:
“He just ran in his room, got a short tan coat, and ran back out.”
-
These are the words that Hugh Aynesworth wrote regarding what Roberts told him on 11/22/63:
“He just ran in his room, got a short tan coat, and ran back out.”
And again he keeps on hiding behind Aynesworth's words.
He clearly agrees with what Aynesworth said but he will never defend his own opinion....
-
And again he keeps on hiding behind Aynesworth's words.
He clearly agrees with what Aynesworth said but he will never defend his own opinion....
This is a perfect example of the nonsense that you continually spout that makes posting anything whatsoever in this forum not worth the effort. I answered Walt’s question, period.
-
This is a perfect example of the nonsense that you continually spout that makes posting anything whatsoever in this forum not worth the effort. I answered Walt’s question, period.
Hit a nerve, did I?
When you start presenting your own opinions and defend them, instead of just hiding behind quotes from books, you might be worth my time. But since you don't... not so much.
And, no you didn't answer Walt's question. You just threw another quote from Aynesworth at him.
-
Hit a nerve, did I?
When you start presenting your own opinions and defend them, instead of just hiding behind quotes from books, you might be worth my time. But since you don't... not so much.
If I am not worth your time, then ignore me (PLEASE)!!!!!
-
If I am not worth your time, then ignore me (PLEASE)!!!!!
Yeah, I hit a nerve... :D
-
Yeah, I hit a nerve... :D
It appears to me that hitting other’s nerves is one of your main goals. And that’s a shame because this is exactly what keeps some people away.
-
It appears to me that hitting other’s nerves is one of your main goals. And that’s a shame because this is exactly what keeps some people away.
My only goal is trying to make sense of the entire case by asking questions and challenge fools who spread all sorts of BS on this forum, like calling their own opinions evidence!.
If you can't stand the heat....
-
More nonsense Bugliosi rhetoric from the master of cut-and-paste without attribution.
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---
In the end it would appear that the “leak” of the Oswald diary to the media came about as a result of acquisition of materials from the District Attorney’s Office by the Aynesworth’s. Thereafter Mrs. Aynesworth at least got something out of it - $2500.00 – while the Bureau and the Commission investigated, to a dull conclusion, the entire affair.
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 BS: 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.
-
More unadulterated BS: 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.
-
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.
All these words but still no explanation for why Aynesworth acted as a "lackey" as have you alleged. You acknowledge that he took on the Texas Rangers in questioning hundreds of murder allegations against Lucas. But once again you leave unaddressed why he was a lackey in the JFK case.
-
All these words but still no explanation for why Aynesworth acted as a "lackey" as have you alleged. You acknowledge that he took on the Texas Rangers in questioning hundreds of murder allegations against Lucas. But once again you leave unaddressed why he was a lackey in the JFK case.
Stop whining, cry baby!
Complaining about unanswered questions when you never ever answer a question yourself is extremely hypocritical.
-
Stop whining, cry baby!
Complaining about unanswered questions when you never ever answer a question yourself is extremely hypocritical.
Still no answer. How are things in "Europe"? Bullfighting season is upon us. Do you have tickets?
-
Still no answer. How are things in "Europe"? Bullfighting season is upon us. Do you have tickets?
Asks "Richard Smith" of nowhere in particular.
-
Asks "Richard Smith" of nowhere in particular.
Yeah, "Richard" knows things nobody else knows.... or at least he thinks he does.
-
Still no answer. How are things in "Europe"? Bullfighting season is upon us. Do you have tickets?
Things in Europe are fine, at least where I am staying.
How things are in your imaginary "Europe" I can not say.
-
All these words but still no explanation for why Aynesworth acted as a "lackey" as have you alleged.
Review the earlier posts...Aynes was supposedly present when the shots were fired in Dealey. Afterwards, supposedly whisked over to the hunt for Tippit's killer....Then supposedly hot footed it to the Texas Theater just in time for Oswald's capture...Supposedly after that, he appeared over at Oswald's room and interviewed the housekeeper...Whatever else he supposedly did that day eludes me at the moment. However, he was supposedly present in the police basement when Ruby gunned down Oswald that Sunday morning.
My question back then yea many posts ago [and was never answered] is was why in hell was Mr- HE Was Everywhere- Did Everything- Saw All Hugh Aynesworth NOT called before the Warren Commission as probably the most PROLIFIC witness of all?
Jesse Curry was called and admitted that he witnessed nothing...Henry Wade [who witnessed nothing] was called. A Helen Leslie was called. Who in hell was she?
Mrs. LESLIE. I will be glad to--as much as I can.
Mr. JENNER. You just sit back and relax and nothing is going to happen to you.
Mrs. LESLIE. I don't think I know very much; actually it is very little.
Actually ...she didn't know anything.
....no explanation for why Aynesworth acted as a "lackey"
I don't know why Aynes 'acted' as a lackey...it just seems to me that perhaps he probably was.
-
Yeah, "Richard" knows things nobody else knows.... or at least he thinks he does.
More words but still no answer. Not even an attempt to make something up.
-
Review the earlier posts...Aynes was supposedly present when the shots were fired in Dealey. Afterwards, supposedly whisked over to the hunt for Tippit's killer....Then supposedly hot footed it to the Texas Theater just in time for Oswald's capture...Supposedly after that, he appeared over at Oswald's room and interviewed the housekeeper...Whatever else he supposedly did that day eludes me at the moment. However, he was supposedly present in the police basement when Ruby gunned down Oswald that Sunday morning.
My question back then yea many posts ago [and was never answered] is was why in hell was Mr- HE Was Everywhere- Did Everything- Saw All Hugh Aynesworth NOT called before the Warren Commission as probably the most PROLIFIC witness of all?
Jesse Curry was called and admitted that he witnessed nothing...Henry Wade [who witnessed nothing] was called. A Helen Leslie was called. Who in hell was she?Actually ...she didn't know anything.
I don't know why Aynes 'acted' as a lackey...it just seems to me that perhaps he probably was.
Huh? Aynesworth was a reporter. He was just doing his job. So many rambling words but no answer as to why he was a "lackey." I even gave you a start. Try again:
"Aynesworth was a lackey for the 'official report' because (fill in). This makes a difference to us over fifty years later because (fill in). Although this behavior was in direct contrast to his debunking hundreds of murders solved by the Texas Rangers in the Henry Lee Lucas case, it is still conclusive due to the following evidence (fill in)."
-
Still no answer. How are things in "Europe"? Bullfighting season is upon us. Do you have tickets?
Martin Weidmann and some of his allies like to say that they're just "challenging" claims about Oswald, looking into the allegations more deeply and just being skeptical about the allegations. That's all.
But when a conspiracist makes a claim - Aynesworth was a "lackey" or Oswald was a CIA agent - their willingness to challenge claims disappears, is almost nowhere to be found. The only person's behavior that isn't considered suspicious or is given the most innocent of explanations is Oswald's.
I'd call it being inconsistent but that's only if they were trying to be consistent.
-
Huh? Aynesworth was a reporter. He was just doing his job.
Are you sure you're not a Democrat?
-
Are you sure you're not a Democrat?
Still no explanation? It appears you not only think Aynesworth is a "lackey" but was actually part of the conspiracy to kill JFK since your most recent post cast doubts on his presence at the events that he reported on. He would have to be part of a pre-planned conspiracy to have been recruited into the plot by that early point within minutes of the assassination. That is far out stuff.
-
Martin Weidmann and some of his allies like to say that they're just "challenging" claims about Oswald, looking into the allegations more deeply and just being skeptical about the allegations. That's all.
But when a conspiracist makes a claim - Aynesworth was a "lackey" or Oswald was a CIA agent - their willingness to challenge claims disappears, is almost nowhere to be found. The only person's behavior that isn't considered suspicious or is given the most innocent of explanations is Oswald's.
I'd call it being inconsistent but that's only if they were trying to be consistent.
Martin Weidmann and some of his allies like to say that they're just "challenging" claims about Oswald, looking into the allegations more deeply and just being skeptical about the allegations. That's all.
Indeed, although I am not clear on who these "allies" are supposed to be. Perhaps you're just being paranoid, could that be?
But when a conspiracist makes a claim - Aynesworth was a "lackey" or Oswald was a CIA agent - their willingness to challenge claims disappears, is almost nowhere to be found.
Why would I even be interested in challenging such a claim, when I don't believe or support it. I'm not the forum police! As far as conspiracy theories go, I'm not even interested in them, despite the fact that some theories produce interesting questions about the official narrative. By the way, before you start complaining about CT's not challenging what other CT's say, when was it again that you actually challenged even the slightest bit of information in the official narrative? You wouldn't be inconsistent, would you now?
The only person's behavior that isn't considered suspicious or is given the most innocent of explanations is Oswald's.
Stop whining. There are plenty of things in Oswald's story that I question. I wonder how he could go to Russia and bring back a Russian wife so easily. I wonder how it can be that a young man arrested for a street fight in New Orleans can summon an FBI agent to his cell. I wonder why the print of a BY photo, found in George DeMohrenschildt's storage unit, was of better quality than all the others and why Oswald would write on the back. I wonder about how and when Oswald actually left the TSBD. I wonder how Oswald's grey jacket, that he was wearing during the trip to Irving on Thursday could end up at the roominghouse for him to put on on Friday afternoon.
The problem is that it doesn't get me very far because all I have is the official narrative and that simply doesn't provide any answers.
-
Still no explanation? It appears you not only think Aynesworth is a "lackey" but was actually part of the conspiracy to kill JFK since your most recent post cast doubts on his presence at the events that he reported on. He would have to be part of a pre-planned conspiracy to have been recruited into the plot by that early point within minutes of the assassination. That is far out stuff.
"It appears you ...think Aynesworth...was actually part of the conspiracy to kill JFK since your most recent post cast doubts on his presence at the events that he reported on... That is far out."
The only thing that is far out here is your dim mind making up crap. Why not just quit while you're behind?
-
"It appears you ...think Aynesworth...was actually part of the conspiracy to kill JFK since your most recent post cast doubts on his presence at the events that he reported on... That is far out."
The only thing that is far out here is your dim mind making up crap. Why not just quit while you're behind?
Still no explanation much less evidence that Aynesworth was a "lackey" but now you are also implying he was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK. Doubling down on lunacy. Somewhere Caprio is jealous.
-
Didn't Aynesworth apply to work for the C.I.A.?
-
Didn't Aynesworth apply to work for the C.I.A.?
Mr Smith will no doubt ignore that statement..replying perhaps--where is your proof?
Still no explanation..that Aynesworth was a "lackey" but now you are also implying he was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK.
LIE. Nowhere did I imply that Aynes was part of "the conspiracy" [Smith's own words..admitting that there was indeed a conspiracy]
My question-still not answered....Why did the Warren Commission not call Aynesworth [a bonefide prime witness]?
Mr Smith replied that he was only "just a reporter doing his job."
The following is a list of reporters who WERE called before the Warren Commission-----
Joseph Nelson Benton...CBS correspondent
Robert Gene Fenley...Dallas reporter
Priscilla Johnson [McMillan]...reporter/author
Seth Kantor...Dallas reporter/author
James Lehrer...Dallas reporter
John McCullough...News reporter
Icarus Pappas...Radio reporter
George Phenix...TV reporter
Victor Robinson...Dallas reporter
Phillip Vinson...Ft Worth reporter
Thayer Waldo...Ft Worth reporter
I'll give odds that Mr Smith has not read the WC testimony from any of them.
Aynesworth broke the story of Oswald's escape route, and had the first major interview with Marina Oswald.[2] Having not told it to the Warren Commission, Marina had told him that she persuaded Oswald not to assassinate Richard Nixon.[2] Aynesworth, to the consternation of the Warren Commission, also obtained and published the Oswald diaries.[2]Aynesworth has been reported to have spent much of his career attempting to refute conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination.[9] He supports the official conclusion that Oswald acted alone and believes that conspiracy theories have been generated by people motivated by money and fame... Described as Garrison's "nemesis", he worked openly with Clay Shaw's attorneys to defend Shaw against Jim Garrison.[2] Irvin Dymond characterized Aynesworth's help in the case as "crucial".[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth
I rest the case and turn any final rebuttal over to any lackey or wacky troll that wishes to reply.
-
Review the earlier posts...Aynes was supposedly present when the shots were fired in Dealey. Afterwards, supposedly whisked over to the hunt for Tippit's killer....Then supposedly hot footed it to the Texas Theater just in time for Oswald's capture...Supposedly after that, he appeared over at Oswald's room and interviewed the housekeeper...Whatever else he supposedly did that day eludes me at the moment. However, he was supposedly present in the police basement when Ruby gunned down Oswald that Sunday morning.
My question back then yea many posts ago [and was never answered] is was why in hell was Mr- HE Was Everywhere- Did Everything- Saw All Hugh Aynesworth NOT called before the Warren Commission as probably the most PROLIFIC witness of all?
Jesse Curry was called and admitted that he witnessed nothing...Henry Wade [who witnessed nothing] was called. A Helen Leslie was called. Who in hell was she?Actually ...she didn't know anything.
I don't know why Aynes 'acted' as a lackey...it just seems to me that perhaps he probably was.
Here is Jerry questioning whether Aynesworth was even at Dealey Plaza or the Texas Theatre and asking why he was "whisked" to the hunt for Tippit's killer. Keep in mind that there is no doubt whatsoever that Aynesworth was present and there is nothing odd about a newspaper reporter investigating the most important story in his life. What is being implied is that Aynesworth was not present and/or made up information as a "lackey" for the official report right from the beginning. In which case he would have to be in on the fantasy conspiracy right from the beginning in Jerry's fantasy narrative. He is literally there as the events are happening. The WC didn't even exist at that point.
-
More unadulterated BS: 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.
They don't have to know..
-
Here is Jerry questioning whether Aynesworth was even at Dealey Plaza or the Texas Theatre and asking why he was "whisked" to the hunt for Tippit's killer. Keep in mind that there is no doubt whatsoever that Aynesworth was present and there is nothing odd about a newspaper reporter investigating the most important story in his life. What is being implied is that Aynesworth was not present and/or made up information as a "lackey" for the official report right from the beginning. In which case he would have to be in on the fantasy conspiracy right from the beginning in Jerry's fantasy narrative. He is literally there as the events are happening. The WC didn't even exist at that point.
"The WC didn't even exist at that point."
The Warren Commission didn't exist at what point? And that's the reason they didn't call him as a witness?
I said quit while you are behind and here you are getting even more behinder and totally embarrassing yourself.
"Keep in mind that there is no doubt whatsoever that Aynesworth was present"
I never said that Aynes wasn't at these locations... I have just emphatically mentioned that he was supposedly at all these locations and yet was not called as a Warren Commission witness. That was all. So is that clear to even the smallest mind?
Keep in mind that there is no doubt whatsoever that Aynesworth was present
OK---But anyway...Prove it. Post for us a picture of Aynesworth in Dealey Plaza that afternoon...a photo of him at the Tippit murder scene...[I concede there is a photo of him in the area]...a picture of him at the Texas Theater...at the Oswald room perhaps or in the Dallas Police basement standing next to Ruby. Now hear this---Aynesworth has been reported to have witnessed the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza, the capture and arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Texas Theater, and the shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas Police Headquarters.[2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth
Even wiki doesn't state [so positively as Richard] that Aynes absolutely 'witnessed'..but rather 'has been reported to have witnessed' :-\
-
The Warren Commission didn't exist at what point? And that's the reason they didn't call him as a witness?
I said quit while you are behind and here you are getting even more behinder and totally embarrassing yourself.
I never said that Aynes wasn't at these locations... I have just emphatically mentioned that he was supposedly at all these locations and yet was not called as a Warren Commission witness. That was all. So is that clear to even the smallest mind?OK---But anyway...Prove it. Post for us a picture of Aynesworth in Dealey Plaza that afternoon...a photo of him at the Tippit murder scene...[I concede there is a photo of him in the area]...a picture of him at the Texas Theater...at the Oswald room perhaps or in the Dallas Police basement standing next to Ruby. Now hear this---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth
Even wiki doesn't state [so positively as Richard] that Aynes absolutely 'witnessed'..but rather 'has been reported to have witnessed' :-\
If you are not questioning that Aynesworth was at these locations why say "supposedly" over and over and ask for proof? Why raise it at all? Are you suggesting that he wasn't there and made it up or not? Why dance around like a circus monkey implying something is sinister and then denying that is what you are suggesting? There was no WC "official story" when the events Aynesworth witnessed occurred on Nov. 22-24. What is so difficult to understand about that? Aynesworth would have to be in on the conspiracy to kill JFK to be supporting the "official" story by reporting on it before there even was an official story. Time moves in a linear manner for most of us outside the fantasy conspiracy world.
-
Does anyone else understand or can translate the drivel that Richard Smith posted above in reply #132?
Does anyone else have any photos to post of Hugh Aynesworth in those locations at the time of the mentioned events because apparently Mr Smith doesn't and can prove basically nothing.
I guess I hurt his feelings and he has chosen to try and insult me.
(https://ruadventures.com/forum/Smileys/animated/crybaby.gif)<<<<<<<<-----Richard
-
More words but still no answer. Not even an attempt to make something up.
Making things up is your department.
-
I wonder why the print of a BY photo, found in George DeMohrenschildt's storage unit, was of better quality than all the others and why Oswald would write on the back.
And also how it got in there during the time they were in Haiti.
-
They don't have to know..
And yet somehow you do...
-
And yet somehow you do...
Why would I have to know
-
Why would I have to know
You don't. You don't know squat -- you just make declarations of fact as if you do.
-
You don't. You don't know squat -- you just make declarations of fact as if you do.
Fkn control freak
This is a discussion platform
Not a court of law
-
Fkn control freak
This is a discussion platform
Not a court of law
Do you think that somehow entitles you to make declarations of fact that you cannot demonstrate are actually true?