JFK Assassination Forum

Mr Blunt:

Over at the https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ we are wondering about brief remarks you made about Bruce Solie "being all over Jim Garrison” or something to that effect.

As I am sure you know, researcher John Newman recently issued his narrative of Solie, as a KGB mole running LHO.

This opens up whole new can of worms.

Solie's efforts in regards to the WC and HSCA were to promote Nosenko as a truth-teller on LHO, and much else.

I realize this is an unpopular idea, that LHO may have been a G2 or KGB asset.

Anything there?

Benjamin Cole

---30---

I sent to this address: Homeoffice@Infogenic.co.uk

If someone has a better address....

It was Malcolm Blunt who said the Bruce Solie was all over the Garrison investigation.

I wonder what he meant.

Kristi Noem: I grief for the parents of Alex Pretti. I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child like that. Well, that is not totally true. I do know what it is like to lose a dog like that so I guess it would be somewhat similar.

Charlie Kirk quote from 2018:

The 2nd amendment is not for hunting, it is not for self protection. It is there to ensure that free people can defend themselves if god forbid, government became tyrannical and turned against its citizens.



So a free people must be allowed to bring a firearm anywhere they might need to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. And that includes at a protest of that same government. And this right must not be infringed upon for frivolous reasons, like a misdemeanor may have been committed, J-walking or not having the proper permit with you at the time.

Are we dealing with a tyrannical government, when the government uses a misdemeanor to justify the killing of a protester? That his misdemeanor totally overrides any First or Second Amendment rights he would otherwise have had?

The shooter put himself in front of the car on purpose and was able to move out of the way. Whether the car grazed him is not really a critical issue.  It is not really a difficult issue either if one had the autopsy details.

The first bullet from the front appears to be travelling on a downward car left to car right path and struck the far right lower corner of the windshield:



If the shooter was in front of the car when he shot, the bullet would have passed to the far car left side and maybe grazed her left side if it struck her at all. If it did strike her farther to her right then he could not have been in front of the car when he fired. In any event, it did not likely strike her in the head as it was too low.

It is difficult to understand why the shots from the side were needed at all.

Agreed. When he was told to get some lunch "Big Boy", he immediately switched his phone from his right hand to his left, freeing up his gun hand, WALKED IN FRONT OF A VEHICLE WITH ITS ENGINE RUNNING,  positioned himself on the driver's side, barely in front of the car (if at all) so he could say he was in front of the car, but far enough to the side to be pretty safe. And the first instinct, if you think a car is coming at you, is to step aside, not start firing your gun, unless you think you are already in a safe place and just want to kill.

With the engine running, he could have walked around the backside of the car to get in position. But that might not get him in position soon enough to justify shooting at her if the car starts to move too soon.

Also, he have his video, taken maybe 30 seconds before, where the victim says "I'm not angry at you". Like he was looking menacing, like getting his anger up, and she was scared of him enough to say "I'm not angry at you." I have met police occasionly, I never felt the need to tell them "I'm not angry at you." Never. That is a weird thing to happen within a minute of the same officer killing her.