It’s not that the WC or the FBI or the Dallas Police told anyone to lie- they weren’t going to do that. Rather, there were times that they forcibly told people that they were wrong about something, as in mistaken- that they did not hear something or see something as they think they did. But, the idea that they were going to make up a whole narrative for someone to tell, like: “You say that Oswald got on your bus and this is what happened…” OR “You say that you took a walk down to the railroad tracks with Bill Shelley and when you returned, you re-entered through the back door…” That is ridiculous. People aren’t actors. They have no ability to perform. That was never going to go well. Furthermore, when you do that, it’s like announcing to them: WE KILLED KENNEDY! It’s empowering to give someone that knowledge. Do you think they wanted to empower anybody? So, why did Gerald McKnight suggest that the FBI or WC “persuaded” Shelley and Lovelady to “alter their testimony”? First, those were poor choices of words. "Persuade" means to appeal to reason, and "alter" means to change but without making it into something else. Concocting a whole narrative about a trek goes way beyond altering, and whatever pressure was applied to get them to tell a phony story would have gone way beyond persuading. But, the worst thing is that it implies a willingness, on the part of these august bodies, to reveal what they were doing, to expose the racket that they were involved in. They were never going to do that. They had the upper hand, and they wanted to keep it. How was Victoria Adams a threat when she didn’t even make it into the one-volume edition of the Warren Report? And remember, it was 1964; there was no Internet where you could go online and access all the volumes of the Warren Report. And there was no worry that the newspapers were going to make a stink about it. Professor McKnight said that Victoria Adam’s account put the Commission’s case against Oswald on the brink of disaster. Only Victoria Adam’s account? What about the Single Bullet Theory? Was that not an evidentiary disaster? What about the witnesses who saw other shooters? The case against Oswald was already a disaster. You should read Vincent Salandria. He said it was never about making a convincing case against Oswald. It was about making an OFFICIAL case against Oswald. This is “officially” what happened, and the force of government is behind it. That’s what the Warren Report was all about. But, you can be absolutely sure that the Warren Commission maintained an air of propriety at all times. They certainly never resorted to ordering someone to tell a phony narrative. I bet you that even in private they NEVER let their guard down. For instance, if Allen Dulles was having a private conversation with Joseph Ball- the kind that’s very, very private-even then, neither spoke frankly about what they were doing, which was railroading Oswald. It was all subtlety and innuendo. Yet, they were going to be frank and open about it to some plebe? There’s a tendency to get carried away sometimes, and unfortunately, in this matter, Professor McKnight got carried away. He’s a great man, and I appreciate that he has been a strong advocate of Oswald in the doorway for a long time, as was his mentor Harold Weisberg. And I still hope that he will decide to become a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
Posted on: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:04:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015