egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

> Bumped off by a palace hit squad, commissioned by the Dook?


Reconstructions of the crash have suggested that if the occupants of the car had been wearing seatbelts only minor injuries would have been sustained.

And that really should be the end of it, except for those who cant accept that 'Shit Happens'.

I think it was terrible that the Duke of Edinburgh could get away with cutting their seatbelts.

!wink!

You know that sort of thing only encourages them David. Stop it.

Robches wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps if Hunt had given a few more details, he might have
> > been more credible. And you haven't answered the point about
> > how many people would need to keep the secret.
>
> I don't know how many people would be in on it. The CIA was a
> compartmentalised organisation, with dedicated assassination
> teams. Removing governments they deemed unhelpful was what they
> did.
>
I suspect a lot more than you would imagine.
Which foreign politicians do you think have been murdered by the CIA?
One of the reasons I doubt CIA ? Mafia involvement in the death of President Kennedy is their sheer incompetence. They managed to screw up the Bay of pigs invasion; there seems to have been evidence of a CIA ? Mafia plot to kill Castro but yet the CIA with all their millions (then), manpower and alleged links to the mob still couldn't kill one man.



> >
> > The fact that he doesn't use a computer is relevant how?
>
> How easy do you find it to keep up with things without one?
> Vince's refusal to use a computer or email means he is writing
> in splendid isolation. He has not really moved much beyond the
> 1970s in his sources.

You use researchers, secretaries, factotums - they assimilate all new evidence/ findings and then present it to you. Most of biographers of great men and women tend not to do all the research themselves that doesn't negate their findings.

>
>
> >
> > Their brief is from whom? Or are you saying their client was
> > the American government and they are part of a conspiracy to
> > cover up a conspiracy. When Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald
> > (defended by Gerry Spence) for LWT, a jury of Dallas citizens
> > believed that the case had been proved beyond all reasonable
> > doubt.
>
> Vince seems convinced that he somehow convicted Oswald, as if a
> TV show counted. Having a dead client might have hampered the
> defence a bit.

Gerry Spence obviously didn't think so or he wouldn't have risked his reputation. At that time he'd never lost a case. I imagine he assumed that the 12 Dallas jury members would have the same view as majority of the American public that there was a conspiracy but they didn't and found Oswald guilty.


As to who Posner might have been working for,
> he's pretty much a gun for hire. He notoriously used material
> prepared by the American Bar Association in his book Case
> Closed as if it were his own. We do know for a fact that the
> CIA maintained friendly assets in major newspapers and TV
> channels, whether Posner was being paid in some way by them one
> can only surmise. He's under no obligation to show us his tax
> returns, then again, for some odd reason Lee Harvey Oswald's
> tax returns are still embargoed after all these years. I wonder
> why?

We do have details of Oswald's bank statement showing that he only had a few hundred dollars in his accounts.

Essex Lad wrote:


> I suspect a lot more than you would imagine.
> Which foreign politicians do you think have been murdered by
> the CIA?

Well, that very month, November 1963, they engineered the coup that saw President Diem killed in South Vietnam. It was their bread and butter.

> One of the reasons I doubt CIA ? Mafia involvement in the death
> of President Kennedy is their sheer incompetence. They managed
> to screw up the Bay of pigs invasion; there seems to have been
> evidence of a CIA ? Mafia plot to kill Castro but yet the CIA
> with all their millions (then), manpower and alleged links to
> the mob still couldn't kill one man.

In my opinion the Bay of Pigs was never meant to work. The aim was to provoke President Kennedy into invading Cuba rather than let the operation fail. To the eternal disgust of the CIA, he refused to be panicked into a US invasion, just as he had told them all along. And there is no "seems" about the evidence of their attempts to kill Castro, it was all brought out by the Church Committee in the 1970s.

>
> We do have details of Oswald's bank statement showing that he
> only had a few hundred dollars in his accounts.

I was referring to his income tax returns, which are still sealed. Oswald's finances have always been a problem. As far as I know, no-one has been able to find out how he afforded his trip to Russia for instance.

Robches wrote:

> As far as
> I know, no-one has been able to find out how he afforded his
> trip to Russia for instance.


During Oswald's 2 years and 10 months in the Marine Corps he received - after deductions - $3,452.20 in pay. Of this amount he had saved $1,500 - plenty enough for a trip to Russia.

Senator Schweiker's sub-committee of the Church Committee found that Lee Harvey Oswald had $203 in his only bank account, which he closed when he left the Marine Corps. He gave his mother $100, then spent $220.75 on a ticket for a ship which took him to Le Havre on 8/10/59. The next day he arrived in Southampton, and on 10/10/59 he left London and arrived in Helsinki. There was only one flight from London to Helsinki that day, and he was not on it. The Warren Commission could not get to the bottom of that, and no-one else has ever been able to.

In Helsinki he booked himself into the two best hotels, first the Torni Hotel, then after one night the Klaus Kurki Hotel. He bought $300 worth of travel vouchers, then left by train on 15/10/59, arriving in Moscow the next day. All in all not bad on $203.

In Moscow, he told a UPI journalist called Aline Mosby that he had saved $1500, that is the only source for that figure, it cannot be presented as fact. If, as I suspect, he was part of the false defector programme run by the Office of Naval Intelligence, he might be expected to keep their part in funding him quiet.

Robches wrote:

> In Moscow, he told a UPI journalist called Aline Mosby that he
> had saved $1500, that is the only source for that figure


No, not the only source.

Oswald's mother said that he had saved about $1,600 whilst in the Marine Corps and had given her $100, leaving $1,500.



> If, as I suspect, he was part of
> the false defector programme run by the Office of Naval
> Intelligence


You think they'd use Oswald as a fake defector? LOL!

They must have been really hard up for volunteers then.

Robches wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> > I suspect a lot more than you would imagine.
> > Which foreign politicians do you think have been murdered by
> > the CIA?
>
> Well, that very month, November 1963, they engineered the coup
> that saw President Diem killed in South Vietnam. It was their
> bread and butter.

But there is a heck of a difference between "engineering a coup" and actually killing a foreign leader. The CIA or other agency probably helped the Libyan rebels but they didn't actually murder Gaddafi.

If the CIA were that efficient why are they not murdering all the left-wing dictators/elected politicians they disagree with?

>
> > One of the reasons I doubt CIA ? Mafia involvement in the
> death
> > of President Kennedy is their sheer incompetence. They
> managed
> > to screw up the Bay of pigs invasion; there seems to have
> been
> > evidence of a CIA ? Mafia plot to kill Castro but yet the CIA
> > with all their millions (then), manpower and alleged links to
> > the mob still couldn't kill one man.
>
> In my opinion the Bay of Pigs was never meant to work. The aim
> was to provoke President Kennedy into invading Cuba rather than
> let the operation fail. To the eternal disgust of the CIA, he
> refused to be panicked into a US invasion, just as he had told
> them all along. And there is no "seems" about the evidence of
> their attempts to kill Castro, it was all brought out by the
> Church Committee in the 1970s.
>
But that rather validates my point is that they were too incompetent to kill JFK when they couldn't even get rid of Castro and he's still alive!!