ME & LEE

ME & LEE
Learn the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald

Order Me & Lee: the Truth about Oswald and the Kennedy Assassination

Item #100 Me & Lee w/free CD
NOT USA?DONATE $10 MORE 2 SHIP

Help out! DONATE! You can help with Internet/Medical/Heating Bills! (Thank You!)

DAViD FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT - the premiere book about the Kennedy assassination suspect

DAVID FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT PAPERBACK, AUTOGRAPHED

Thursday, August 25, 2011

The Grassy Knoll, the Kennedy Assassination, and Name-Calling

Chris Matthews: You're "Crazy" if You Believe Witnesses Who Say They Heard Shots from the Grassy Knoll!

Police and people began running toward the Grassy Knoll after hearing shots that killed JFK



'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Friday, April 15th, 2011

Read the transcript to the Friday show

…MATTHEWS: “Let Me Finish” tonight with the grassy knoll. That was the place in Dallas—near the Texas Book Depository—that the crazies believe people shot at President Kennedy from.

Well, to the conspiracist mind, it‘s important to always have a grassy knoll. It‘s their grotto of denial, a place to travel mentally and find deliverance from reality. Those who don‘t like reality need a grassy knoll to get through the night.

==Note: You're saying that 75% of the American people, Mr. Matthews, are "crazies" who 'don't like reality'!==

I do not wish to do injustice to these desperados.

I know exactly why people need grassy knolls. They need them because they cannot bear the suffering that truth brings to the heart and to the mind.

How could some loser—some misfit who went to the Soviet Union because he thought he liked communism and believed he could find a happy life there, then came home and fall hard for Fidel Castro on the rebound, how could this squirt kill the regal Jack Kennedy? It doesn‘t balance out, does it?


==Matthews has obviously never read the truth about who lee Harvey Oswald actually was --which you can do right HERE--and has never considered why they had to kill Oswald quickly--a man even the government admitted had no 'motive' to shoot JFK, since he was on record as admiring him!--


How could a nobody kill such a great somebody?


==This is an old argument to try to dismiss Oswald as a nobody. We now know Lee Harvey Oswald was almost certainly the man who saved Kennedy's life in Chicago, which you can read about in Abraham Bolden's book, Echo from Dealey Plaza. Nor has this man read ME & LEE, CROSSFIRE, or JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE!==


Well, worst yet, how could a man of a hard left—a communist—kill Jack Kennedy.


==FACT: Oswald, who worked undercover against Fidel Castro in New Orleans, as chronicled in the book Me & Lee and in the book Dr. Mary's Monkey, was never a communist.


CH 7 of the Warren Commission's Report states Lee Oswald "apparently never joined any Communist Party."


As a spy in the USSR, Lee was able to return safely to the US. Had he been a real defector, he would have been arrested upon his return. But Mr. Matthews carries on....====


Why wasn‘t it a right-winger who killed him? Then we could blame it on them?


==Mr. Matthews acts as if Kennedy wasn't killed by a coalition that included right-wingers! To understand how the main plot to kill Kennedy began, see this YouTube video: "Me & Lee Harvey Oswald: How the Kennedy Assassination Plot Began in New Orleans."


I‘ve got it. We‘ll come up with a conspiracy theory—don‘t actually have to prove anything, of course, that says—just say it. Just say it. It really was a right winger. It‘s that guy - oh, those guys over in the grassy knoll. Don‘t you get it? It was the right wing that killed our hero...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42647474/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/

A number of people wrote to Mr. Matthews about his hubris and ignorance. here is one such email:


Dear Chris,

I was not surprised by your arrogant and ignorant denunciation of conspiracy theorists who believe JFK was fired upon from the "Grassy Knoll." Of course the last official investigation of the assassination came to that same conclusion, based in part on scientific acoustics tests that virtually proved it (despite claims to the contrary those tests have never been refuted).

I find myself wondering, however, if you ever read your former boss and mentor's book "Man of the House," in which Tip O’Neill writes:

I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission’s report on the President’s death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination. I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. "That’s not what you told the Warren Commission," I said. "You’re right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family." "I can’t believe it," I said. "I wouldn’t have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth." "Tip, you have to understand. The family—everybody wanted this thing behind them." Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s.

So I guess O'Donnell and Powers can be counted among the "crazies," as can Tip O'Neill for passing on what they told him without attempting to refute it."

You are entitled to believe what you want about the Kennedy assassination, but branding people who believe something else based upon eyewitness testimony and scientific evidence as "crazies" says a lot more about you than it says about them.

Jerry Policoff

Friday, March 4, 2011

KENNEDY PRINTED U.S. MONEY--REMOVED AFTER HIS DEATH! IS THE WARREN COMMISSION LEGAL?


Jackie Kennedy's Testimony About JFK's Head Wound (Back of Head) Was Suppressed! Who would want to remove evidence that Oswald did NOT shoot Kennedy? Who would have the power to get a former World Bank honcho on the Warren Commission?
AS SOON AS KENNEDY WAS KILLED, OUR FREE-OF-DEBT US DOLLARS WERE REMOVED FROM CIRCULATION!


--------------------------

How LEGAL was the Warren Commission? Of concern was the fact that separation of powers did not exist, and if the government, or Kennedy's successor (who had a motive -- the Presidency) was involved, it would be unlikely to indict itself as the culprit. THE ONLINE LEGAL DICTIONARY SAYS THIS:

President Lyndon B. Johnson moved quickly to reassure the nation that a thorough inquiry would take place by creating a commission of distinguished public servants to investigate the evidence. On November 29, 1963,

Johnson appointed Earl Warren, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to head the commission, which became known as the Warren Commission. Its 1964 report, which sought to put to rest many issues, proved controversial, provoking charges of a whitewash. The facts surrounding the Kennedy assassination remain the subject of debate.

Chief Justice Warren, fearing that his service disrupted the traditional Separation of Powers, reluctantly agreed to serve as director of the commission. The other members of the commission were Senators Richard B. Russell of Georgia and John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky; two members of the House of Representatives, Hale Boggs of Louisiana and Gerald R. Ford of Michigan; Allen W. Dulles, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency; John J. McCloy, former head of the World Bank; and James Lee Rankin, former U.S. Solicitor General, who was appointed general counsel for the commission.

[Note that Allen Dulles had been fired by Kennedy from his former position and had a motive to see Kennedy removed from power. But he wasn't the only one who would hide information. Note that McCloy, representing the World Bank, had connections to those who would have wanted Kennedy murdered because Kennedy had begun printing United States Reserve Notes, a step back to freedom from debt for our people and from the greedy clutches of the Federal Reserve that decides how much money it will print for us--at cost! Common sense tells you that if a country has to buy money from an outside source, that constitutes a loan. Our courageous President Kennedy tried to stop that. He was dead five months later.]


The Warren Commission began its investigations on December 3, 1963. The commission used accounts and statements provided by the Dallas police force, the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the military, and government and congressional commissions. Over the course of ten months, the commission took testimony from 552 witnesses.
[We know today that many witnesses were never investigated or interviewed, and that a number of witnesses complained,when they saw their printed testimony, that it had been altered. The record of the Dallas Police at that time is now known to be notorious for planting evidence against innocent persons, as DNA testing has since proven. Marguerite Oswald attempted to have her son, Lee Harvey Oswald, legally represented by having an attorney present during the Commission's hearings: this was denied.]

No commission had ever been previously appointed in the nation's history to make such an investigation. A treatise written in 1967 makes this clear (our emphasis):

"Presidential commissions, created by the President on his own authority and for his own purposes, have become more common in recent years. The President has utilized commissions to gather information for definite legislative goals, to guide public opinion, to reconcile conflicting interests, and for advice in carrying out laws or in coordinating federal activities. (See generally Marcy, Presidential Commissions (1945).) Certainly, the most notable presidential commissions are those that functioned as boards of inquiry (see, Id., Ch. 6, pp. 89–96), such as the Commission headed by Justice Owen Roberts “to ascertain and report the facts relating to the attack…upon the Territory of Hawaii” (Exec. Order No. 8963, 6 Fed. Reg. 6569 (1941)).
A variety of investigations followed previous presidential assassinations; yet none of the succeeding Presidents appointed a Commission to explore and report upon the assassination of his predecessor."

(Ref: The Warren Commission and the Legal Process
by Richard M. Mosk Case and Comment, May–June 1967, pages 13–20)

WE HAD TO TRUST THE WARREN COMMISSION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TESTIMONY ACCURATELY: WE NOW KNOW THAT WITNESS TESTIMONY WAS ALTERED

Arguably, the most important witness to Kennedy's head wounds was Jackie Kennedy. She held her husband's head in her hands on the way to the hospital. But the Warren Commission CENSORED her part of the testimony regarding Kennedy's head wound --itself a shocking instance of evidence tampering: (our emphasis)



Warren Commission Suppressed Jackie's
Testimony On JFK's Head Wound

Court Reporter's Tape Shows
Additional Description Withheld


Dallas, TX -- August 5, 2001 -- JFK Lancer, an historical research firm reports that the Court Reporter's tape shows Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony before the Warren Commission had additional descriptions which were withheld.

Mrs. Kennedy testified in a short private session held at her home in Washington, D.C., with Chief Justice Earl Warren, Commission General Council J. Lee Rankin, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and a court reporter in attendance. Testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission was made public in the fall of 1964. Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony was also released containing her description of her husbands wounds which read :

"And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything."

But a second section in which she described the wounds she saw carried only the notation: (Reference to Wounds Deleted).


Although very few Americans actually read those transcripts, historians and researchers who did read them were outraged, and waged a legal battle to have the omitted testimony released. In the early 1970s, a court decision required the United States Government to disclose to the public the contents of the still classified section of Mrs. Kennedy's 1964 Warren Commission testimony. Her previously withheld statement read:

"I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

JACKIE KENNEDY'S STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS A TERRIBLE WOUND IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD WAS REMOVED FROM THE WARREN REPORT. HIDDEN FOR YEARS. IT CLEARLY PROVES THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID NOT KILL KENNEDY, SINCE ONLY A SHOT FROM THE FRONT (NOT FROM OSWALD'S POSITION BEHIND) COULD HAVE CREATED A LARGE HOLE IN THE SKULL "FROM THE BACK" OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD--SO LARGE THAT JACKIE KENNEDY HAD TO HOLD "HIS SKULL ON."

Releasing this previously withheld section gave researchers what was assumed to be Mrs. Kennedy's complete description of the President's head wounds. Researchers took for granted that the hand-typed transcript page released by the National Archives from the official records of the Warren Commission ended the matter.

[THEN TYPED REPORT WAS COMPARED TO THE ACTUAL APE, AND EVEN MORE INFORMATION WAS FOUND MISSING jvb]

However, new analysis reveals that the original court tape actually reads:

"... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top."

Filmmaker Mark Sobel found the discrepancy while doing research for a forthcoming documentary on JFK. Sobel explained, "I was quite surprised to find that Mrs. Kennedy was not asked for more detail --- she had an opportunity to view the wounds longer and closer than any other person as they originally existed. Given the seemingly contradictory testimony by the doctors who treated the President at Parkland Hospital in Dallas just after the shooting and the Doctors who performed the autopsy at Bethesda many hours later, Mrs. Kennedy's testimony would appear critical."

Sobel filed under the Freedom of Information Act to have the court reporter's original tape of Mrs. Kennedy's testimony unsealed, citing that the content had already been fully declassified by the courts and that it was in the best interest of the public for the accuracy of the existing transcript to be verified. Sobel explained, "As I compared the 1964 transcript to the original court reporter's paper tape, I reached a sentence officially transcribed by the Warren Commission as: "I could see a piece of his skull, and I remember that it was flesh colored" words on the original paper taped no longer matched up."

Court Reporter Kathy Bradford of Bradford Court Reporting of Dallas, Texas, agreed. Bradford reviewed the transcript from the archives and certified Mrs. Kennedy's complete statement was not found in the Warren Commission's version."

"...Apprised of these new details, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. stated, "Given the lack of follow-up in Mrs. Kennedy's description to exactly what she saw, these details could have been valuable to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that reviewed the medical evidence." Mantik is one of the few doctors allowed to view President Kennedy's original autopsy materials in the National Archives."

A SWEDE WROTE THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO DUTCH RESEARCHER WIM DANKBAAR:

Onderwerp: Maybe a stupid question
Hello, Wim!
I saw a line in your book Files on JFK that startled me; it pertaines to the Warren Report and its legal status, that I have never seen before. It got me thinking: How should one view the legal status of the Warren Commission and the report? Is the WC and the report to be viewed as a sort of judicial "court" with “legal” finding or as a publication from a fact finding committee?
Could the US Government have been sued based upon defamation of character of the deceased? If the initiative to the commission resides with former President LBJ, who is liable if the findings turned out to be incorrect regarding Oswald?
I wonder, since Lee Harvey Oswald’s estate did not have legal representation or perhaps was not allowed to prior the publication of the WR; were the family/his children able or allowed to question the WC findings prior to publication?
To me, as a Swede, living in a country with a different judicial system, it looks bad when a human being (dead or alive) is not able to defend himself or have some kind of representation.
To me it looks like that what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald (and his children) could not only be considered as a miscarriage of justice, but a lot worse, more along the lines of something out of a Kafka-novel.
What say you?


Good question, Do you know a lawyer that's willing to sue the US government?

Wim


Get the book Me & Lee: How I Came to Know,Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald, to learn the truth about the accused assassin--an innocent man. I live in exile for the sake of Oswald--for the sake of the truth. help me spread the word!