Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE?

[Dawn Meredith]

..........
You consider interviewing someone "intrusive"? "Put on a budget"? He spent his own money for 12 years tracking down witnesses.
Since your arrival here the only thing you seem to want to do is attack JA's research. Is that why you joined? Just curious.

Dawn

Dawn,

If I had read this before posting my rather tongue in cheek comment comparing resources JA is able to apply to his research efforts, vs. my minimalist approach, I would not have posted it. Please accept my apology, and I hope
John will considering accepting it, as well.
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/67



I had no intention to join this forum with any agenda other than to post and discuss the facts as I've collected
and sorted them, to gain new ones through discussion and presentation. I want to put what I believe is well supported, to the test.

A primary reason I joined this forum is because Jim DiEugenio seemed to have made it the primary place where
he was making timely posts. He and I have a history, (hang together or assuredly ..... hang separately) and incidently, the following is an example of a tactic to discredit and diminish the deliverer of details an embarrassed individual would rather not see come to light, but has no substantive counterargument.:

At the black mark, lower left.:


I considered what happened here, intrusive, my own opinion fwiw. Again, if I had read JA's candid comments about his purpose and his openness, I probably would have not posted the comment you quoted. :

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/65
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/67
Two page letter at links above is related to this letter.:
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/64

I much prefer to post about and research other issues, and I have not and will not set out to discredit JA's opinions. I will ask those who post them and agree with them to post support for them, as I have asked Mr. Doyle and Mr. Hargrove to do. I only asked them to post a primary source in support of their conclusion that Barry Gray met Rizzuto aka SH Landesberg, face to face.

You are an attorney, Dawn. Is it not considered, in your line of work, that a claim that an FBI report is fake or otherwise unreliable, is an extraordinary claim? What are the obligations (burden of proof) of the party who makes such a claim?

I am banned from the Parker forum, I do not tow a party line there, or anywhere. I've watched members from Parker's forum comment here and conduct themselves in a very similar (predictable) way. It is not my way. The bulk of them hold those they disagree with to a standard of proof they do not hold themselves to as they press their group opinion that PM is LHO as if this was obvious and well supported by available evidence.

They are blind to the observable irony that their belief system related to PM is not founded more soundly on fact than the Harvey & Lee belief system. Anticipated "new evidence," (an elusive, hopefully conclusive, yet to be found (or possibly, rendered via image enhancing software) photo image of a back corner of the TSBD vestibule) is not a justification for an obnoxious, smug, mocking air of superiority. A look in the mirror might do wonders.

I do not, for example, have an adversarial relationship with David Josephs, as I am fairly certain he will confirm.

I did not intend to post a lengthy response to you, Dawn, but I wanted to emphasize that I am not coming here with an agenda and my limited posting history here, initially in a blog post, and in a recent back and forth with Scott Kaiser supports what I am saying to you, and may help answer your question.

Hey Tom, I was a bit trigger happy myself. I see that you ARE posting on other subjects here. I also recall your long battle over MM at the Ed forum. I took no 100% stance on that particular area, Mitchell, but I do remember having disagreements with Jim about Crump, the accused. Yes people came here from Parker's forum with that agenda and it was quickly observed by myself. That said, and due to all the trash talk about H and L by that crowd and some of them over at EF I now admit to becoming defensive when I see someone new here like yourself diving in. Or what appears to BE the case. Of course proof is required for extraordinary claims. John has discussed all of this recent research with me in detail on the phone and I have read the posts here. But I see no reason to augment what Jim and DJ and Albert are already posting. John is exactly the person from the words-his- you have posted. He shares his work for other researchers to advance that area of the case. He has no agenda. He simply puts out his research. I am on record as a believer in Harvey and Lee. From the start many witnesses saw more than one LHO, so it was just a matter of time til someone like John put the solid time and effort into tracking down just what all this could actually mean. That is was it LHO impersonators or actually more than one person? I mean who has not wondered how on earth LHO could learn to speak flawless Russian? My former Pastor is brilliant in language and spent two years in Russia but as proficient as he managed to become, it was way less than that attributed to "Harvey".

So debate away. I at this point in my life take that advice of dear Vince Salandria. I no longer get into the micro analysis and allow myself to be worn down by the arguments. I look at this case in the big picture. The why he was murdered and the resulting consequences. The Nazi history with the CIA that permitted this sort of thinking in our hidden government well before the advent of JFK. The police state we now live in since the phony "war on terror" began. Operation Northwoods gone operational. I fear for what kind of world our grand daughters -15 and 12- will inhabit.

And finally, as I have told John several times, I did not begin this JFK assassination in 2000 or the 90's. It's been there since day one for me so I am really burnt out on it. By the time I was 25 I had read every book on the case that was at that point in print, to do two research papers for college. And continued to read almost ever book after that, as well as my own research, not for a book, but often to assist others who were writing books.

So welcome to our little "home" and we will agree where we agree, and disagree where that occurs. Everyone sees this case through their own lens and discourse has lead to advancements in thinking as often as not.

Dawn