05-07-2016, 09:13 PM
Albert Doyle Wrote:Ray Kovach Wrote:I disagree Albert. The "Harvey & Lee theory" is founded on many bricks of solid documentation and witness testimony. Her claim is at best one more piece of confirming testimony if what she claimed was true. One more brick in the wall....
But to wade thru all the other dreck her and JVB have offered up to find one small gem seems a waste of time.
We've proven JVB is lying about Oswald coming back from Mexico and describing his visits to the Cuban Consulate. If it never happened then Oswald couldn't have described it. JVB is an interesting case because a good linguistic forensics expert would see a childish make it up as she goes along style to her accounts. I agree with Pamela Brown that JVB inserts herself into known Oswald accounts. She got caught with Mexico City. JVB is caught in a syndrome of having to insert herself so much that she then has no explanation for not being more on the radar.
However the same linguistic forensic expert could look at Anna Lewis's interview and realize when JVB said she only had a platonic relationship with Oswald Anna remarked quickly that she could challenge that but wouldn't. This fast reaction body language is what an expert would look at for a sign of telling the truth. It is also unlikely JVB and Anna would plan a ruse where JVB said she was celibate and Anna would refute it. Anna's body language of reacting immediately and saying to JVB "I could say something but I won't" was something that happened too fast for somebody making up a story. It is what you would look for with somebody recounting a real memory.
This is important because Anna also insisted in an equal manner that she met Oswald in the spring of 1962. This was before Harvey came back from Russia. I believe Anna met Lee.
A good detective would compute how this affects JVB and her stories.
Albert, I understand that Anna's statements lend weight to the fact that "Lee" was here in the USA while defector "Oswald" was in Russia. Precisely because of the reasons you have eloquently stated above (among other things) I believe she was likely making a true statement (at least in her own mind) when she said what she did during that interview. But me personally, I've grown weary of people like Judith Vary. Trying to sort the wheat from the chaff of what people like her have to say about anything used to be frustrating for me. So I just ignore anything they say now, have said in the past, or will say in the future. That goes for all who are entwined in her charade, and that disappointed me especially in the case of Mr. Haslam, who I thought did some very good work. My whole point was that I have far too few days left on the earth to be squandering them on easily discredited persons and their statements. The "Harvey & Lee" scenario has been proven to me enough that I don't need Anna Lewis' spur of the moment statements to bolster my conviction that it's true.
And by the way Al, Peter Falk as Columbo was my favorite detective. What do you think he would've made of this conspiracy? Could he have rounded up all the culprits responsible in one episode? Or would it have taken 2 shows? LOL