27-03-2010, 03:56 PM
It is not clear whether the above message was written by JVB or Jim,
since the identity of the writer changes every few sentences.
Whoever wrote it lacks reading comprehension skills. In a reply to
David Healy, I wrote that neither Edwin Eckdahl nor John Pic had
ties to the mafia. I wrote that David must have been referring to
LHO's uncle Dutz Murret, who had alleged ties to the mafia. I said
NOTHING about any LHO ties to the mafia.
This assertition has been morphed into me stating that LHO had
no ties to the mafia.
However, I will state that the known record does not contain
any known connection of Murret to LEE since Lee was a small
child, nor to HARVEY since the year he spent at Beauregard
Junior High School. Even for the brief childhood years and the
Junior High year, there is no documentation of a close family
connection to Murret. A child under 6 and a teen aged 14/15
are not likely to be involved in the mafia. Even IF a relative
was connected, that does not make a child a mafioso.
Jack
since the identity of the writer changes every few sentences.
Whoever wrote it lacks reading comprehension skills. In a reply to
David Healy, I wrote that neither Edwin Eckdahl nor John Pic had
ties to the mafia. I wrote that David must have been referring to
LHO's uncle Dutz Murret, who had alleged ties to the mafia. I said
NOTHING about any LHO ties to the mafia.
This assertition has been morphed into me stating that LHO had
no ties to the mafia.
However, I will state that the known record does not contain
any known connection of Murret to LEE since Lee was a small
child, nor to HARVEY since the year he spent at Beauregard
Junior High School. Even for the brief childhood years and the
Junior High year, there is no documentation of a close family
connection to Murret. A child under 6 and a teen aged 14/15
are not likely to be involved in the mafia. Even IF a relative
was connected, that does not make a child a mafioso.
Jack