19-11-2011, 12:53 PM
Still I am not convinced with Nagell's story.Something does not add up, something it is not just right.
Maybe Nagell was Oswald's handler all along, from Japan to New Orleans. Nagell was either part of the plot or was implicated indirectly.
Once he found out the truth, he did what he did "I d'rather be in jail than commit murder and treason". But killing or injuring Oswald to save his President's
life would not have been an act of treason, on the contrary an act of bravery. So i speculate that when he said murder and treason he meant the assassination of JFK.
But he could not admit that so he changed it to mean Oswald and to appear that he was trying to save JFK not murder him. But if the instigators had organized as it is believed so perfectly would they have risked having Nagell killing their perfect patsy?
And i don't understand why he never revealed the names of Leopoldo and Angelo since he claimed he knew them.
Maybe Nagell was Oswald's handler all along, from Japan to New Orleans. Nagell was either part of the plot or was implicated indirectly.
Once he found out the truth, he did what he did "I d'rather be in jail than commit murder and treason". But killing or injuring Oswald to save his President's
life would not have been an act of treason, on the contrary an act of bravery. So i speculate that when he said murder and treason he meant the assassination of JFK.
But he could not admit that so he changed it to mean Oswald and to appear that he was trying to save JFK not murder him. But if the instigators had organized as it is believed so perfectly would they have risked having Nagell killing their perfect patsy?
And i don't understand why he never revealed the names of Leopoldo and Angelo since he claimed he knew them.