Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE?

[Tom Scully]

............

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

Dawn, thank you, and I want to make it clear I have learned much from several topics of JA's unique and in depth research, Osborne/Bowen and the postal money order "sold" by the Dallas P.O. and "found' by Holmes are
two examples that come to mind. I do not dismiss Harvey & Lee out of hand, and I do not think it is unreasonable to support it. I find it manageable to look closely, one claim at a time, no matter the big picture of any complex subject.

I am adding a separate reply to make amends for all of the space my recent posts have taken up in this thread.:

Scully, I consider your referring to me as "Long time respected member" to be trolling.


I notice you never responded to my last post which makes it impossible for Rizzuto to be L'eandes. The personality profile differences between those two men are so obvious that the two can't possibly be reconciled as being the same person. Again, I can't believe you are trying to get away with defending FBI files verbatim. All FBI files must be viewed in terms of a criminal, above suspicion government organization seeking to deceive and spin things their way. You might as well go and attack the HSCA in the CIA's favor and then finally do what you are getting at fully by defending the Warren Commission. Or praise the level of rule of law at the Dallas Police Station.

It's nice that you present the FBI's claim that they showed a photo of L'eandes to the interviewing agents and trust them at their word, but if you follow your own demands of scrutiny of evidence that photo violates just about every rule of evidence you can imagine. You are presenting a piece of evidence for which the total validation of it sourcing is an entry in an FBI file saying "a photo was obtained through a source of NYO". And this is in a case where intel forged backyard photos. Scully, how do you know that FBI didn't pull a dirty trick and get a photo of SH Landesberg and use it to frame him as the patsy he was intended to be? I've asked you several times if you ever wondered why those men had the same name? How dare you violate your own suggested level of rigor by taking the FBI at their word and referencing a photo that was then buried that you've never seen and can't produce as evidence. You're the worst example of the evidence standards you pretend to promote.

(.... and i understand that no matter how compelling the proof I present in challenges of your poorly or entirely unsupported assertions, you either ignore my posted proof or you shift to
the tactic of making it about me, personally.

This is new proof, included in my most recent post about this disagreement we are having. It contradicts your and Mr. Hargrove's repeated claims that WMCA's Barry Gray laid eyes on Rizzuto in the early hours of 23 November, and it confirms that Barry Gray's WMCA colleague, Roger Winslow Turner, did lay eyes on Rizzuto and was able to compare his recent view of Rizzuto with the photo image of L'eandes, whereas Barry Gray was
comparing his memory of L'eandes (see text in FBI report image displayed and linked below) as he last saw him during a 1961 interview. Doyle, Hargrove, and I, all trust Barry Gray, and Barry's I.D. of the L'eandes photo as also being a likeness of Rizzuto, is good enough for me!
I am displaying the bottom of page 3 to you and Mr. Hargrove for the second time in just a few hours, and here is the link to the first page
which I also already shared an image of, with you both. This link is to pg. 1 of 3 of an FBI report stating that Barry and Turner and a BUagent used a deception to lure Rizzuto to a 42nd st. restaurant after Rizzuto made
a second call to WMCA radio station at 2 am on 23 November.:
[URL="https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62288&search=rizzuto_and+Barry#relPageId=90"]https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62288#relPageId=88&tab=page
[/URL]bottom of pg. 88=


And, you both summarily dismiss the relevance or integrity of ALL FBI reports, but your own inaccurate sources relied heavily on them, (embellishing and misintrepreting them) according to their footnotes.: first two pages of links to those footnotes -
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/41
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/42 )

...............
Page 3 of 3 :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...lPageId=90

Mr. Doyle's comments continue.:

Meanwhile you ignore everything that was written in this thread. The FBI could have easily verified Rizzuto's identity by having the many friends of L'eandes that they were notified of, and in possession of their identities, come in and ID him. If you look at the FBI's behavior they used this identification of Rizzuto to quickly shut down any further investigation. This ruse was used to avoid any follow-through in a very precise manner that gives away its purpose. There's a very telling and precise fault line in the investigation that runs right along the boundary of this photo ID that was used to avoid investigating the rest of those leads. For you to use it as if it were credible and ignore all that exposes it is to come right out and employ the agenda and method of David Von Pein while pleading that you are only seeking rigor and confirmation of evidence. DiEugenio is pretty good at sniffing this stuff out. It has always puzzled me that he gives certain people a pass on it. If you study your pleas for rigor you will see you have just failed them worse than anybody in this bogus offering that blindly takes the word of the violators who were documented practicing wicked corruption in this case. Your Mr MaGoo reference to FBI documents misses the current understanding of them to a remarkable degree.

I suppose Scully is trying to hang an entire premise on the fact the report says Gray and Rizzuto met at a 42nd St restaurant (as if he's scored a big evidentiary coup) but that's just nitpicking t-crossing and i-dotting. Better researchers would be more concerned that the previous media article said that Rizzuto had gone to several other media outlets to tell his story. Those same researchers would ask why FBI chose to ignore those other media outlets and what Rizzuto said there or what people witnessed. More credible researchers would realize that FBI is trying to bury those other witnessings and this is the flavor and tone of those same FBI reports. In fact what this tells you is if Barry Gray had not reported Rizzuto that FBI probably would have ignored the whole incident. Just like they ignored the entire history of L'eandes' witnessing that Scully seems to have no problem with while he seeks uncredible outs by blindly defending FBI against their victim.