Liebeler And The Ryder Witnessing

[Albert Doyle]

Is Liebeler Jewish?

I believe what Liebeler's actions show is that his behavior was guided by a conspiracy that conformed to Deep Politics beyond religions and national borders.

[Phil Dragoo]

"McBride's FBI statement was ignored, and neither he nor the owners or employees of Pfisterer's were interviewed by the Warren Commission. No efforts were made to verify Oswald's dates of employment through payroll tax information, IRS Social Security records, or his employment file. His dates of employment were altered from 1957-58 to the 'spring of 1956,' to coincide with the period before Oswald was known to have entered the Marines. To support this allegation the Warren Commission interviewed William Wulf, McBride's friend and fellow astronomy club member. In Wulf's testimony all references to the years 1957 or 1958 were carefully avoided by Wesley J. Liebeler" (154) who went on to teach law at UCLA, and who still makes the occasional publ4ic appearance in support of the Warren Commission. "By misdirecting Wulf's attention to only 'the period 1954-55,' references to 1957 and 1958 were avoided. Liebeler's clever questioning allowed the Warren Commission to circumvent the problem of Oswald's employment at Pfisterer's in 1957-58. When you read the *Warren Report,* you can now understand why they are careful to state that Oswald worked at J. R Michels in 1956 and then at Pfisterer's for "several months thereafter," without giving any specific dates" (155).

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.l-dr.html

And in one on-line bio reference it is stated, "Helped David Lifton with Best Evidence."

I read that 1980 book, and remarked to our friend the law professor emeritus with Army intelligence background
(who'd confided in sotto voce what "damage" the "dangerous" Kennedy caused)
"It seems to me Liebeler is obstructing justice."

The reply was, "Oh we know them; we had dinner with them--they're very nice people."

Add this to the Garrison trial account in Destiny Betrayed, the work of Special Unit Senator in Klaber and Melanson, the treatment of Ray

and Jowers in Pepper, and you conclude Shakespeare's gravedigger had it right, "First we'll kill all the lawyers."

Justice eschewed in pursuit of just-us.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert Doyle wrote, in his second paragraph, (see entry No. 1 above):

While trying to convince the ladies that this other visit is what they remembered Liebeler forgot that Whitworth and Hunter had described in detail their witnessing of Marina's tiny baby. Indeed June Oswald was born only 2 weeks prior to this November 5th visit. What Liebeler forgot in his zeal to conceal this visit is that if this had been confused for the earlier visit with Ruth Paine driving June hadn't been born yet.

I think you mean the child Audrey Marina Rachel Oswald, born October 20, 1963. June Lee Oswald was born in the Soviet Union on February 15, 1962.

Adele

Thanks Adele. My source said June so I trusted it.


In any case, what is clear here is Liebeler got away with a big one that no one caught at the time. It's pretty obvious that the November 5th witnessing was about the earliest date Marina could have recovered from childbirth. Whitworth and Hunter both remark about the "tiny" baby which is a perfect description of a 2 week-old infant. Since Marina could not have possibly gone shopping with Ruth Paine driving in the interim between this visit and giving birth to Rachel that means that Liebeler's pretext that Whitworth and Hunter experienced the Oswald's during a different trip prior to this visit is impossible by Liebeler's own facts. No one called him on it.

[Albert Doyle]

I just commented on this at Spartacus.

I agree that Whitworth and Hunter are quite credible. I also think that Liebeler somehow got some help in order to discredit Ryder.

I think the incident happened.

If you look at both the Ryder and Whitworth and Hunter depositions Liebeler is clearly steering the inquiry towards this predesigned ruse. Knowing the full history of Dallas coercion and intimidation - and even witness murder (funny, Dallas wasn't so concerned with "safety" back then) I'm certain Ryder was gotten to and went along with denying this interview. The alleged Dallas Morning News interview is only a minor side issue that has very little relevance towards the main issue, which was Oswald seeking repairs for his rifle. I'm even suspicious about reporter Schmidt who when asked if he remembered Ryder's voice said "I honestly can't say". But either way, Ryder's lack of protest or firm detail suggests a passive cooperation with testimony. This is further enhanced by Ryder trying to tip-toe around his having actually done the repairs. You can see this in his indirect answers to Liebeler in the deposition:

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of gun was it?
Mr. RYDER. It was a 6.5 Italian.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the make?
Mr. RYDER. Like I say, I have seen several of them but as far as who made the gun, I don't know; probably some Italian gun manufacturer but as far as who it was, I don't know. I can't read Italian.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell from looking at the ticket when this work was done? First of all, the tag was not dated?
Mr. RYDER. The tag was not dated.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you make any estimate of the time by looking at this ticket as to when the work was done?
Mr. RYDER. Well, it was done sometime between the 1st and 15th of November.
Mr. LIEBELER. How could you tell that?
Mr. RYDER. Because the work was done while the Greeners or the Woody Francis Greeners, the owners of the sport shop were on vacation.
Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know?
Mr. RYDER. They were gone that 2 weeks.
Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know it was done while they were gone?
Mr. RYDER. Actually, I can't really say too definitely sure but I am quite sure it was because he doesn't remember seeing the gun in the shop while he was there. In other words, before they left, and of course, it was gone when they came back.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you say "the gun," what do you mean?
Mr. RYDER. The one I worked on--in other words, he keeps a pretty good watch on my work to make sure I'm getting it out on time and he will check fairly close every day, every other day, and check to make sure I'm getting the work out, that old work isn't laying there to be done. He's pretty sharp on remembering names and he would have remembered that quite surely if--

What is clear above is that Ryder slips and says "the one I worked on". He says the work was done between the 1st and 15th and that it had to be done while the boss was on vacation otherwise the boss would have documented it. Pretty clear, right? Ryder is clearly dithering in order to avoid coming right out and admitting he worked on that gun.


Why this whole thing is important is because it shows one of the Oswald's was doing frame-up work under some kind of instruction like in the other famous cases in Dallas of Oswald being framed for showing intent to kill Kennedy. The post-assassination Warren Commission posture, like in the case of Ralph Yates, was to deny these occurrences. The key to Liebeler's ploy is Rachel Oswald which disproves Liebeler's entire line of reasoning and therefore kicks us back out to needing an explanation for Oswald's seeking gun repairs on the 5th of November, not to mention an explanation for Liebeler's criminal malfeasance and suborning of perjury.

[Albert Doyle]

Another thing that just dawned on me was Marina's claim that she did not visit Whitworth's shop. Liebeler just accepted her word without question and immediately adjourned the Whitworth/Hunter deposition. However this is a classic case of "How would a government that was really trying to find the truth act?" Liebeler should have followed-through and gone to Ruth Paine to find out if Marina went shopping on any day around the 5th of November? He didn't.

[David Lifton]

Is Liebeler Jewish?

Answer: No, Charles. . . Liebeler was not Jewish.

But he married Susan Wittenburg--one of the brightest students in his law class, and they had one or two children.

I know for a fact that Liebeler was proud of the fact that Susan "was Jewish."

But. . .cutting tothe chase (as they say) please explain what this has to do with the issue at hand?

DSL
1/21/13; 8:10 PM
Los Angeles, Caliornia

[Magda Hassan]

Hi David, as I mentioned to another poster on this thread who asked the same question, understandably, it has nothing to do with the thread or any thing real but is some sort of hunting game throwback between Albert and Charles referring to another fruitless thread which was about Michael Piper's Israel/Jews killed JFK.

[David Lifton]

Is Liebeler Jewish?

<br><br>Answer: No, Charles. . . Liebeler was not Jewish.<br><br>But he married Susan Wittenburg--one of the brightest students in his law class, and they had one or two children.&nbsp; <br><br>I know for a fact that Liebeler was proud of the fact that Susan "was Jewish."<br><br>But. . .cutting tothe chase (as they say) please explain what this has to do with the issue at hand?&nbsp; <br><br>DSL<br>1/21/13; 8:10 PM<br>Los Angeles, Caliornia

[Charles Drago]

Hello David,

This thread was created by "Albert Doyle" -- in all likelihood an identity used by at least two persons to disrupt the Deep Politics Forum and, intentionally or otherwise, support the JFK assassination cover-up.

Toward accomplishing these goals, "Doyle" vigorously promotes the "Jews sponsored the JFK assassination" lie by championing the disinformation of Michael Collins Piper.

Hence my redolent-with-sarcasm question.

Along with Greg Burnham and Phil Dragoo, I helped expose what we understand to be the "Doyle" operation here. Our methodology: We highlighted posts ostensibly made by "Doyle" that in fact are so inconsistent with each other in terms of grammar, style, and cogency of thought as to preclude the possibility that they were written by one person (with the possible exception of Shirley Ardell Mason)

Once we eliminate dissociative identity disorder as the explanation for the noted phenomenon, we are left to conclude that "Doyle" is, in the aggregate, an agent provocateur.

Below is a reposting of my introduction to the argument presented elsewhere on DPF by myself and Messrs. Burnham and Dragoo:


It is with confidence and a sense of urgency that Greg Burnham, Phil Dragoo and I present our case for the hostile penetration of Deep Politics Forum by agents provocateur posting on DPF's now-infamous thread JFK thread worth reading.

( https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums...-worth-reading )

Our argument, based upon informed analyses of the evidence at hand, may be stated simply:

At least two individuals have been posting material to that thread over the signature "Albert Doyle" in the process utilizing, wittingly and with sinister intent, tactics commonly employed by agents tasked with spreading disinformation on and otherwise disrupting the operations of Internet forums such as DPF.

When I first shared this hypothesis on DPF, I was not aware that Greg had been thinking along the same lines. In typical fashion he courageously made public his own suspicions. Phil quickly reached the identical basic conclusion, and soon we were waging a common campaign some of it out in the open, some of it behind the scenes against the attackers and those who, naively and/or with malice, aid and abet them by naysaying our charges.

As Greg reminds me, conspicuously and suspiciously absent from the naysayers' chorus is the voice of the subject of the accusation, the so-called historic "Albert Doyle." "His" always tortured prose and frequently unfathomable reasoning long ago were established as "his" literary and intellectual fingerprints on DPF and other, related forums. As of the date of this post, "Doyle" has yet to offer to DPF membership convincing assurances that "he" alone is the author of all posts over "his" signature.

My comrades have contributed their own Introductions to this thread. You will find them below, along with my brief appreciations of their work.

The most important component of this opening post, however, is the attached WORD document painstakingly constructed, through multiple iterations, by Phil. Some 70 pages in length, it collects posts written over the "Albert Doyle" signature and includes brief commentary by the compiler.

The wide, blatant variances in grammar, punctuation, usage, and literary styles easily detected in the posts attributed to "Albert Doyle" cannot, in our unanimous opinion, have an innocent explanation. This conclusion is strengthened when viewed in light of the documents referenced by Greg in his introductory remarks.

None of us are prepared to venture guesses as to the identities of the "Doyle" ghostwriters. While we have noted striking stylistic and rhetorical similarities between many of the problematic DPF posts and other, unrelated Internet submissions on a variety of subjects written over the years by Professor James H. Fetzer, we cannot quite close that circle; thus we cannot state with confidence that Fetzer is part of the "Doyle" intelligence operation (and we are certain that "intel op" precisely defines what we have discovered in this instance). Further, the coincident withdrawal of "Doyle" from these pages and the re-appearance of Fetzer, while highly supportive of the Fetzer/"Doyle" linkage hypothesis in our opinion, alone does not meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. (Although we are left to wonder, with deepest apologies to George and Ira, "How long has this Ben-Gurion?")

We must also acknowledge the possibility that Fetzer's style and tone are being mimicked in support of the ongoing operation to exacerbate the rift developing between the aging, chimera-chasing professor and the community of honorable, competent researchers and scholars who study deep politics and in whose ranks he once proudly stood.

In the final analysis, however, discovery of the identities of the agents provocateur, while potentially of great value to our work, is less important to our larger goals than is the lesson to be learned here. To wit: We remain at war with the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And all who would deny this fact, or who believe that Marquess of Queensberry or Geneva Convention rules apply to this conflict, should reflect deeply on the events that took place in Dealey Plaza, in the city of Dallas, Texas, in the United States of America, for six to eight seconds beginning at approximately 12:30 PM Central Standard Time, on Friday, November 22, 1963.

How many tender mercies were extended to John in those terrible moments, in that bloody place?
__________________________________________________ ________


[GREG BURNHAM's credentials as JFK assassination historian, investigator, and activist are as exemplary as they are widely appreciated. His contributions, in those roles and as Sergeant-at-Arms to the late Richard DellaRosa's JFKresearch Assassination Forum, cannot be overestimated in terms of the manners in which they have furthered our shared work. Greg's discovery of suspected agent provocateur activity in many of the posts ostensibly written by the historic "Albert Doyle" in the "JFK thread worth reading" DPF thread was coincident with my own. Along with Phil Dragoo, he has played a vital role in the research and analysis that we can now present for your review.]

Pondering the early days of the JFKresearch Assassination Forum, it is difficult to imagine it not being the target of agents provocateur. After all, it was started by a group of very dedicated researchers who, both collectively and individually, had made their objective quite clear: the undaunted repudiation of the Official Government Report(s) on the murder of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy.

This group of core Founding Members included Richard DellaRosa (Owner and Admin), Jack White, Richard Martin, Phillip Giuliano, Scott Myers, John Austin, Robin Deloria, and Greg Burnham (Sergeant-At-Arms). Shortly thereafter we had a membership in excess of 500 (eventually 1200), and we had attracted several renowned authors, including David Lifton, Gary Aguilar, MD, James Fetzer, PhD, and Josiah Thompson, PhD, among others. Various scientists, among them Australian physicist John Costella, PhD, and chemist Adele Edison, PhD, came on board. We attracted law enforcement officers, including Nick Principe of the DC Park Police, who was the lead motorcycle escort for President Kennedy in Washington, DC. We attracted attorneys such as, Doug Weldon and DPF's own Dawn Meredith, JD. Experts in film production, such as David Healy, sharpshooters such as, John Ritchson, and many others subsequently joined us. We launched several books from the forum, including John Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee", the work of Jim Fetzer et al, such as, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" and "Murder In Dealey Plaza", "The Innocent Man Script" by T. Mack Durham, and more. The list is far too long to include everyone worthy of note in this limited space.

But, suffice it to say, we weren't a band of rag-tag conspiracy theorists. We were and remain serious and specifically resistant to irresponsible supposition. Furthermore, ours was the very first Internet Forum dedicated exclusively to the study of the assassination of JFK. Consequently, we drew considerable attention to ourselves, and not all of it was welcomed.

During this time it became necessary for us to maintain a high degree of vigilance because there were (and are) those who would disrupt the research that was being conducted there (and here). If anyone doubts that this was the case I would kindly refer you to the CIA internal memo found at this link:

http://www.namebase.org/foia/jfk01.html

In it, CIA agents are offered instructions on how to discredit critics of the Warren Commission Report. For a more detailed strategy, see the more recent COINTELPRO document: "A Gentlemen's Guide to Forum Spies," found here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums...6660#post56660)

Keep in mind that the tactics outlined in the CIA document can be used to subvert any inquiry, not only the intended target (JFK research).

The vast majority of the forum's policing duties, however, fell upon Rich and me. The questions always were: "Once perfidy is detected, how is the subject broached with the suspected individual? Should we do it publicly, since the offense was committed out in the open, or should we approach the individual in private e-mail in order to allow him or her to answer the accusation privately?" It was decided that we should handle these matters on a case-by-case basis, but generally we all agreed that "sunshine" is always preferable to shadow. We were completely aware that none of us are infallible and that what may appear to be suspect behavior might instead be a sign of ineptness, ignorance, a nasty disposition, or a person whose method of communication simply includes vitriolic venting of the spleen at given intervals.

But, the purpose of the forum was to conduct research, first and foremost. The disrupting of that purpose was clearly prohibited in the forum policy statement. Yet, it is the disruption of select forums with which COINTELPRO and related programs were and are tasked.

It is impractical and counter-productive for a disruptor to state his intent openly. Similarly counter-indicated are less-than-expertly disguised tactics employed by the professional in order for him to appear to be an amateur. Whether the disruption is gross or negligible from its inception, the subsequent result is all-telling. It is similar to disrupting an opposing basketball player's lay-up: The defender need not flagrantly foul when a simple nudge at the hip will do.

In any event, Rich and the rest of us believe in and defend Freedom of Speech above all else. Much to his credit, Rich specialized in guarding almost to a fault that principle upon which the forum was built. As a counter-balance to his forgiving nature, he asked me to "protect the forum" both from enemies from within and from enemies from without. But, make no mistake; the burden of proof was always on me to demonstrate an individual's unambiguous intent. Without clear proof of an overwhelming nature, Rich would not ban them from the forum. In the 13-year life span of the forum, fewer than a dozen persons were banned9 was the total, if memory serves. This was not a function of there having been only that many provocateurs; rather, it was because, then as now, provocateurs tend to run in groups of mini-networks. Once the head is severed, the rest leave of their own accord or become lurkers since the operation is blown and their assault has been fully exposed. *

The easiest way to recognize attempted infiltration for yourself, if you do not perceive such things easily or naturally, is to study the individual's entries and compare them to the tactics suggested by the CIA and/or the COINTELPRO documents referenced above. I suggest that anyone who wishes to comment on this subject of "Smoking Out Moles" become familiar with these documents thoroughly before doing so.

Now to the Subject at hand: Albert(s) Doyle. I will let them speak for themselves. I assure you there is something up with Uncle Albert. No question in my mind. Exactly what that is, I am uncertain, but I have grave suspicions.

However, again, I suggest that interested parties become familiar with the tactics outlined in the referenced documentation, conduct their own forensic study on the archived posts provided, and ultimately draw their own conclusion.

Greg Burnham
Founding Member, Sergeant-At-Arms
JFKresearch Assassination Forum

*Hence we paused in wonderment at the timing when we observed Albert Doyle apparently fighting a rearguard "CYA" action as "he" claimed to be called away to tend to "other research needs," which coincidentally triggered or so it seemed the re-emergence on DPF of Jim Fetzer, whose "absence" had been less-than-sorely lamented.
__________________________________________________ ________


[PHIL DRAGOO's intellect and poetic sensibilities are well known to the vast majority of serious students of deep politics. Many of us also are in position to appreciate his extraordinary work ethic; Phil makes an Amish elder look like an opium-addled slacker. His efforts on behalf of this investigation have been herculean to say the least. What you see in the attachment to this post represents just a small percentage of his work product. Phil is a warrior-poet one without whom this forum would be a far less lively, challenging, and intellectually rewarding place.]

I have reviewed my initial commentary of Albert Doyle a work in progress and summarize thusly:

When the demander of agreement brandishes a deus ex Echevarria and punctuates his harangue with tauntology and a damning I-thou comparison in ranges of articulation from autistic to savant, there is a method and a cast of mischief afoot.

Whether Eve has X faces or talks through her navel, the purpose is to shunt the pursuit of justice and light into six-degrees-of-Ben-Gurion or a doorway beneath a flashing neon sign.

Shills! Shills! Shills!

Give us instead an author whose notes and personal amplification show us the groundwork for valid conclusion.

Send out the clowns.

Phil Dragoo

[Albert Doyle]

Toward accomplishing these goals, "Doyle" vigorously promotes the "Jews sponsored the JFK assassination" lie by championing the disinformation of Michael Collins Piper.

This is a falsehood that can be easily seen by looking at the Piper thread where I clearly and repeatedly said that I did not believe in Piper's Israeli Sponsorship claim and that Piper's particular anti-zionist stance was responsible for his not studying the deeper political aspects that showed this. If you viewed that thread Charles never once attempted any discussion of Piper's evidence which I believe shows firm proof of Israeli facilitation of the assassination after being brought in to the cabal just like many other groups with causes that could be used to conceal the true sponsors. I protest Charles' behavior here because I feel that while he vigorously chides people for scholarly purposes and scolds them for helping conceal the true nature of the assassination I feel his position here does that very same thing with Israel's facilitation role. Just because deep political philosophy centers around concentrating on the true Sponsors (something I agree with) doesn't mean that we can't further enhance that knowledge with the fleshing-out of the true facilitation scenario. Which heavily includes CIA by the way. I personally feel this unusual reaction by Charles and somewhat bizarre claim of my being some kind of covert infiltrator of this site is the symptom of an irrational bias and unconscious reaction to the validity of what I'm saying. But never should Charles be allowed to flagrantly mis-state my position. In short, he protests too much. I might also jokingly add he does a good impersonation of Ben-Gurion's breakdown over the subject.


I was going to hold this back for purposes of keeping the peace, however research of Liebeler would show he was an underling of Commission lawyer Jenner who was the personal attorney of Chicago real estate billionaire Henry Crown whose ardent zionism is well-known.


If we were allowed to bypass this diversion and talk about the subject matter of the thread I believe Liebeler flagrantly corrupted the Ryder/Whitworth/Hunter testimony. I believe Ryder himself shows a marked division between his original statement that he definitely saw Oswald in his shop to the man was a common Texas-type after Ryder got a visit from FBI. I believe there's evidence Liebeler cooperated with Ryder in concocting a ruse where Ryder would deny a newspaper interview and Liebeler would then use that as a pretext to avoid Ryder's witnessing and it's meaning. This is pretty obvious in the evidence and was gotten away with probably because of the heat of the moment and forced credibility of the Commission and its intimidating power.