Kerry Thornley talks about JFK asassination

[Richard Booth]

This is a video from 1992. In this video Kerry Thornley talks about the JFK assassination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN-gFt2exHw

What I find interesting in relation to this video are two things:

(1) When he was working for Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg interviewed the man at the print shop where Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba flyers were printed and this man identified at least two photographs of Kerry Thornley, saying that he was the man who picked up the flyers

(2) Jim Garrison believed that Kerry Thorney might have been one of the people impersonating Oswald

Note that in this video, Kerry Thornley talks about Oswald impersonations (near the end). It would be interesting to see what a body language expert thinks about this. Thornley sitting with his hands above his head in the first ten minutes or so is unusual body language... Look at how he appears when he discusses Oswald having been impersonated at the end. Maybe my subjective bias plays into this but I think he looks like he's being dishonest. Saying "well this might have happened" when he knows damn well it did happen.

There has been a lot of controversy over this guy in the JFK debate, which in recent times has been further confounded (or added to) by the works of Adam Gorightly.

Gorightly writes about Thornley as a prankster (wrote a book or two about that) who in some way was involved with Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw.

I haven't read Gorightly's books so I'm not in a good position to further comment on that. I had read elsewhere he took a 'coincidence theory' approach--if so, I would disagree. This could be wrong, as based on an interview I am listening to now it seems Gorightly advocates the Oswald impersonation/Harvey and Lee theory. I suppose I need to read Gorightly's books to make a determination. If anyone has read his books I'm curious what your thoughts are.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I listened to Mr Gorightly one night on Coast to Coast talk about Thornley.

I personally think he is wrong and I will be addressing this on BOR.

[Richard Booth]

I listened to Mr Gorightly one night on Coast to Coast talk about Thornley.

I personally think he is wrong and I will be addressing this on BOR.

Look forward to hearing that. Not knowing enough about Gorightly or the books I didn't want to spend money on something that could be way off base.

I do think it's important that what is known as fact about Kerry Thornley be recognized, because there is something of importance there. What I find most compelling is that Harold Weisberg evidently had a witness ID Thornley as the man who picked up Oswald's FPCC flyers and that's a pretty big deal.

[Richard Booth]

I listened to Mr Gorightly one night on Coast to Coast talk about Thornley.

I personally think he is wrong and I will be addressing this on BOR.

Another thing about Thornley:

You can't trust a word he says. I haven't done a lot of research on him, but I have seen his 1991 appearance on 'A Current Affair' where he 'confesses' to his involvement in the JFK Assassination, and also read his account of it as written by Sondra London---the serial killer groupie (and lunatic).

The Current Affair segment was absurd, him talking about how he wanted to kill JFK and would have done it himself.

The treatise written by Sondra London about the whole plot, with these two weird figures 'Brother-in-Law' and Kiersten, is total crackpot nonsense. It's clearly made-up shit. It mentions the 'Defense Industrial Security Command' which as we all know is a bullshit organization that was part of the bullshit 'Torbitt Document' that surfaced in the 1970s. If we're to believe Thornley-via-London he was hearing about such an organization in 1963 in New Orleans. Except, that organization never existed. And besides, the entire account (which can be found on Sondra London's website) is just crackpot nutter lunacy from start to finish.

What I do think is important is examining what Jim Garrison believed about Thornley and what we know are facts. As far as what Thornley says about anything, it all sounds like lies or lunacy to me from what I have read so far.