|
|
 | | From: | BDNKMFZ | | Subject: | Re: dpss03.zip - Digital Photo Slide Show & Screen Saver | | Date: | Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:13:40 GMT |
|
|
 | Oswald for years, and then issued a
tract on both Oswald and the assassination that James Angleton
himself would have written. I would have also loved to hear Davis
explain how he could have completely misrepresented the Church
Committee report to his readers. I would also like to ask him how
many people he thought would read the actual report versus how
many would pick up the paperback version of his book (which
features a blurb by Liz Smith). To me what these authors have
done at least suggests the "reckless disregard" rubric of the
libel statute.
To be fair to the Kennedys, it is hard to castigate a family
which has sustained so many tragedies. Andy Harland called up
Steve Jones after reading his article in The Humanist (Probe Vol.
4 #3 p. 8). He was an acquaintance of Peter Lawford's who talked
to him a few times about the assassination. Jones' notes from
that phone call includes the following:
Lawford told him that Jackie knew right away that shots came
from the front as did Powers and O'Donnell. He said shortly
after the funeral the family got together.... Bobby told the
family that it was a high level military/CIA plot and that
he felt powerless to do anything about it.... the family
always felt that JFK's refusal to commit to Vietnam was one
of the reasons for the assassination....Lawford told him
that the kids were all told the truth as they grew up but it
was Teddy who insisted that the family put the thing to
rest.
Evidently, Teddy wanted to preserve his career in the political
arena and knew that any airing of the case would jeopardize it.
Which was probably true. Under those circumstances, the Kennedys
can't even protect themselves.
This is
|
|
|
