Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 6, 2019 20:42:52 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/kennedy_color.jpg
vl-media.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/warren-commission.jpg
gibsonsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/guy-banister.png
i.ytimg.com/vi/9dubZ1E4NKg/hqdefault.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders can’t/won’t refute with evidence.
************************************
(1) Who were the people the Secret Service (SS) thought might have caused harm to President John F. Kennedy (JFK) AFTER the assassination?
In the WC Report (WCR) we see the following.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0027a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0027b.gif
The Protective Research Section [PRS] of the Secret Service maintain records of people who have threatened the President or so conducted themselves as to be deemed a potential danger to him. On November 8, 1963, after undertaking the responsibility for advance preparations for the visit to Dallas, Agent [Winston G.] Lawson went to the PRS offices in Washington.
A check of the geographic indexes there revealed no listing for any individual deemed to be a potential danger to the President in the territory of the Secret Service regional office which includes Dallas and Fort Worth. (WCR, pp. 29-30)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0027a.htm
Quote off
So based on this we have to assume there were NO people the SS were aware of who might present harm to JFK. One of the SS agents traveling with the presidential party found this odd and said so in his WC testimony.
Representative FORD. Was it surprising to you that when the President was going to a city as large as Dallas, that there were no names turned over to you, either by your Protective Research Section or by any other Federal agents--individuals or an individual dangerous to the President?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I recall, to give you an answer, Congressman, that it did seem strange that here we are hitting five cities in one State and--and from the apparent trouble Ambassador Stevenson had down there one evening, we certainly should have had some information on somebody.
I agree. How did they have NO information on anyone when there was a major event involving Ambassador Adlai Stevenson not too long before the assassination that included people attacking him? The real baffling part comes from the testimony of SS Agent Winston Lawson as he said this occurred when they were interrogating LHO following the assassination.
Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there? The question wasn't asked him at this time, at least while you were present, whether he was or was not guilty of the attack on the President?
Mr. LAWSON. This I do not recall. During this I recall I was called out for a phone call a couple of times. We were given information from Mr. Max Phillips, who was in our PRS section, and I believe it was during this that someone, an agent, was wanted on the phone, and I went out and answered this, and they gave us some information on people that it might have been--in case that [it] wasn't Oswald.
Mr. STERN. What was his physical condition?
What information was given to them and on what people? We don’t know because Mr. Stern just jumped in and CHANGED THE TOPIC! Why? This testimony shows us what the WC wrote in their report is false since there were people in the PRS files that showed the ability to present danger to JFK.
Can anyone explain this discrepancy between what is written in the WCR and what the actual evidence shows us?
(2) Did Guy Banister know LHO?
According to Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed, no. Here is what he wrote in his book about this issue.
Quote on
There is simply no credible evidence that Oswald ever had an office at 544 Camp Street, or, much less, that he knew Guy Banister. (Gerald Posner, Case Closed, p. 141)
Quote off
Mr. Posner would admit that William Gaudet was a source for the CIA’s domestic contact division until 1961 on pages 168-169 (covered previously in this series). However, he states there was no relationship between him and LHO based on the House Select Committee on Assassination’s (HSCA) comments in their report on page 219.
If you go to page 219 the HSCA Report, one finds this assertion well enough, but one also finds something else, something which should have jumped out at Mr. Posner.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0125a.gif
Gaudet noted that on one occasion he observed Oswald speaking to Guy Banister on a street corner. (HSCAR, p. 219, note 27)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0125a.htm
Quote off
Since Mr. Posner cited this page as a source for his claim, why did he NOT mention the statement above? On the very SAME page we see the notation saying Gaudet observed Guy Banister and LHO speaking on a street corner. A Canadian television documentary called the Fifth Estate featured an interview with William Gaudet by researcher Peter Dale Scott. In the interview Gaudet said the following.
Quote on
Gaudet told Scott that he did indeed observe Oswald though he never spoke to him, that he did not think Oswald capable of the assassination, that he thought Oswald was being manipulated by anti-Castro Cubans and others, and that Oswald had gotten in over his head and was a fall guy.
Quote off
This interview from the 1970s was also ignored by Mr. Posner as it said things that ran counter to the theme of his book. Further evidence of Guy Banister and LHO knowing each other comes from Banister’s longtime secretary and mistress Delphine Roberts. This subject was covered in the book Let Justice Be Done by William Davy as he followed up on the investigation conducted by Jim Garrison. Here is what he wrote about this topic.
Quote on
Oswald and 544 Camp Street
Delphine Roberts, Banister’s longtime secretary, mistress and confidante, revealed to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and later to British journalist, Anthony Summers, that Oswald walked into Banister’s office sometime in 1963. He was given a form to fill out as one of Banister’s "agents."(21) After Oswald filled out the form, he met with Banister behind closed doors. According to Roberts, "Oswald came back a number of times. He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and with the office. As I understood it he had use of an office on the second floor, above the main office where we worked...Roberts’ daughter, also named Delphine, told Summers that she and a photographer friend also saw Oswald at Banister’s on occasion.(23) Further corroboration of Oswald’s second floor offices comes from former Banister associate Bill Nitschke. In a 1967 interview with a New Orleans States Item reporter, Nitschke revealed that sometime before the Kennedy assassination, he visited Banister’s office and the second floor anterooms. Nitschke recalled seeing crudely lettered placards that he believed had something to do with Castro. He told the States Item that "it didn’t make any sense to me how Guy got tied up to those signs."(24)
Dan Campbell, an ex-Marine that worked for Banister infiltrating left-wing groups on college campuses confirmed the gunrunning, recalling that "Banister was a bagman for the CIA and was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami."(26)… The Banister menagerie he added "were the worst kind of fanatics."(29) Campbell also remembered one day when he was in Banister’s office and a young man came in and used the phone. "I knew he was a Marine from his bearing and speech pattern the minute he walked into 544 Camp Street," he recalled.(30) The next time he saw this young man was when his picture was on television as the accused assassin of President Kennedy. Interestingly, Campbell also recalled seeing Oswald’s buddy from his Marine Corps days, Kerry Thornley, pop in and out of Banister’s office.(31) Strangely enough on the day Kennedy was shot Thornley was with Allen Campbell, Dan’s brother.(32) Allen, like his brother, also worked for Banister. On one of the days Oswald was handing out his leaflets, Allen remembered Delphine Roberts returning to the office and complaining to Banister that "that young man is passing out pro-Castro leaflets in the street."(33) Allen recalled Banister’s reaction was calm, "Don’t worry about him. He’s a nervous fellow, he’s confused. He’s with us, he’s associated with the office."(34) (William Davy, Let Justice Be Done, Chapter Four)
(21) Interview with Delphine Roberts, August 27,1978, HSCA document #011196 and Summers, Conspiracy, p. 324.
(22) Summers, Conspiracy, p.324.
(23) Ibid., p. 325.
(24) Hoke May’s interview of Bill Nitschke, May 11, 1967, from Hoke May’s files.
(26) James DiEugenio’s interview with Dan Campbell, September 3, 1994.
(29) Ibid.
(30) Ibid.
(31) Ibid.
(32) DiEugenio interview with Allen Campbell, September 6, 1994.
(33) Summers, Conspiracy, p. 324.
(34) Ibid.
Quote off
Based on this information there clearly was a relationship between Banister and LHO and this evidence seems very credible to me as there is NO reason for Ms. Roberts to tell the HSCA and Anthony Summers this stuff if it was NOT true. The WC of course did NOT investigate this matter and this again shows their conclusion cannot be correct since they failed once again to explore all avenues to find the truth.
(3) Why did the Dallas Police Department (DPD) make no mention of the James Tague injury when it was reported to them?
We see in Eddy “Buddy” Walthers WC testimony that James Tague reported the wounding to himself to Walthers.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a man by the name of Jim Tague [spelling], T-a-g-u-e, who works as an automobile salesman.
Mr. WALTHERS. I remember he had a gray automobile---I remember that very well.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it must have been Mr. Tague because he was in here this afternoon and he told me his car was parked right there at No. 9 and that's when I put the mark on the exhibit and he walked up there and talked to a deputy sheriff and he looked at the curb.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; this was pure ignorance on my part in not getting his name---I don't know---but I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is pretty clear it was Mr. Tague, because his testimony he gave today jibed with yours and it couldn't have been anybody else and he had a cut and some blood on his face.
Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you say this building or this building you are talking about the School Book Depository Building or the building immediately east thereof, across Houston Street?
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; and I ran right then back up along in here and that would be right at the corner of Elm and Houston, where I ran into one of our deputies, Allan Sweatt….and I told him, I said, "A bullet struck that curb. It's fresh---you can see a fresh ricochet where it had struck," and I said, "From the looks of it, it's probably going to be in this School Book Building," and immediately then everybody started surrounding the School Book Building…
In this testimony we see that Tague showed the mark on the curb to Walthers and the cut on his face, but Walthers said he was NOT interested in his cut at that time. He also admitted to NOT getting James Tague’s name. How many times have we seen this claimed in this case (I say claimed because I just can’t believe the police work could have been this bad)? Walthers also says he felt this mark on the curb meant the shot came from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), but that is impossible as a miss from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) would never have landed where Tague was standing. We have covered this earlier in this series.
The WC would also tell us that Tague reported his wounding and the curb mark to Buddy Walthers in the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0070b.gif
At a different location in Dealey Plaza, the evidence indicated that a bullet fragment did hit the street. James T. Tague, who got out of his car to watch the motorcade from a position between Commerce and Main Streets near the Triple Underpass, was hit on the cheek by an object during the shooting. Within a few minutes Tague reported this to Deputy Sheriff Eddy R. Walthers, who was examining the area to see if any bullets had struck the turf. Walthers immediately started to search where Tague had been standing and located a place on the south curb of Main Street where it appeared a bullet had hit the cement…This incident appears to have been recored in the contemporaneous report of Dallas patrolman L.L. Hill, who radioed in around 12:40 p.m.: “I have one guy that was possibly hit by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete.” (WCR, p. 116)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0070b.htm
Quote off
This shows the incident was radioed in and part of Patrolman L.L. Hill’s notes. James Tague would say he went to the police headquarters as well to report this incident.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you meet a newspaper photographer that day and talk to him at all about the assassination?
Mr. TAGUE. The day of the assassination?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mr. TAGUE. Not that I can recall. I left the area down there at about a quarter to one, and the officer there told me to go to the police headquarters and report to somebody down there and tell them what I had seen.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you do that?
Mr. TAGUE. I did that.
Despite all of this there is NOT one affidavit or one mention of James Tague in the DPD’s report on the assassination (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2003). Why NOT? I can only guess it was due to the FBI denying the whole James Tague affair (as they still do to this day) as the FBI had their hands all over the case from the beginning despite having NO jurisdiction. But, perhaps I am wrong.
Can anyone explain why the DPD did not include the James Tague incident in their report of the assassination?
We again see evidence in the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits that call into question the conclusion of the WC and their “search for the truth.” Thus, they are sunk.
cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/kennedy_color.jpg
vl-media.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/warren-commission.jpg
gibsonsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/guy-banister.png
i.ytimg.com/vi/9dubZ1E4NKg/hqdefault.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders can’t/won’t refute with evidence.
************************************
(1) Who were the people the Secret Service (SS) thought might have caused harm to President John F. Kennedy (JFK) AFTER the assassination?
In the WC Report (WCR) we see the following.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0027a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0027b.gif
The Protective Research Section [PRS] of the Secret Service maintain records of people who have threatened the President or so conducted themselves as to be deemed a potential danger to him. On November 8, 1963, after undertaking the responsibility for advance preparations for the visit to Dallas, Agent [Winston G.] Lawson went to the PRS offices in Washington.
A check of the geographic indexes there revealed no listing for any individual deemed to be a potential danger to the President in the territory of the Secret Service regional office which includes Dallas and Fort Worth. (WCR, pp. 29-30)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0027a.htm
Quote off
So based on this we have to assume there were NO people the SS were aware of who might present harm to JFK. One of the SS agents traveling with the presidential party found this odd and said so in his WC testimony.
Representative FORD. Was it surprising to you that when the President was going to a city as large as Dallas, that there were no names turned over to you, either by your Protective Research Section or by any other Federal agents--individuals or an individual dangerous to the President?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I recall, to give you an answer, Congressman, that it did seem strange that here we are hitting five cities in one State and--and from the apparent trouble Ambassador Stevenson had down there one evening, we certainly should have had some information on somebody.
I agree. How did they have NO information on anyone when there was a major event involving Ambassador Adlai Stevenson not too long before the assassination that included people attacking him? The real baffling part comes from the testimony of SS Agent Winston Lawson as he said this occurred when they were interrogating LHO following the assassination.
Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there? The question wasn't asked him at this time, at least while you were present, whether he was or was not guilty of the attack on the President?
Mr. LAWSON. This I do not recall. During this I recall I was called out for a phone call a couple of times. We were given information from Mr. Max Phillips, who was in our PRS section, and I believe it was during this that someone, an agent, was wanted on the phone, and I went out and answered this, and they gave us some information on people that it might have been--in case that [it] wasn't Oswald.
Mr. STERN. What was his physical condition?
What information was given to them and on what people? We don’t know because Mr. Stern just jumped in and CHANGED THE TOPIC! Why? This testimony shows us what the WC wrote in their report is false since there were people in the PRS files that showed the ability to present danger to JFK.
Can anyone explain this discrepancy between what is written in the WCR and what the actual evidence shows us?
(2) Did Guy Banister know LHO?
According to Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed, no. Here is what he wrote in his book about this issue.
Quote on
There is simply no credible evidence that Oswald ever had an office at 544 Camp Street, or, much less, that he knew Guy Banister. (Gerald Posner, Case Closed, p. 141)
Quote off
Mr. Posner would admit that William Gaudet was a source for the CIA’s domestic contact division until 1961 on pages 168-169 (covered previously in this series). However, he states there was no relationship between him and LHO based on the House Select Committee on Assassination’s (HSCA) comments in their report on page 219.
If you go to page 219 the HSCA Report, one finds this assertion well enough, but one also finds something else, something which should have jumped out at Mr. Posner.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0125a.gif
Gaudet noted that on one occasion he observed Oswald speaking to Guy Banister on a street corner. (HSCAR, p. 219, note 27)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0125a.htm
Quote off
Since Mr. Posner cited this page as a source for his claim, why did he NOT mention the statement above? On the very SAME page we see the notation saying Gaudet observed Guy Banister and LHO speaking on a street corner. A Canadian television documentary called the Fifth Estate featured an interview with William Gaudet by researcher Peter Dale Scott. In the interview Gaudet said the following.
Quote on
Gaudet told Scott that he did indeed observe Oswald though he never spoke to him, that he did not think Oswald capable of the assassination, that he thought Oswald was being manipulated by anti-Castro Cubans and others, and that Oswald had gotten in over his head and was a fall guy.
Quote off
This interview from the 1970s was also ignored by Mr. Posner as it said things that ran counter to the theme of his book. Further evidence of Guy Banister and LHO knowing each other comes from Banister’s longtime secretary and mistress Delphine Roberts. This subject was covered in the book Let Justice Be Done by William Davy as he followed up on the investigation conducted by Jim Garrison. Here is what he wrote about this topic.
Quote on
Oswald and 544 Camp Street
Delphine Roberts, Banister’s longtime secretary, mistress and confidante, revealed to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and later to British journalist, Anthony Summers, that Oswald walked into Banister’s office sometime in 1963. He was given a form to fill out as one of Banister’s "agents."(21) After Oswald filled out the form, he met with Banister behind closed doors. According to Roberts, "Oswald came back a number of times. He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and with the office. As I understood it he had use of an office on the second floor, above the main office where we worked...Roberts’ daughter, also named Delphine, told Summers that she and a photographer friend also saw Oswald at Banister’s on occasion.(23) Further corroboration of Oswald’s second floor offices comes from former Banister associate Bill Nitschke. In a 1967 interview with a New Orleans States Item reporter, Nitschke revealed that sometime before the Kennedy assassination, he visited Banister’s office and the second floor anterooms. Nitschke recalled seeing crudely lettered placards that he believed had something to do with Castro. He told the States Item that "it didn’t make any sense to me how Guy got tied up to those signs."(24)
Dan Campbell, an ex-Marine that worked for Banister infiltrating left-wing groups on college campuses confirmed the gunrunning, recalling that "Banister was a bagman for the CIA and was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami."(26)… The Banister menagerie he added "were the worst kind of fanatics."(29) Campbell also remembered one day when he was in Banister’s office and a young man came in and used the phone. "I knew he was a Marine from his bearing and speech pattern the minute he walked into 544 Camp Street," he recalled.(30) The next time he saw this young man was when his picture was on television as the accused assassin of President Kennedy. Interestingly, Campbell also recalled seeing Oswald’s buddy from his Marine Corps days, Kerry Thornley, pop in and out of Banister’s office.(31) Strangely enough on the day Kennedy was shot Thornley was with Allen Campbell, Dan’s brother.(32) Allen, like his brother, also worked for Banister. On one of the days Oswald was handing out his leaflets, Allen remembered Delphine Roberts returning to the office and complaining to Banister that "that young man is passing out pro-Castro leaflets in the street."(33) Allen recalled Banister’s reaction was calm, "Don’t worry about him. He’s a nervous fellow, he’s confused. He’s with us, he’s associated with the office."(34) (William Davy, Let Justice Be Done, Chapter Four)
(21) Interview with Delphine Roberts, August 27,1978, HSCA document #011196 and Summers, Conspiracy, p. 324.
(22) Summers, Conspiracy, p.324.
(23) Ibid., p. 325.
(24) Hoke May’s interview of Bill Nitschke, May 11, 1967, from Hoke May’s files.
(26) James DiEugenio’s interview with Dan Campbell, September 3, 1994.
(29) Ibid.
(30) Ibid.
(31) Ibid.
(32) DiEugenio interview with Allen Campbell, September 6, 1994.
(33) Summers, Conspiracy, p. 324.
(34) Ibid.
Quote off
Based on this information there clearly was a relationship between Banister and LHO and this evidence seems very credible to me as there is NO reason for Ms. Roberts to tell the HSCA and Anthony Summers this stuff if it was NOT true. The WC of course did NOT investigate this matter and this again shows their conclusion cannot be correct since they failed once again to explore all avenues to find the truth.
(3) Why did the Dallas Police Department (DPD) make no mention of the James Tague injury when it was reported to them?
We see in Eddy “Buddy” Walthers WC testimony that James Tague reported the wounding to himself to Walthers.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a man by the name of Jim Tague [spelling], T-a-g-u-e, who works as an automobile salesman.
Mr. WALTHERS. I remember he had a gray automobile---I remember that very well.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it must have been Mr. Tague because he was in here this afternoon and he told me his car was parked right there at No. 9 and that's when I put the mark on the exhibit and he walked up there and talked to a deputy sheriff and he looked at the curb.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; this was pure ignorance on my part in not getting his name---I don't know---but I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is pretty clear it was Mr. Tague, because his testimony he gave today jibed with yours and it couldn't have been anybody else and he had a cut and some blood on his face.
Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you say this building or this building you are talking about the School Book Depository Building or the building immediately east thereof, across Houston Street?
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; and I ran right then back up along in here and that would be right at the corner of Elm and Houston, where I ran into one of our deputies, Allan Sweatt….and I told him, I said, "A bullet struck that curb. It's fresh---you can see a fresh ricochet where it had struck," and I said, "From the looks of it, it's probably going to be in this School Book Building," and immediately then everybody started surrounding the School Book Building…
In this testimony we see that Tague showed the mark on the curb to Walthers and the cut on his face, but Walthers said he was NOT interested in his cut at that time. He also admitted to NOT getting James Tague’s name. How many times have we seen this claimed in this case (I say claimed because I just can’t believe the police work could have been this bad)? Walthers also says he felt this mark on the curb meant the shot came from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), but that is impossible as a miss from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) would never have landed where Tague was standing. We have covered this earlier in this series.
The WC would also tell us that Tague reported his wounding and the curb mark to Buddy Walthers in the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0070b.gif
At a different location in Dealey Plaza, the evidence indicated that a bullet fragment did hit the street. James T. Tague, who got out of his car to watch the motorcade from a position between Commerce and Main Streets near the Triple Underpass, was hit on the cheek by an object during the shooting. Within a few minutes Tague reported this to Deputy Sheriff Eddy R. Walthers, who was examining the area to see if any bullets had struck the turf. Walthers immediately started to search where Tague had been standing and located a place on the south curb of Main Street where it appeared a bullet had hit the cement…This incident appears to have been recored in the contemporaneous report of Dallas patrolman L.L. Hill, who radioed in around 12:40 p.m.: “I have one guy that was possibly hit by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete.” (WCR, p. 116)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0070b.htm
Quote off
This shows the incident was radioed in and part of Patrolman L.L. Hill’s notes. James Tague would say he went to the police headquarters as well to report this incident.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you meet a newspaper photographer that day and talk to him at all about the assassination?
Mr. TAGUE. The day of the assassination?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mr. TAGUE. Not that I can recall. I left the area down there at about a quarter to one, and the officer there told me to go to the police headquarters and report to somebody down there and tell them what I had seen.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you do that?
Mr. TAGUE. I did that.
Despite all of this there is NOT one affidavit or one mention of James Tague in the DPD’s report on the assassination (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2003). Why NOT? I can only guess it was due to the FBI denying the whole James Tague affair (as they still do to this day) as the FBI had their hands all over the case from the beginning despite having NO jurisdiction. But, perhaps I am wrong.
Can anyone explain why the DPD did not include the James Tague incident in their report of the assassination?
We again see evidence in the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits that call into question the conclusion of the WC and their “search for the truth.” Thus, they are sunk.