So, let me get this straight: Oswald was married and had two kids. We know that the night before the assassination, he pleaded with Marina to allow him to look for a bigger place in Dallas so that they could resume living together and restore their family. Why would he do that if the very next day he was going to kill Kennedy and have to flee the country forever?
Tell me something: how could a person have two things on his mind at the same time: restoring the unity of his family AND blowing out the brain of the President of the United States?
But, this is the degree of psychopathology that they attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald: that he was eating lunch at the Depository one day that week, probably the Wednesday, and he saw the route of the Presidential motorcade in the newspaper, and he instantly got the idea that he would kill Kennedy. And when he thought it through, he realized:
"Well, I'll have to flee the country afterwards, go to Mexico, and probably never see my wife and kids again, and not be able to do anything for them, and maybe be unable to even contact them, but it'll be worth it. And think of the life I'll have: alone in Mexico. I'm sure they've got warehouses down there where I can work. I'll just have to brush up on my Spanish. 'Alejandro Hidellez' - that'll be me. Of course, until I get a job, money is going to be tight. Well, I'll have my gun. I just have to hold people up. 'Esto es un robo! Dame todo lo que tienes.' Yeah, I can do that."
That is not an exaggeration. That is exactly what David Belin, an attorney and full-grown adult person, said; that's what he laid out as Oswald's mindset. Look at that goofy smile.
But, how could anybody be so stupid as to think or say such a thing? What reason is there to believe that Oswald was as sick and twisted and deranged and insane as that?
The answer is that the "group-think" that followed the JFK assassination was really more of a "group-insanity". And it became the status-quo so quickly that it was unthinkable heresy if you didn't adopt it fully as your own mindset.
I have no reason to think David Belin had any advance knowledge of the JFK assassination. Why would they have told him? I think he found out about it the same way that most people did. And during his work for the Warren Commission, I don't think there was ever a time that Allen Dulles or anyone else came up to him and said:
"You know, of course, that this is all bull shit, that we, ourselves, killed Kennedy." No. On the record, off the record, during dinner, over drinks, etc. it was always the same: Oswald did it because he was a demonic monster. That was 24/7.
At least for Belin it was. But, I'm not so sure about another Warren Commission attorney, Joseph Ball.
Joseph Ball conducted the interviews over the Doorman issue, and as we now know, it was Buell Frazier, Danny Arce, Mrs. Donald Baker, and Billy Lovelady who were asked about it. And when I say asked about it, I mean explicitly shown the photo and asked about it. For the first three, Ball did it the old-fashioned way: he pointed to the figure in the doorway and asked, "Who's he?" But, when Ball got to Lovelady, he didn't do that. Instead, he did the bizarre thing of saying, "Don't tell me who Doorman is; I don't want to hear it. Just draw an arrow to yourself on the photo."
That was bad enough, but then after Lovelady did that, Joseph Ball never acknowledged verbally which figure got arrowed. He didn't say anything that was explanatory, as he did with the others, such as:
"Let the record show that the figure he pointed to is the white man who is next to column, the only male face we can see in the picture, the man in the doorway."
Ball said something like that- with every one of the others. But with Lovelady, he said nothing beforehand about Doorman, and he said nothing afterwards about Doorman- even after Lovelady had drawn his arrow.
Now, don't you think that if Lovelady had drawn an arrow to Doorman, that Joseph Ball would have said something about it verbally?
"Let the record show that Mr. Lovelady drew his arrow to the same figure that Mr. Frazier did, to the white man next to the wall, the figure commonly known as the Man in the Doorway."
But, Joseph Ball didn't do that. You know what he did? He just quickly changed the subject, and I mean fast:
Ball: Now, you were on which step?
Lovelady: It would be your top level.
That's what you call moving on.
But, Joseph Ball saw where Billy Lovelady drew his arrow, and at that moment, he knew that Billy was denying being the Doorway Man. And, Joseph Ball knew instantly from that that the Doorway Man had to be Lee Harvey Oswald. So, what did Ball do? He did two things:
1) he must have doctored the photo afterwards by smearing through the head of Lovelady's arrow which was in the black space. And I mean delicately and subtly. He just touched it up. It took very little to do that.
2) he passed on what Lovelady had done. And I mean he passed it on to someone whom he knew would take action to quash the problem. That was in April 1964. By May 1964, Lovelady did his first and only interview with a reporter (Jones Harris) and for that, he assumed the mantle of Doorway Man. He enunciated it. He articulated it.
Now, if Lovelady was going to articulate it, why didn't he do so during his official testimony? He could easily have said, "I'm the man in the doorway wearing the long-sleeve shirt and the exposed white t-shirt. That's me." The court reporter would have taken it down. But, Lovelady was just as reticent to refer to Doorway Man as Joseph Ball was. They both talked circles around him.
But, when Joseph Ball saw what Lovelady had done, at that moment, he, Joseph Ball, became a killer of John F. Kennedy. He willfully killed Kennedy as much so as the shooter on the Grassy Knoll who blew Kennedy's brain out. And for the rest of his life, Joseph Ball was aware that he took part in a vicious crime of unspeakable magnitude. But, if he lost any sleep over it, it was only over whether the truth would eventually come out. Otherwise, I doubt he felt anything.
But, what about today in 2015, 52 years later? Does anybody have the right, the excuse of supporting the official story of the JFK assassination on the grounds that it makes sense to them, that it rings true to them?
No, no, no. Nobody is getting away with that today. I absolve no one. Anyone who endorses that load of tripe today is an accessory after the fact in the murder of John F. Kennedy. And if they are not held accountable for their complicity in this terrible crime in this life, then I'll just have to hope that they are held accountable for it in the next. But as far as me withholding my contempt for them? That just ain't going to happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.