Jefferson Morley's Continuing Effort

[Mitch C.]

TLR; That is an EXCELLENT course of research action. There is so much to investigate in this entire case, one might make more headway by choosing one particular segment; timeline of events during that segment (in your case; between the final shots and Oswald's arrest), and diving into ALL material available relating to it.

Now, what should I choose? Hmmmm

[Leslie Sharp]

Thanks for all of the welcomes, and I look forward to engaging here.  I'm a fan of Alan Dale.

I realize that my initial post stumbled into a segue involving the recent interaction between Jeff Morley and Lisa Pease rather than keeping the focus on Mr. Morley's legal case.  My apologies, no distraction intended. 

I respect Morley's ongoing effort to dislodge documents from our government based on principle;  I'm skeptical about the significance of the documents, and I hope I'm proven wrong.  I'm not suggesting that it has been a misguided effort, but it makes no sense to me on a purely logical basis that the very agency that is suspected of involvement in the assassination has left a paper trail.  So for me, the entire issue should be kept in context, and it concerns me that so much seems to ride on files that may or may not exist.    However, if George Joannides is the missing link (and his files have not been purged), then the attention this issue has garnered is well justified.  Far be it from me to criticize anyone taking the risks Mr.Morley has.  I continue to have my own issues with him, but they are mine, including his limited focus on Al Ulmer in relation to Ulmer's service in the Athen's station - which followed that of his boss Frank Wisner; Joannides' Greek heritage and recruitment into the CIA around the same time; Ulmer's involvement with Win Scott upon Scott's 'retirement' from the CIA; and Ulmer's whereabouts during the week leading up to 11.22.63. 

If I fully understand Jeff Morley's primary theory in the Kennedy assassination that he anticipates will be supported by the CIA files: Lee Harvey Oswald shot John Kennedy; the agency failed to stop him; and beyond that who, if anyone, instructed him to do so. (my apologies to Jeff Morley if I have misrepresented his position.)  If memory serves, I asked him when he would release any documents he secures as a result of his effort, if and when he secures them.  Will it be immediate?  Or will the documents simply move from one secured repository to another?  Again, if memory serves, I believe he mentioned a book in the works.  Obviously, he and those working with him have borne the expense of this legal case, and he/they are entitled to reimbursement in whatever form that takes, but if so much hinges on these files, I encourage him to make them available as quickly as possible should he succeed.

[Kelly]

 

[Cutty]

I realize that my initial post stumbled into a segue involving the recent interaction between Jeff Morley and Lisa Pease rather than keeping the focus on Mr. Morley's legal case.  My apologies, no distraction intended.

Oh, no! On the contrary, Leslie! The judgement inspired the thread, being the latest in a long saga, but the title was intentionally meant to be all encompassing. Excellent posts, great to have you here!

You are a fan of Allan Dale, you say? Yeah, hes ok.      Alan and I actually discussed the theory topic very recently and agreed that context of a statement or quote of one can easily be interpreted multiple ways. For example, if it is written: Assuming that Oswald was the lone shooter, then evidence of the CIA's awareness of him on the eve of the assassination proves negligence on their part, then my query is well, does he think Oswald was a lone shooter or is he saying that because the official version assumed it, foreknowledge of Oswald still proves negligence?

I can't speak for Mr. Morely here either and I'm sorry I haven't had time lately to try to clear this issue up in my mind so this is great that we are talking about it! 

[TLR]

One of the Administrators and the Global Moderator are still newbies. 

I just couldn't help pointing that out. 

[Cutty]

  Didn't think I needed to point that out.

[Leslie Sharp]

Kelly, I agree that it's not an either or argument relating to Jeff Morley, and I didn't mean to suggest that.  We all know that those with best intentions for uncovering the truth of the assassination are more effective when they avoid arguments over anything but the most fundamental issues:  who authorized the assassination and why, who planned and executed it, and who covered it up.  I've not heard or read Jeff Morley succinctly address the first or the last of those three fundamental questions in recent times, and personally that concerns me.  Otherwise, if he or anyone chooses a narrow line of inquiry, we are all the better for it; just don't pretend that all three questions aren't out there or that they will be answered upon the release of government files.  (where's the little symbol for "soap box?")

[Leslie Sharp]

Echelon,
Hope you catch my response at the "Did the power elite ..." thread.

[Kelly]

Hi Leslie. I see what you mean, I believe. I don`t know why Jeff won`t address the major issues in the case. He is a great researcher and he should be able to see it was a major conspiracy that needs to be addressed.

[echelon]

Hi Kelly,

Well, I can't speak for Jeff Morley but I can understand why people who want to make progress in this case avoid addressing the major issues in the very first instance.  We, in this forum, probably appreciate that the reality of the assassination is something hugely significant which could (and should) shake the foundations of the US democratic system to its core.  However, it seems to me that the vast majority of the American public will not accept such a startling hypothesis ... or at least not at first.

I have to say that I cringe slightly when (for example) Jerome Corsi says things like: "Allen Dulles ... was part of a whole new world order.  Allen Dulles had worked to finance Hitler's rise to power ... Lyndon Johnson knew about the assassination, and was all in favour of it ...", etc., etc..  Now I'm not disputing whether or not Corsi is correct when he makes any or all of these grand pronouncements, but I am concerned with the effect that these words will have on the average American voter.  I can imagine their eyes glaze over as they pigeonhole this particular speaker in the same category as those previous commentators who said (for example) that the driver did it.  The Hitler connection is just TOO BIG to take in and therefore much easier to dismiss out of hand as the ravings of a (whisper it) "conspiracy theorist".

Perhaps if someybody could prove to the public's general satisfaction that just one small but important piece of the official story is false, this might initiate a shift in the tectonic plates which would eventually lead to more politicians and/or media figures speaking out against the whole crumbling facade.  Perhaps that is Morley's position; it would certainly be mine if I had the time and resources to be a serious researcher in this case.

Echelon,
Hope you catch my response at the "Did the power elite ..." thread.

Thanks Leslie - I shall await your further cogitations with interest.

[Kelly]

Hello echelon. Excellent post and I agree with. You bring up another theory that I`ve heard. I know it was discussed on Bob`s forum and it could be a good thread here. I will start it on this thread and see if it takes off. My question is are some of the conspiracy theorists fake and making up topics to throw serious researchers and the American public (also other countries) off balance? What I mean is that some of these people have wacky theories such as "the driver did it", "Z-film completely faked", and on and on. What do you think? Are these people on the level or are they doing this to make all conspiracy theorists seem crazy?

[TLR]

Morley has a post on JFK Facts that says the Backyard photos were taken in New Orleans, not in Dallas. He also seems to accept that they are genuine.
I've left a couple of comments at least trying to get him to correct the location. It's troubling that he knows about some aspects of this case, but there are apparently gaping holes in his knowledge of other areas.