Would Amazon censor a comment challenging the lone gunman theory posited in a celebrity penned bestseller? According to Atlanta-based author Barry Krusch, the online giant did just that.
In his very popular Killing Kennedy, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly paints a portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald as the only gunman involved in the JFK assassination. Krusch scrutinizes O’Reilly’s conclusions in this respectful and empirical video, which was submitted to Amazon’s comment section.
However, according to Krusch, the online bookseller censored the video.
JFK Facts is seeking to learn more about that allegation.
In the meantime, take a look for yourself and see if there are any compelling reasons Amazon may have tried to keep Krusch’s presentation of evidence from its customers.
I know someone, who went to see Johnson in Portland, OR…and all the sewer drains were blocked off. The ones that you can stand inside and see out, even with the street. This was not too long after the Dallas shooting. They didn’t have any precautionary measures in place for Kennedy.
Also…see the excellent broadcasts by the History Channel. I don’t know why O’Reilly would stick with a lone gunman theory. If I watch the movie, it will be to see Ginnifer Goodwin…great actress.
” In other words, where is the alternate explanation for this evidence?”
Well, frankly what I presented was simply one person’s (Mark Lane’s) proposition that based on the sounds heard on the tape, and given the feat of dexterity required to shoot ones self in the head with a shot gun, it leaves open the possibility that reasonable persons might harbor some lingering doubt.
You seem offended that someone would deign to harbor doubt about an, “official” conclusion. While I may certainly disagree, vehemently even, with an opinion that contradicts a belief I hold to be rooted in fact, I’m not so quickly inclined to simply dismiss that person out of hand.
I worked in law enforcement at an executive level, and thus was privy to a few death investigations. Although it is clearly possible to shoot ones self in the head with a shot gun, it’s hardly easily accomplished. An investigators first instinct in such a case is almost always homicide first, that having been ruled out, accidental death or suicide may be concluded.
Another such example is the “opinion” of President Lyndon Johnson, Warren Commissioner, and United States Senator Richard Russell and Texas Governor John Connally, that the bullet which struck Governor Connally was not, nor could have been the same one which had struck President Kennedy in the back, and then exited his throat. But, considering the official investigation by men of stature contradicts the opinion of these men, I suppose they really don’t count for much.
Excellent point regarding Governor Connally, Shane.
He always maintained that the bullett which struck the president was not the same bullett which struck him.
If he is right ( and he is not a bad witness!!), then it proves that the single bullett theory is not correct, and we all know the implications of that.
Shane,
I wasn’t at all “offended” that you disagreed and I certainly didn’t mean to “dismiss you out of hand.” What did I say that gave you that impression?
I thought you were addressing me when you posted the Mark Lane quote, and I responded to that. Sorry my answer seems to have upset you, but I don’t know why.
Jean
Shane, today you wrote:
QUOTE:
Attorney Mark Lane has written, and recounted many times, his story of hearing a beep, beep, beep, beep on that recording. Lane, having attended the coroner’s inquest on dM’s death held in Palm Beach, wrote in a November 1977 article for Gallery Magazine,“The courtroom became silent as the tape recording was played. Just after a commercial…a gentle bell was heard, and then the shotgun blast. A member of the coroner’s jury asked what had caused the bell to ring.”
UNQUOTE
The “bell” or beep was the security system, which sounded when a door or window was opened — in this case, the back door. The cook went into the back yard. There were two other employees in the kitchen/back yard when de M died. See the death investigation report for details:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt
More important than the beeps, imo, is the lack of any suspicious noises. De Mohrenschildt was found seated on a chair wearing socks, no shoes. One foot was resting on a slightly rumpled area rug, which I’d guess may’ve been used to steady the shotgun’s stock while he manipulated the trigger with his other foot. Can anyone explain how a killer could’ve entered and left the house unseen, found the home owner’s weapon and shells, and arranged the death scene I’ve just described without leaving any noises whatsoever on the tape? In other words, where is the alternate explanation for this evidence?
Jean
You wrote, “these are the people you put so much faith in,” but you are very much mistaken. I put no faith in anyone –”Don’t trust; verify.”
Jean
—————
Jean, either you verified the correctness of the autopsy and police investigation into DeM’s death, or you had faith that all involved were honorable, competent professionals. Which was it?
I’m talking about the available evidence, Greg, which says that deMohrenschildt killed himself. If you have any evidence he was murdered, what is it?
Also, where is the alternate explanation for the available evidence that makes any sense? That’s always the conspiracist’s problem — finding a plausible scenario that explains the evidence some other way. Was the tape faked, did the witnesses at the house lie, or what?
I haven’t personally verified that astronauts landed on the moon, either, but I don’t have to take in on “faith” that this happened.
Jean
I do not believe that people who refuse to accept the official version of the assassination have a problem of “finding a plausible scenario that explains the evidence some other way”
I feel it is a matter of using your own common sense and refusing to be gullible enough to accept the findings of the Warren Commission.
There is much credible evidence which suggests that LHO did not act alone, including testimony from people who were there on the day and stated they heard shots coming from the grassy knoll.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that an open and honest investigation has not taken place, the truth is very hard to get to.
On the contrary, I feel it could be argued that it is those who believe in the lone gunman theory who have a problem “finding a plausible scenario that explains the evidence some other way”.
Here’s the evidence I’d ask you to explain, George.
Yes, many witnesses thought “the shots” — i.e, all the shots — came from the knoll area. (Very few reported hearing shots from more than one direction.) Were they right that all the shots came from there?
No one in Dealey Plaza reported seeing a grassy knoll gunman, even though there were witnesses facing the knoll on both sides of the fence.
Every panel that’s looked at the medical evidence concluded it shows only one shot to JFK’s head, from the rear. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht has agreed with that. Evidently the phantom gunman missed the car and everyone in it.
How would you explain all that?
Jean
Hi Jean.
I think it entirely possible that there was someone shooting at JFK from the rear, and entirely possible that it may have been LHO. But I believe, and I feel the evidence strongly suggests, that the head shot came from the front.
There are just too many people who believed they heard gunshots from the grassy knoll. You describe them as “many witnesses”. Also, after the shooting people ran up the grassy knoll as they believed the shots were coming from there.
You mention that no one reported seeing a grassy knoll gunman, but what about the evidence of Ed Hoffman? Obviously, I guess its a matter of opinion as to if he is right/wrong etc.
You mention Dr Cyril Wecht, but I prefer to listen to Dr Robert Mclelland on the basis that he was actually there in the operating theatre with the president at Parkland Hospital. Dr Mclelland has always considered the wound in the back of the presidents head to be an exit wound.
It is also my personal opinion that the Zapruder film is highly suggestive of a head shot from the front.
All the best.
George
“But Greg, the FPCC *did* send the pamphlets to Oswald — that was Vincent Lee’s testimony and it’s noted on the letter. Do you really doubt that?”
I never said I doubted it, Jean. What I believe, based on research done into the background of the FPCC is that it was a creature of the CIA from the get-go.
http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/parker-1.html
Scroll down to the part concerning the Whitney Foundation.
Jean, Lamont had been a target of persecution before, during and beyond the McCarthy era. And now he was writing about crimes committed against Cuba by the US. I’m sure he a much loved figure among Patriots.
Did Martello lie? Can you explain what criteria was used by the WC in choosing him to interview while ignoring those who arrested Oswald and/or interviewed him PRIOR to Martello?
Can you see anything about any Lamont pamphlets in Horace Austin’s report?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95624&relPageId=58 to Major Trosclair, dated August 12?
Do you know if Trosclair ever found the original copy of Austin’s report?
Do you know why Trosclair did not instigate an investigation of Oswald when Oswald contacted him about a license to picket on behalf of the FPCC?
How should I know why the WC called Martello? Maybe because he turned over Oswald’s pamphlets to the Secret Service on 11/23/63, as shown in this SS document:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95619&relPageId=18
The Lamont pamphlet is listed there.
One of the arresting officers also mentioned “The Crime Again Cuba” in this FBI doc from 9/63:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57690&relPageId=134
(Many thanks to Rex Bradford for maryferrell.org, btw.)
I see no reason to doubt that Oswald had the Lamont pamphlet when arrested. I’m not even sure why you think it matters.
I’m not able to read Trosclair’s mind, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to try. It could only be speculation, right?
Jean
Sorry that posted unfinished…
In 4/63 Oswald wrote to the FPCC asking for “40 or 50 more of the fine basic pamphlets-14”
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0266a.htm
The “basic pamphlet 14” was Lamont’s “Crime Against Cuba,” as seen on the cover here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0405b.htm
Oswald had this pamphlet in April and maybe even earlier, since he did ask for “more” of them. (He’d first written to the FPCC when he was living in Fort Worth, late 1962.) Plenty of time to study it, Greg.
Arnold may’ve used the correct name but either the FBI agent or a stenographer heard it as “Carlos.” Arnold was apparently asking Oswald if he knew Lamont’s political beliefs:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57683&relPageId=129
Is anyone going to defend the claim that LHO and deM were in Mexico with a CIA guy, I wonder?
Jean
If this is the only source, I see nor reason to believe. I don’t know of anything that suggests its true.
“Arnold may’ve used the correct name but either the FBI agent or a stenographer heard it as “Carlos.” Arnold was apparently asking Oswald if he knew Lamont’s political beliefs”
Non-responsive again, Jean.
From the FBI report we BOTH linked to:
“Arnold asked Oswald if he knew [about] Carlos Lamont, who, according to information he, Arnold, possessed was considered to be a Communist. Oswald responded by saying that Carlos Lamont was not a he but was a she and that he had read some of the material written by this female and he did not consider Lamont to be a Communist.”
The above gives no indication whatsoever that either is aware that Oswald supposedly had some of Lamont’s pamphlets in his possession at the time of arrest.
As always, it pays to consider who the WC deposed and who they didn’t. None of the arresting cops got a call, let alone Captain Arnold.
Greg, If Arnold wasn’t aware that Oswald had Lamont’s pamphlet in his possession when arrested, why do you suppose he asked Oswald about Lamont? Just a random leftist writer that came to mind?
And did Martello lie when he said he took this pamphlet and other literature Oswald had and later gave it to the Secret Service?
Jean
Oswald’s own words have always held the most fascination for me. He seemed capable, and well prepared to dissemble for what ever reason. I’ve often wondered to what degree was he being truthful or not. Especially during his questioning which you can examine from Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz’s interrogation notes that surfaced during the ARRB records release.
According to those notes, Oswald denied he told Buell Frazier why he was going to the Payne’s on Thursday as opposed to Friday, denied the bit about the curtain rods, denied bringing any sort of package to work that Friday, denied owning a riffle and refused to discuss a photo of one when it was shown to him.
He said he never ordered a gun, but had bought one from a store about 7 months prior, but not from Klein’s. He claimed both he and Mrs. Payne were ACLU members and that he joined so he could pay lawyer’s fees when needed.
He repeated the claim that he belonged to the FPCC, and that he supported Castro and the Revolution, admitted having a Selective Service card, but denied signing it Alek Hidell.
I had come to believe Oswald was just plain lying about the “back yard” photograph because of a similar photo Jeanne de Mohrenschildt produced and gave the HSCA. It appeared to have been signed on the back, “To my friend George from Lee Oswald.”
Another curious bit, Oswald was always taking up for Mrs. Payne. Although Roger Craig is not listed on any of Fritz’s notes as having been present during any of the interrogations, Craig claimed he questioned Oswald. He claims the only point where Oswald became visible upset was when Craig asked him about Mrs. Payne in connection with the Nash Rambler.
The backyard photo is legit because Marina Oswald told Jesse Ventura in 2010 that she took those photos.
A reasonable assumption is that it was done for Oswald’s sheepdipping operations … or “framing” operation.
Right, I get that. The point is however, that after you’ve told one lie to the cops, anything you say beyond that will be held dubious. Believe me, I have no idea exactly how any of it fits into the overall scheme of things, as I say I’ve just always found that element about Oswald most curious. Which, apparently so did most any person of authority who questioned Oswald.
So, taking that point of view it’s not hard to see Oswald from the point of view of the police. If you’re arrested, and you know you’re guilty, then the best thing you can do is keep your mouth shut. On the other hand if you know you’re innocent, then the best thing you can do is keep your mouth shut! Once you start lying, and they know you’re lying, then in their mind, you’re as good as guilty.
It’s hard to know, amongst all the things Oswald is known to have said, when he was being truthful and when he was not. He’d dangle of bit of truth, and then throw a load of falsehoods on top of it. It’s almost as if he himself is somehow, and from beyond the grave even, contributing to the sleight of hand that has kept interested persons guessing for all these years.
Was he an American hero who tried to foil the assassination, was he partially in on it, perhaps he’s just an unwitting dupe, was there one, two, maybe three different Oswald’s?
It’s James Angleton’s, “Wilderness of Mirrors.” It’s the thing that keeps one, “micro-analyzing,” as Vincent Salandria talked about. But, it just blows my mind to contemplate that Oswald himself seemed to contribute to it!
“Ruth Paine” http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpaine.htm
Of course you’re correct, it’s spelled Paine. I have a passion for words, and could not overcome the temptation to spell it with a Y. It just strikes me as somehow sexier and more intriguing.
As someone who spent 22 years in radio broadcasting along with a retired radio broadcaster friend of mine who worked in the business some 30+ years, he and I find the two radio interviews Oswald gave in August of 1963 to WDSU radio in New Orleans among the most compelling items that speak to what Oswald was about.
Having interviewed hundreds of people over decade’s long careers, my friend and I can easily pick up on nervousness in a person’s voice, whether or not a person is reading from a script or speaking extemporaneously and how prepared or not the speaker is relevant to his or her subject. In all those years we can’t help but listen to radio announcers or their guests critically. So much can be betrayed by the subtleties of the speaking voice.
In the one interview and then one “debate” with Carlos Bringuier, Oswald executes almost perfectly a convincing performance as the treasurer of the New Orleans chapter of Fair Play for Cuba, a chapter which Oswald just made up out of thin air. It didn’t exist! Yet he did two radio shows and one television interview convincingly arguing that it did. He’s not the least bit nervous. He doesn’t stammer, stutter or lose his train of thought.
He’s clearly not reading from a script, yet he has seemingly well prepared answers for all of the questions that are put to him.
Listening to him you’ve got to keep in mind he’s 23 years old and speaks with absolute authority on world affairs of the day, and on his position within his fictitious chapter of the FPFC. I’m telling you, if he wasn’t trained, then he sure as heck must have practiced for weeks in advance. In much the same way a president is coached before a big debate, with all sorts of possible questions, so that he or she is prepared for any that might be asked.
Oswald had an answer for EVERY question and curve ball they threw at him.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Audio_-_Other
Shane,
Captain James Arnold of NOPD told the FBI on Nov 29, 1963 that he asked Oswald if he knew “Carlos Lamont”. According to the report, Oswald responded by saying that Lamont was not a “he” but a “she” and that he had read some of the material written by this female.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=145869
There are 2 major problems here…
1. Oswald was supposed to have Lamont’s Crime Against Cuba on him at the time of the arrest, so why is he being asked if he is familiar with him, and why is the first name being pronounced as “Carlos” by the cop?
2. Oswald apparently knew so little about Lamont, he thought he was a she – yet in a few short weeks, as you point out, he knows enough to expertly handle an interview on the complex subject of Cuba and foreign policy in Latin America, which includes a question about Lamont.
I think this points to his knowing zero about Lamont at the time of his arrest, that he never had Lamont’s pamphlet as claimed, and that he did some intense study between then and his radio and tv appearances.
Surely Oswald didn’t need to know Corliss Lamont’s gender to be familiar with his work. In April 1963 Oswald had written to the FPCC asking for “40 or 50 more of the fine basic pamphlets-14”
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0266a.htm
“Basic pamphlet –
I’m familiar with the works of Leonardo Da Vinci. I think she was a great artist.
So Oswald writes a begging letter in Dallas that he knows will be read by the Alphabet soup agencies, admitting he had been doing a bit of cheer-leading on behalf of Castro through the streets of Dallas and asking for 40 or 50 more pamphlets – which are duly delivered to his new mailing address in NO.
You are aware that those pamphlets were not free? They sold for a dime a pop. Yet you believe the FPCC sent him $5.00 worth for nothing, not even knowing or caring whether he was going to give them away or sell them for personal profit? Wouldn’t this be encouraging him to continue asking for free stuff from them that actually should be purchased in the normal scheme of things? How long do you think they would have continued to do so?
I guess they were lucky he never asked again…
But Greg, the FPCC *did* send the pamphlets to Oswald — that was Vincent Lee’s testimony and it’s noted on the letter. Do you really doubt that?
Jean
As someone who spent 22 years in radio broadcasting along with a retired radio broadcaster friend of mine who worked in the business some 30+ years, he and I find the two radio interviews Oswald gave in August of 1963 to WDSU radio in New Orleans among the most compelling items that speak to what Oswald was about.
Having interviewed hundreds of people over decade’s long careers, my friend and I can easily pick up on nervousness in a person’s voice, whether or not a person is reading from a script or speaking extemporaneously and how prepared or not the speaker is relevant to his or her subject. In all those years we can’t help but listen to radio announcers or their guests critically. So much can be betrayed by the subtleties of the speaking voice.
In the one interview and then one “debate” with Carlos Bringuier, Oswald executes almost perfectly a convincing performance as the treasurer of the New Orleans chapter of Fair Play for Cuba, a chapter which Oswald just made up out of thin air. It didn’t exist! Yet he did two radio shows and one television interview convincingly arguing that it did. He’s not the least bit nervous. He doesn’t stammer, stutter or lose his train of thought.
He’s clearly not reading from a script, yet he has seemingly well prepared answers for all of the questions that are put to him.
Listening to him you’ve got to keep in mind he’s 23 years old and speaks with absolute authority on world affairs of the day, and on his position within his fictitious chapter of the FPFC. I’m telling you, if he wasn’t trained, then he sure as heck must have practiced for weeks in advance. In much the same way a president is coached before a big debate, with all sorts of possible questions, so that he or she is prepared for any that might be asked.
Oswald had an answer for EVERY question and curve ball they threw at him.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Audio_-_Other
Those radio interviews of Oswald stick out like a sore thumb.
Key point: Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier and Oswald himself were all rightwingers – all with CIA connections. And they are all playing a little game with this debate and the game is to discredit the “Fair Play for Cuba” organization.
Guy Bannister to Delphine Roberts about Lee Harvey Oswald:
“He’s with us. He’s associated with the office.”
Guy Bannister was a former FBI guy, one of J. Edgar Hoover’s favorite agents, and he was running intelligence operations for the right wing in New Orleans in summer 1963.
[Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, 1991 ed., p. 295]
Note how well rehearsed Oswald’s message is. Kind of like when a politician makes the rounds on interview shows and has to, “stay on message!” These interviews are 5 days apart, with an appearance on Latin Listening Post on Aug 17th.
WDSU-TV Interview – Aug. 16th 1963 (The day he’s arrested handing out the FPCC leaflets.)
BILL SLATTER: Well, are you a Marxist?
OSWALD: Well, I have studied Marxist philosophy, yes sir, and other philosophers.
BILL SLATTER: But, are you a Marxist? I think you did admit on an earlier radio interview that you consider yourself a Marxist.
OSWALD: Well, I would very definitely say that I am a Marxist. But, that does not mean however that I am a communist.
BILL SLATTER: What is the difference between the two?
OSWALD: Well, there’s a great deal of difference. Several American parties, and several countries are based on Marxism, such Guinea, Ghana. Certain countries have characteristics of a Socialist system such as Great Britain with its socialized medicine. These then are the differences between an outright communist country and a country which adheres to leftist or Marxist principals.
From: WDSU-AM “Conversation Carte Blanche” Aug. 21st 1963
BILL STUCKEY: Are you a Marxist?
OSWALD: Yes, I am a Marxist.
ED BUTLER: What’s the difference?
OSWALD: The difference is primarily the difference between a country like Guinea, Ghana, Yugoslavia, China or Russia. Very, very great differences. Differences which we appreciate by giving aid, let’s say to Yugoslavia in the sum of a hundred million or so dollars a year.
ED BUTLER: That’s extraneous, what’s the difference?
OSWALD: The difference is as I have said, a very great difference. Many parties, many countries are based on Marxism. Many countries such as Great Britain display very socialistic aspects or characteristics. I might point to the socialized medicine in Britain
Bob Sirkin worked with O’Reilly on that program.
http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2013/01/bob-sirkin-and-bill-oreilly-and-george.html
Bill,
Thanks I enjoyed that. Some things I had not known before too:
Bishop College had received funding from the CIA.
deMohrenschildt and Oswald met with a CIA operative in Mexico City, a month before the assassination.
Mansion, in which dM died, owned by a Mafia connected family from Arizona.
By the way, I’ve listened to you several times on BlackOpsRadio, with Len Osanic. I don’t know if you have personal contact with Jefferson Morely, but I always thought it would great to hear him on an episode of that show
Bill,
Did Bob Sirkin provide any evidence for the statement that de Mohrenschildt and Oswald met with a “CIA operative” in Mexico City?
In what way was the owner of the house where de Mohrenschildt died “Mafia-connected”? His death was ruled a suicide, btw. Here’s the coroner’s report:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt
Jean
There is much evidence to suggest that there was more than one shooter that day, suggesting LHO did not act alone.
There is the evidence of those who were there and state they heard gunshots coming from the grassy knoll.
There is the evidence of Dr Robert Mclelland who considered the wound in the back of the presidents head to be an exit wound.
There is, of course, the Zapruder film itself.
Whoever LHO was or was not, I believe there is credible evidence available that shows there was more than one shooter.
It has also been shown that the CIA have deliberately prevented an open and honest investigation of the case and this is shown with the way it misled the HSCA re George Joannides.
Jean, the inquest was held by David Bludworth, the State Attorney: he had never performed one before and took over on this purely to boost his political stocks.
The State Attorney didn’t conduct the investigation or perform the autopsy. I think the document speaks for itself.
Jean
Yes, it does, Jean. Documents always do. But that is a non-sequitur response.
This was a major case and he took over the most important role – without any prior experience, and he did so purely for political mileage.
Greg, the sheriff’s investigation and the medical examiner concluded it was a suicide and found no evidence of anything else. That’s why I said the document speaks for itself — it explains why they came to that conclusion.
There was a jury at the inquest, as I understand it. What evidence do you think Bludworth or anyone else could’ve presented to show that the sheriff and M.E. were wrong?
Jean
Jean, these are the people you put so much faith in.
http://www.derechos.net/doc/fyi/scott.html
Note that the medical examiner was the same as in the case of DeM — Dr. Gabino Cuevas. When Dr Cuevas was contacted regarded new and previously with-held evidence in the Scott case, he made statements which supported Scott’s innocence.
In short, he was fooled by lies and fabrications and withholding of evidence during the original investigation.
There are aspects of the DeM case which do give pause.
You wrote, “these are the people you put so much faith in,” but you are very much mistaken. I put no faith in anyone –“Don’t trust; verify.”
Jean
I, personally am inclined to believe that the most probable cause of dM’s death was suicide. However, to the point of whether there was any evidence to the contrary, I would reference the following:
Author Edward Jay Epstein was in the middle of a four day interview with de Mohrenschildt on the day he died. Epstein was picked up by a sheriff’s deputy at his hotel that day since he was the last person to have seen de Mohrenschildt alive.
Epstein recorded in his diary that day, March 29th, 1977, the following: “David Bludworth, The State’s Attorney… began by telling me that de Mohrenschildt had put a shotgun in his mouth and killed himself at 3:45 p.m. …The precise time of his death was established by a tape-recorder, left running that afternoon to record the soap operas for the absent Mrs. Tilton, and which recorded a single set of footfalls in the room and the blast of the shotgun.”
Attorney Mark Lane has written, and recounted many times, his story of hearing a beep, beep, beep, beep on that recording. Lane, having attended the coroner’s inquest on dM’s death held in Palm Beach, wrote in a November 1977 article for Gallery Magazine,“The courtroom became silent as the tape recording was played. Just after a commercial…a gentle bell was heard, and then the shotgun blast. A member of the coroner’s jury asked what had caused the bell to ring.”
Good job Mr. Krusch! And, yes there’s an obvious reason why the response was blocked. In less than 10 minutes Mr. Krusch renders the book a work of fiction, not an historical account, which is how the book is being marketed.
You know, Bill O’Reilly did a pretty awesome segment on the assassination back in the 80’s when he was hosting one of those tabloid type news shows. In fact, there’s a pretty dramatic segment where he attempts to interview Antonio Veciana as Veciana is getting into his car in some parking lot somewhere. Veciana exclaims something to the effect that,”they” shot him the head and try to kill him so he wasn’t going to talk anymore. At which point Veciana slams the car door and splits.