Several people have asked why I avoid participation in Kennedy assassination newsgroups. In my view, they don't seem to accomplish much of anything. I do admit that on a rare occasion someone will mention something of interest or value, such as an upcoming TV special or release of documents, but overall most subjects under discussion are reduced to name-calling, personality clashes and opinion. In short most newsgroup participants appear incapable of resolving any issue.

As far as I'm concerned, if "researchers" wish to be considered researchers, they should want their work to be scrutinized and reviewed by others. For this reason, I sometimes end my articles with a statement similar to, "It is my hope others will reply publicly, showing where my details or logic are inaccurate."

I find it odd someone who considers themselves a researcher would ask a question or make a supposed statement of fact then get defensive and/or abusive when the answer to the question isn't exactly as expected or the statement of fact is disputed. I also find their status within the newsgroup is often based upon quasi popularity polls conducted by their loyal supporters.

Here are a just a few examples:

Jack White

From A CTKA Story?

In Mr. White's summary (His item 4) he references a line in the "legible interpretation" of the general offense report. White indicates the line reads *Division:* 13 *Platoon:* (32?) *S. car* (10?.). Clarifying the meaning of "S. car," White claims "The DPD squad car answering the call may possibly be Car 10, which is the same number Tippit drove on November 22 . . . an interesting coincidence?"

Mr. White is correct in that Car 10 was the vehicle assigned and driven by Officer J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963. Tippit is alleged to have been shot and killed by a fleeing Oswald while patrolling the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. Where White falls very short of the mark is his claim that the Item after platoon reads *S. car.* It does not. It actually says BEAT. This box contains the beat number of the patrol. In the Walker report the Division is D, Platoon 3 and Beat 27.

White could have done some additional research by obtaining, as I did, legible copies of similar documents or by using common sense. In 1963, as today, the Dallas Police Department does not rely solely on squad cars but motorcycles and foot patrols as well. Therefore it is the beat number which is significant. Jack White has at best misinterpreted or at worst intentionally changed the language so as to sensationalize the event. He not only modified the heading of the box but asked a rhetorical question based upon his own invented interpretation of that heading, attempting to link Tippit's car 10 to the Bledsoe scenario.

Would someone care to show me where I've reached an improper conclusion in my last paragraph?

In the same press release, one finds the following charge, "'It seems to be a document that has been deliberately suppressed by the Dallas police,' says White"

I questioned Mr. White's allegation and asked him to provide evidence that the Dallas police had deliberately suppressed the document. Instead of answering the questions directly and providing the appropriate documentation, Mr. White has remained silent for years preferring to label me a disinformation specialist.

Bob Vernon

Here is the transcript of a portion of Bob Vernon's interview of James Files:

Mr. Files indicated, "Johnny Rosselli got in the car with me and we started back to Dallas. He opened the envelope up and there was identification in there for Secret Service people and we had a map in there of the exact motorcade route that would take it through Dealey Plaza. Johnny Rosselli said well they only made one change. That was when he informed me they was coming off of Main Street on to Elm or on to Houston there...they made the zig-zag, the little turn that they should have never made. But when they made that, it was the only change in it."

On my web site I have posted documentation, including screen shots of the appropriate newspapers, showing that neither the Dallas Morning News nor the Dallas Times Herald indicated a last minute change in the route. In fact the source of the error can be traced to a specific Dallas Morning News reporter, Carl Freund. Neither Bob Vernon nor James Files have been able to explain the disparity between Files' version of events and the historical record. Since Mr. Vernon has never been able to show where I am in error he has concluded I am an un-patriotic government agent and a traitor.

Mary LaFontaine

Several individuals including Robert Harris claim Mary and Ray LaFontaine were the ones who confirmed the Ricky White/Roscoe White story to be a hoax. The proof, they believe, lies in Chapter 11 of their book, Oswald Talked. Oswald Talked bears a copyright date of 1996. If you check Oliver Stone's JFK The Book of the Film you will find it carries the copyright date of 1992. On page 20 there is a notation that Stone, based upon information supplied by this writer, had already dismissed the White story as a hoax. In essence, the LaFontaines were four years late with their revelation.

Additionally, study the letter dated January 14, 1991 from Mary LaFontaine to Texas Attorney General's investigator Ned Butler. After you review the letter you can decide if the LaFontaines were as ready to discredit the Ricky White story as a hoax as they now claim. As a point of information this document was obtained from the Texas Attorney General's office under the Texas Open Records Act.

Would someone care to show me where I am in error with respect to the statement in Stone's book or Mary LaFontaine's letter to the Attorney General? Since they appear unable to resolve this enigma, the LaFontaines and their supporters prefer to label me a liar and an amateur sleuth.

Am I correct in my belief that these three individuals are engaged in MARKETING their assassination-related product(s) for profit? I understand Mr. White tries to sell his videotapes through, as his letterhead shows, Jack White JFK Educational Research. Mr. Vernon has been attempting to advance the James Files story as a pay per view production for years. He has solicited funding for the project through Investigative Concepts Unlimited. Mary LaFonatine's company is Desperado Productions. She must receive at least a marginal profit from the book Oswald Talked.

Now some may argue these individuals have not made a substantial amount of money. However, it's not for lack of trying and certainly they are not giving their product away for the cost of postage. It seems the more one finds these "researchers" and their supporters unable to bolster their claims, the louder and more vitriolic the "newsgroup" protest becomes. I'm sure the anti-conspiracy forces find it laughable.

Dave Perry 11/27/99

Main Page