Gary Marlow

[Pennyworth]

Gary Marlow might be a phantom or a figment of someone's imagination There's a bunch of Gary Marlowes listed on a search...here's one here...Military 1 3212 Matt Lowe 27 M Arlington VA 17:54 2 1843 Gary Marlowe 32 M Alexandria VA 18:58 3 1669 Shaun Khalfan 25 M Alexandria VA 19:13 4 1918 Bill Merz 44 M Annandale VA 19:19 5 56 Robert Denmark 41 M Arlington VA 19:26 http://www.arlington911race.com/officia ... s2007b.htm

[Pennyworth]

dankbaar wrote:Should I change the text: "Meet the real killer of J.D. Tippit", to "Meet the man who James Files says killed J.D. Tippit"On second thought I conclude that I disagree. Here is why: Gary knew about the confession of James Files when he lived. As a matter of fact , Jim has asked Gary shortly before he died if would have objection to release his name. Gary said NOT to release his name. Bruce made a post on the forum to this effect. Do you remember it? Otherwise I look it up for you. The question is how long did Gary know? My sense of logic tells me that he has known for a much longer time about Jim's confession, probably right from the start in 1993/1994 when press coverage started. If not by the press he would have been informed by his old associates and friends in Chicago. That means that he also knew about what Files said about the killer of Tippit. He probably has followed it closely, and was relieved that his identity was not disclosed. This is probably also what Jim referred to when he said he received pleas from other people: Please leave my name out it, Jimmy! Now, keep in mind that Gary's photo has been on the website since its inception in 1995. It's hard to imagine that Gary was not aware of the website (and thus his photo) for all those years. And Gary did NOTHING about it. If what Files says, would not be true, then Gary would have protested the allegation and he would have sued the people (Bob Vernon and later me) for libel and slander for putting his photo on the Internet and present him as the killer of J.D. Tippit. The fact that he did nothing, and even asked Jim to leave his name out of it, even after death, is an implicit admission that he was indeed the killer of Tippit. WimHow did you encounter the connection of the Gary Marlowe that Files said shot Tippet?How did you trace his death?

[dankbaar]

I was approached about a year ago by someone that found my website and knew both James Files and Gary Marlow. This person was first shocked to learn about the confession of James, and secondly recognizing the picture of Gary Marlow.

[dankbaar]

Bob, I am sure Jimmy had no spotter. First of all because that would mean he was not telling the full truth, but there is a far more logical reason. Keep in mind that the grassy knoll was chosen by Jimmy himself, and only two hours before the assassination. This is why many people do not believe James Files, because they ASSUME this would never have been decided in this manner, because they ASSUME that the JFK assassination was a professional meticulously planned military-style operation. I have said before that in my view, considering all that went wrong, it was a rather clumsy operation with many last minute improvisations like the killing of Tippit and Oswald. But those people that therefore claim Files is a hoax, do not ask themselves why a hoax would concoct such an implausible story that collides so much with their predetermined assumptions. A hoax does not blow his chances to be believed by making up incredible details. That's one indication that this detail, although incredible at first glance, is simply the truth. But there's more. If Files is telling the truth, the grassy knoll was never planned as a shooter location. It was not even planned by Files as a shooter location when he chose that location, because he was NOT supposed to shoot, remember? He was purely serving as the backup shooter in case Nicoletti would miss JFK's head from behind. There is another reason that the grassy knoll would never have been planned as a shooter location. It is clear that Lee Harvey Oswald was the predesignated patsy to balme for the assassination and thus that all the shots were to come from behind. It does not make sense to jeapardize this plan by having a shot from the front. It is not for nothing that Nicoletti was extremely pissed that Jimmy had "overreacted" and taken his shot. And in fact, this has been the biggest problem for the Warren Commission to deal with. There is even a third reason that the grassy knoll was never considered as a shooter location. It is simply a very risky location to shoot from. It offered very little cover and a daring escape route. Apart from a little protection from the picket fence and an overhaning tree, it was a wide open area in view of many spectators, not to mention the risk to get out of there, undetected. Hardly a place to choose in a meticulously planned military style operation. In fact, such a bold and daring location is only suitable for a cocky, uncautious and fearless 21 year old Jimmy Sutton.It is still a wonder that Files, apart from his puff of smoke from the Fireball, was detected by so few people, like Bowers and maybe Hoffman. Lansdale must have been told by either Nicoletti, Roselli or Giancana, that Files would be a backup for Nicoletti on the knoll. The reason why Files disclosed only later that Lansdale came to check on him shortly before the motorcade arrived, is twofold. Initially he did not want to disclose involvement of the CIA. A combination of fear and loyalty. (His voice stress is the highest when he talks about David Phillips). Secondly, he did not know that Lansdale had died around the same time as Phillips. As far as he knew, Lansdale was still alive. Anyway, to have a spotter next to him doesn't make sense if the plan is not to shoot anyway, and I don't think any spotter would want to share the risk with James to be on that spot. Wim

[AnthonyAthletic]

On the Knoll, James' testimony as 'one shot, one shot only' the headshot; plausible or not must beg the question as to:If JF was the purtrayor of the headshot (one of the two headshots) that day, then who shot Kennedy in the throat? A large proportion of assassination researchers and laymen based on testimony of the Dallas Medical Team come to the conclusion as to the throat wound being a 3-5mm entrance wound from a non frangible smaller calibre bullet.I honestly think that the President was hit from the right front not only from the headshot but a frontal throat shot. The position most likely being behind the fence in the black dog or the badgeman position or way down to the left of the JF position. Which on the scope of things is appx 30-40 feet to the left of the JF position. Surely somebody with Files' training would have known that someone else was there (unless that frontal throat shot was from farther away)?I do believe that JFK was hit from the front, and the throat wound was partially opened for the tracheoptomy upon examining the size of the entrance wound. Also based on this, the throat wound was probably further opened/hacked by person/persons unknown. (Pre Autopsy)

[andries]

Isn,t it so that the knoll was the main place to do the job, the SBD,only because of LHO precense ?out off 100 killers about a 100 would have picked the knoll as the perfect location,on one condition : a good getaway quaranty,so perhaps in disquese ?besides i ques, far to many things have indicated that the knoll would be the main place.

[dankbaar]

Anthony, I have explained elsewhere that JFK was not shot in the throat. That is another wrong "assumption" that many have. Wim

[AnthonyAthletic]

I don't think that the large majority of research or research enthusiasts think that Kennedy was not shot in the throat. Ergo, there, surely must have been a second shooter from the front?The Dallas Doctors inc Charles Crenshaw who saw this entry wound can't be wrong? It is hard to believe that shrapnel caused this either. That's only one thesis or passage of thought.Of course this is one thing we will never know, but to me plausible or not there were many shots that day, with rear back shot, rear head shot, frontal throat shot & frontal headshot being 4 likely ones.Sure, I haven't been on the forum for as long as most people, and one thing I notice is that most people don't air their opinions about where the shots came from. Or at least I can't find it without reading from day 1 of posting. I find it hard that anyone can say there was no frontal throat shot, and I find it harder to accept that a rear shot made an exit hole in the throat and doubtful it was made by anything other that the two possibilities. It's either front or from the back which made this very small throat wound, magic bullets need not apply.I do not write this to be controversial or start arguments, its just the knowledge of what 'is the unknown' which gives all interested in these events cause for questions, and sometimes changing speculation.Thanks

[Pennyworth]

dankbaar wrote:I was approached about a year ago by someone that found my website and knew both James Files and Gary Marlow. This person was first shocked to learn about the confession of James, and secondly recognizing the picture of Gary Marlow.And who was that person?How would this person know JF? Did Files mention the name Marlow first or did the 'concerned' person who approached you?I believe that Files would not mention a live participant, if you know what I mean.....just curious

[dankbaar]

And who was that person?None of your business. What counts is that this person proved to me beyond a shred of a doubt that the the man who Files said "burned a cop" that day, was Gary Marlow. How would this person know JF? How would you know somebody ? From the past and by association or friendship. Did Files mention the name Marlow first or did the 'concerned' person who approached you?The person who approached me, that person was not "concerned" as far as I know. I believe that Files would not mention a live participant, if you know what I mean.....He didn't. Have you read the book or website?