LaFontaine Exchange


March 5, 1997
Joyce Kaufman radio talk show, South Florida


ANNOUNCER: Florida's talk leader, 1400 WFTL 
presents... Joyce Kaufman. 

JOYCE KAUFMAN (JK): Well, and a very good 
afternoon to you all. Now, what is the single 
most discussed subject in America still 
today?... Well, of course, it's the JFK 
assassination. And there seems to be always 
new evidence - 1991 and 1993 we had the 
release of all kinds of new information. And 
the journalists are very reluctant to take 
this on. We've had a lot of books written 
over the years, but most recently I read a 
book which I thought was fascinating. And of 
course, you tend to pick books that reinforce 
your own opinion, and when it comes to the 
JFK assassination, I have to admit that I 
long ago decided that Lee Harvey Oswald acted 
alone. So when Gerald Posner's new book "Case 
Closed" came out a while back, I was very 
happy to read the book. It reconfirmed 
everything I had thought [and] naturally did 
it in a meticulous fashion, because as a 
journalist he pays close attention to 
details. He did the one thing that I had 
always claimed was most important, and for me 
that was look at Lee Harvey Oswald carefully, 
study this person. If I'm going to buy the 
fact that he acted alone then certainly I 
need to know as much as possible about Lee 
Harvey Oswald. 

Well, recently another book has been written, 
and it was written also by journalists, Ray 
and Mary La Fontaine, who released a book 
called "Oswald Talked: The New Evidence in 
the JFK Assassination." I said lo and behold, 
maybe there's someone else who thinks it's 
important to examine Lee Harvey Oswald. And 
of course in his inimitable way my executive 
producer has decided that he would bring 
together these two journalists - in this case 
we'll be speaking to Mary La Fontaine and 
Gerald Posner - to see exactly why, looking 
at much of the same information, they have 
come to very different conclusions. So let's 
bring my guests on board... 

MARY LA FONTAINE (ML): I do want to 
make one point, Joyce, and that is 
that we did look at very different evidence 
than Mr. Posner did in his book "Case Closed" 
released in 1993. Mr. Posner did not review 
the literally millions of pages, or to my 
knowledge, any of the new pages released 
under the JFK Act of 1992. We did an 
extensive review of these new documents. When 
we began this book, we frankly believed as 
you say you did that Oswald had acted alone 
in Dallas. We no longer believe that, based 
on previously classified government documents 
that are now available to us. 

JK: OK, well let me ask you, Gerald, since 
millions of documents have been released, I 
am sure that you have looked at them. 

GP: Indeed I have, and as a matter of fact 
let me tell you something, Joyce. The 
documents don't change one iota... 

ML chuckles over. 

GP: (continuing) a matter of fact what 
I'm surprised at is that Mary would say - and 
this is what has been disappointing to the 
Oliver Stones of the world and to the 
conspiracy writers of the world - and Mary by 
the way and her husband had actually been 
believers in the conspiracy before those 
documents were out - 

ML: That is incorrect, Mr. Posner. Your chief 
research assistant on "Case Closed" is a 
rather obsessive man who has made a campaign 
of claiming that - and it's unfortunate you 
used him as your research assistant, because 
I think your book suffers from that. 

GP: I interviewed hundreds of people, but I 
didn't have a research assistant - 

ML: Well, Mr. [Dave] Perry claims that he WAS 
your research assistant [and] he certainly is 
cited repeatedly in your book. 

GP: The point is not what's in, you know - 
but I still believe that's your position, but 
the key thing is there isn't a document out, 
and I will tell you, people have been poring, 
dozens and dozens of conspiracy theorists 
have been poring over - 

ML: Let's not talk about the conspiracy 
theorists today. Let's talk about journalists 
and let's talk about the journalistic 
approach to the information, Mr. Posner. Let 
me start by saying that on page 12 of your 
book, "Case Closed," you make an error in 
judgement as an objective journalist in 
dealing with the material of maybe the first 
psychobabbler in this country, Dr. Renatus 
Hartogs - the psychiatrist who interviewed 
Lee Harvey Oswald at the age of 13, and who 
at that time found no indication of psychotic 
changes, superior mental endowment, no 
retardation despite truancy, no psychotic 
mental changes - "a disturbed youngster who 
suffers under the impact of existing 
emotional isolation and deprivation." 

Now, AFTER the assassination, Mr. Hartogs - 
who became, as I say, probably the first 
psychobabbler in this country - told Life 
Magazine that he was not surprised Oswald was 
arrested for the assassination of the 
president, for psychologically he [Oswald] 
had all the qualifications for being a 
potential assassin. He [Hartogs] went on to 
say that he had found him, Oswald, to have 
"definite traits of dangerousness and a 
potential for explosive aggressive assaultive 
acting out." These - 

JK interrupts with unintelligible comment. 

GP: But Mary, what's your - 

ML: No, excuse me, Gerald, let me finish, 
because you've had a lot of air time over the 
last few years, and this is very important 
about the tone of your book and your 
intention with this book. Mr. Hartogs 
admitted to the Warren Commission after they 
presented him with his initial report on 
Oswald that had he had these [later] beliefs 
at the time he interviewed the 13-year-old 
Lee Harvey Oswald he would have written them 
down, but he didn't. So he [Hartogs] changed 
his story, as many people have over the years 
about Lee Harvey Oswald. 

What did you do? You, instead of presenting 
both reports by Mr. Hartogs, including the 
earlier report - which you have repeatedly 
claimed that you used - the earliest possible 
reports from various witnesses - you chose to 
pick up on the later, totally erroneous 
report of Dr. Hartogs, who was probably 
seeking some kind of publicity for himself, 
as is common after events of this kind. He 
would have made a good witness in the O.J. 
Simpson trial - 

JK makes unintelligible comment. 

ML: I'm sorry, Joyce? 

JK: Did you read the [Posner] book? Because 
Gerald's footnotes refer to both interviews - 

ML: Oh, but no, of course, that's fascinating 
that he would not - 

JK: Let Gerald answer - 

ML: (laughs) He never lets anybody else 
answer, but let me give him a little time. 

GP: What people like Mary have done is they 
have gone through my book line by line in the 
hope, in the eagerness, that somehow they 
will find a sentence that they will be able 
to say "Aha" - 

ML: This [Hartogs issue] isn't a sentence. 
This is where you set the tone of your book - 
this is where you claim - 

GP: (continuing, to JK) what does that 
point she [ML] just raised have to do with the 
question - the key question - did Lee Harvey 
Oswald shoot Jack Kennedy on November 22nd? 

ML: It has everything to do with your thesis 
that he [Oswald] was mentally disturbed and 
therefore had a motive - 

GP: (talking over) ...a fine citizen, if he 
[Oswald] had gotten a silver star in Viet 
Nam, if he had been head of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, it still wouldn't change my 
conclusion, that alone - from the scientific 
and physical evidence that I examine in 
detail - he was the only assassin in Dallas 
that day shooting at the president, and 
that's what Mary and everybody else misses. 

ML: Let me bring up another point with 
Gerald; let me bring up another point 
specifically about evidence that Gerald has 
left out - 

GP: (continuing over) ...a sociopath with a 
12-dollar rifle who gets off a lucky shot - 

ML: Yeah, your whole theory of Oswald as a 
sociopath starts with your distortion of the 
Renatus Hartogs report. But let's go further - 
just a minute, Gerald, let me finish - 
because there's a lot of other material here 
that you've distorted in your book that is 
directly relevant to who killed JFK in 
Dallas. You appropriated the work of a 
technical group called Failure Analysis, from 
the Bay area. Failure Analysis did an 
electronic analysis of the single bullet 
theory in Dealey Plaza, and came up with what 
I think is a very persuasive argument that 
the same bullet hit President Kennedy and 
Governor John Connally on November 22nd, 
1963. But what you left out of your book - 
what Failure Analysis presented at the 
American Bar Association mock trial of Lee 
Harvey Oswald [for which] this was done, it 
wasn't done for your book, although you've 
let people think it was - 

GP: That's absolutely - 

ML: (continuing over) left out the 
fact that according to Mr. Roger McCarthy, 
the CEO of Failure Analysis, that the 
same analysis that they did showed that 
the fatal head shot that killed President 
Kennedy could NOT be traced to the southeast 
corner window of the - 

GP: That's false - 

ML: (continuing) Texas Book Depository - 

GP: Mary - 

ML: I am quoting Mr. McCarthy, Gerald - 

GP: No, you haven't - well, then Mr. 
McCarthy's wrong, because let me - 

ML laughs. 

GP: Have you looked at the underlying 
research and the paperwork AND the study from 
Failure Analysis? Have you gone there? 

ML: No, I haven't - 

GP: OK, then - 

ML: I have not gone there, but I do know that 
I have talked to the horse's mouth, and maybe 
we should - 

GP: Wait a minute - 

ML: But wait - I've got a number for Mr. 
McCarthy, shall we call him up? 

GP: (continuing under) ...regardless - 

ML: Shall we call up Mr. McCarthy? He's the 
technical man. You're not technical, I'm not 
technical, HE is. 

GP: He's NOT as a matter of fact a technical 
man - 

ML: He is the TECHNICAL DIRECTOR of Failure 
Analysis, he is their chief technical officer - 

GP: Mary - you as a journalist - 

ML: (talking over) Gerald, you're again - you 
are trying to outtalk the fact that you left 
out key information. Let's go on to the 
finding - 

GP: Hold on a second - 

ML: No, wait a minute - let's go on to the 
finding of the bar association trial - the 
finding of the bar association trial was a 
hung jury - 

GP: (continuing) ...[can't say I] left out 
key information and then go on to another 
point - 

JK: (continuing simultaneously) ...and then 
not let - 

GP: (continuing) ...without giving me a 
chance to answer - it's absolutely false, and 
I will tell you something, the only - 

ML: Your saying that it's false means 
nothing. I do have my interview with Mr. 
McCarthy, and I believe if we both call him 
up right now he will say the same thing. 

GP: No, no - Mary - 

ML: Do you want us to call him up? 

GP: The only new - 

ML: Do you want us to call him up? 

GP: The only new information that Failure 
Analysis had - Mr. McCarthy can be furious 
about it, because I chastize him in the book 
for it and I go after him in a paperback as 
well - his studies did not break any new 
ground - the only new information that 
Failure Analysis developed was the 
development by Dr. [Robert] Piziale which 
showed that the single bullet is no longer a 
theory, but that in fact it is a fact - there 
is no magic - 

ML: That's the only evidence that Failure 
Analysis came up with that you found useful 
in your book, Gerald. Now - let's talk about 
the new evidence in this assassination, the 
evidence that you did not consider - 

GP: (continuing) it you're angry about? 
You're angry - 

ML: I'm not angry, Gerald - 

GP: (continuing) I'm not angry at you - 

ML: No, I'm not angry - 

GP: (continuing) ...the conspiracy - 

ML: I represent - no, I represent serious 
journalists who have published in the 
Washington Post, the Houston Post, the Dallas 
Times Herald - my husband just last Sunday 
had an article in the Washington Post on a 
totally different subject than the Kennedy 
assassination. We're prizewinning documentary 
makers for PBS, we've produced for major 
television production companies - we are 
journalists far more than you are - you are a 
lawyer - you did a lawyer's brief, a 
prosecutor's brief, against Lee Harvey 
Oswald. Let's call you what you are. 

GP: My book was nominated for a Pulitzer - 

JK: How can she [ML] SAY that? 

ML: You - I'M nominated for the Pulitizer 
this year too, Gerald - 

GP: (talking over) ...not nominated - 

ML: You didn't win it [Pulitzer], and the 
year you claim to have been nominated they 
didn't give ANY Pulitzer - 

GP: Not nominated - selected by the Pulizter 
Committee as one of three finalists - 

ML: They didn't give - they did not give a 
Pulitzer that year, did they? So you didn't 
win the Pulitzer. (chuckles) 

GP: No, because of the controversy over this 
book. But Mary - 

ML: No, that's an excuse, Gerald - 

GP: (continuing) about your book, 
which is based upon supposedly new 
information - 

ML: Oh, it IS new information. 

GP: (continuing) ...somebody who YEARS ago 
never said the same thing that you're now 
claiming he says years later - 

ML: Oh, yes he did. Are you talking about 
John Elrod? 

GP: Yeah - 

ML: John Elrod went to the FBI in 1964, eight 
months after the assassination. He talked to 
his family immediately after the 
assassination, and the FBI called John Elrod 
a liar - are you referring to John Elrod? 

GP: What does John Elrod's FBI statement say? 

ML: It says that his "unknown cellmate" - and 
that was ridiculous, because he told the FBI 
who the cellmate was - had talked about Jack 
Ruby in the cell on November 22nd, 1963. 

JK: Well let's tell the listeners that the 
unknown cellmate was Lee Harvey Oswald - 

ML: It was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald. 

GP: According to the 1993 version - 

ML: No, according to the evidence - 

GP: According to what he says today, thirty 
years later - 

ML: (continuing) ...the evidence from the 
Dallas police files, which totally 
corroborates John Elrod's story, including 
phone logs and information on ANOTHER 
prisoner held in the same cell with Lee 
Harvey Oswald, who Elrod is able to describe 

GP: So it's been - 

ML: This story, Joyce, went through the legal 
fact checking of the Washington Post and 
appeared in 1994 as a validated story - 

JK: (continuing) ...Mary, just a second. I 
had the same question. Have they found the 
third person? 

ML: He [third person] has been missing for 
over thirty years. I've talked with his 
brother, who says he has not seen him since 
the Kennedy assassination. He did not even 
return home for the funeral of their parents. 

JK: You know, Joyce, what this is - this is 
another case of somebody who thirty years 
after the facts has decided they're - 

ML: This is Gerald's song and dance - there 
you go again, Gerald, just like in the 
presidential debates - you've got a song and 
dance that you repeat like an automaton. You 
don't use rational thinking, you don't make 
the necessary analysis that good 
investigative reporters make. You play to the 
media in your book. 

JK: Wait a minute, I thought that the book 
was compulsive and obsessive with footnotes, 
I mean it's not - 

ML: Oh, oh, absolutely. Let me talk about a 
footnote in Mr. Posner's book [over protests] - 
no, let me talk about one, because - 

GP: Mary, why don't we talk instead about 
Elrod - 

ML: OK, fine. Let's talk about Elrod. 

GP: How could you write a book about a man 
who then has changed his story after thirty 

ML: Oh, he has never changed his story. 

GP: Do you mean the FBI report - 

ML: He has never changed his story, and his 
FBI report is correct. They [FBI] simply 
lied, and they lied in the report - 

GP: (continuing) ...and then - 

ML: No, excuse me, Gerald, excuse me Gerald - 
the FBI said, in the report, that John Elrod 
was never in the Dallas jail on November 
22nd, 1963. But in February of 1992, five 
years ago, I found John Elrod's arrest record 
for November 22nd, 1963 in the Dallas police 
files. So who's lying? The FBI - 
unequivically lied about John Elrod. Why did 
they lie? Because the information John Elrod 
had to give is the cornerstone of the 
evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was an 
informant for the FBI on a gunrunning 
operation involving Jack Ruby and the United 
States Military, arming anti-Castro Cubans in 
Texas in the month and a half prior to the 
assassination for a planned invasion of Cuba 
to occur in November 1963 - 

GP: And you know what? 

ML: (continuing) This is all in government 
files, Gerald, that you never LOOKED at. They 
were kept from the American people. 

JK: Well, wait a second, it's like, you know, 
the three tramps' arrest records were lost as 
well - 

GP: Yeah - 

JK: (continuing) you think that the 
three tramps are in this? 

ML: Are you kidding? I discovered the arrest 
records for the three tramps - I personally 
was the person, the journalist, who 
discovered those. We reported it in a banner 
headline story in the Houston Post in 1992, 
showing that these men were indeed tramps. 
They were homeless people riding the rails. 
We have reported on both conspiratorial and 
anti-conspiratorial material in this case - 
unlike Gerald Posner. 

GP: Mary, the wonderful thing is, you picked 
up a story from somebody who has spun a great 
tale here - 

ML: Excuse me, Gerald - have you read our 
book? Have you read "Oswald Talked"? 

GP: (continuing) You have no -     

ML: Have you read "Oswald Talked," Gerald? 

GP: (continuing) ...dishonest, and I'm 
astonished - 

ML: Have you read the book, Gerald? 

GP: (continuing) ...and I'm amazed you were 
able -

ML: You have not read the book. You have not 
read the book. 

GP: You have no supporting evidence - 

ML: You have not read the book or you would 
know, as the Washington Post knew when they 
published John Elrod's story in 1994 that the 
documentation of the factual accuracy of his 
report is incontrovertible. But you haven't 
read the book because -

GP: (continuing), no, no, no - 

ML: (continuing) ...because it's not the case 
that's closed, it's your mind that is closed. 

GP: (continuing), no - 

ML: You have a closed mind, you did when you 
began your book. 

GP: You know, what you end up doing - and no 
matter how many people you can find who were 
in jail on November 22nd in Dallas - 

ML: Gerald - 

GP: If all of them pop up, Mary - 

ML: Gerald - you're being a very foolish man. 
You're being a very foolish man because you 
don't have factual information. You can't 
discusss this book ["Oswald Talked"] - 

JK: Wait a second - 

ML: You can't discuss the book because you 
haven't read it. 

JK: But I did read portions of the book - 

ML: Have you read it all? 

JK: (continuing) ...I didn't read it in its 
entirety, no - 

ML: The book builds on overwhelming new 
evidence. I suggest both of you - 

GP: (continuing) ...tell you that I am 
astonished that you were able to publish that 
as a book. It is not a book that - 

ML: This is one of the best written books - 
according to very serious journalists, it's 
one of the best written books ever done on 
the assassination - 

GP: (questioning) "serious journalists" - 

ML: (continuing) ...and one of the best 
documented, probably the single best 
documented book ever done on this case - 

GP: You can convince yourself it's good 
journalism, but I - 

ML: Talk to Jefferson Morley at the 
Washington Post, talk to Jim Jennings at the 
Oakland Tribune - 

JK: Yeah, but for everyone you name, Gerald 
Posner can name another person who's going to - 

ML: Of course, he carefully - he carefully - 
he's a brilliant marketer - his book is a 
ridiculous book [as GP talks under] - he says 
he's surprised our book was published - I'm 
not surprised at all his book was published, 
because he did it to court the major media - 

GP: Oh, I see what you mean - 

ML: As a clever marketer he knew that because 
they had committed years ago to Oswald as a 
lone assassin, he would get an unprecedented 
ride in the media, and that's exactly what 

JK: (continuing) ...allegations were true. 
The media is more inclined to believe that 
there is a conspiracy - 

ML: Absolutely wrong. 

GP: (continuing) ...would love to break a - 

ML: Absolutely wrong, Joyce, I'm sorry. 

JK: (continuing) ...than that Oswald acted 
alone. Believe me, I sit here - how many 
years have I been doing shows about the 
Kennedy assassination - and the only person 
who ever has agreed with me on the lone 
assassin theory - the only few people are 
ALWAYS outnumbered by the conspiratorialists - 

ML: (as GP talks under) Oh, no - excuse me, 
let me make this point, Joyce - Gerald, let 
me make a point here, Gerald, because I'm 
tired of listening to your ranting and 
raving, I've listened to it now for four 
years - the most - 

JK interrupts for COMMERCIAL BREAK. 

JK: (after commercial) All right, well we 
just have a few minutes left with Gerald 
Posner and Mary La Fontaine, but as I said, 
the two - they're obviously very passionate 
about the subject and Nick [producer] knows 
he probably should have set these interviews 
up a little differently, but welcome to the 
world of WFTL. You can't fillibuster, guys, 
and both of you are very - you know - 

GP: Mary, all - and Joyce - all I'm going to 
say before - and then I know that we only 
have to the end of the half hour and then 
that's it - but all I'm going to say is that 
in the end I invite any reader to read Mary's 
book and read my book - it's the only way to 
do it - 

ML: I completely concur with that, that's 
about the only thing we concur with - and I 
want to say one other thing: our book has 
been far more attacked by conspiracy 
theorists than Gerald Posner's book ever was. 

GP: Pardon me? 

ML: Our book has been more attacked by the 
conspiracy theorists than your book ever was - 

GP: You know - you know - 

ML: (continuing) can take up the 
Internet at any time of the day or night and 
read the literal attacks on this book by the 
conspiracy nuts - (as GP continues under) 

GP: (continuing) ... [you] never had death 
threats - 

ML: (continuing) ...and you have played on 
the stupidity and insanity of the conspiracy 
nuts. We have ignored the conspiracy nuts. 

GP: (continuing) thought each was going to 
say something separately, but I will say 
this: that if you read both books, and you 
read any other conspiracy book out there and 
you read "Case Closed" - 

ML: Ours is not a conspiracy book - yours is. 

GP: (continuing) ...quote unquote evidence 
that's concocted or made up and somebody 
comes up with years later, but the credible 
evidence, if you test it against history, 
you'll find out that in this case, that 
besides everything we've been told and 
besides the film JFK, there's a simple answer 
and unfortunately - 

ML: That is exactly correct, I agree with you 
on that, and the answer is there was a 
conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy 
based on the new government documents in this 
case. There is no question that the 
government covered up the plan to invade Cuba 
the last week in November 1963 by a CIA-
funded Cuban exile group, in Dallas, arming 
itself with the help of Jack Ruby and with 
Oswald as an FBI informant immediately prior 
to the assassination of President Kennedy - 

GP: That's not true - 

ML: Are you denying our government's own 
documents, Gerald? You need to start over on 
this case. 

GP: Mary, you are astonishing, you don't have 
a document that says that Oswald and Ruby 
were part of a government plot and you know 
it - 

ML: Excuse me, Gerald - you are totally -

GP: Where's your document? 

ML: (continuing) ...totally misinterpreting 
what I'm saying. Oswald was the informant on 
the arrest of Jack Ruby's henchmen the week 
of the assassination, and it's 
incontrovertible (as GP continues under). 
Oswald was that informant - it is shown in 
this book - 

GP: You're distorting history - where's the 

ML: Excuse me, Gerald. Read the book and 
you'll see what the document is. 

GP: Tell me what the document is in the book - 

ML: Well, go back and read the book, Gerald. 

GP: No, no, no, don't tell me that, what's 
the document? 

JK: (joining in) Yeah - I've got - what's the 

GP: (continuing) ...for all the listeners, 
what's the document? 

ML: The document is the FBI report on the 
arrest of Whitter and Miller the week of 
November 18th, 1963, based on the informant's 
tip of Lee Harvey Oswald. 

GP: (continuing) ...of a government plot. You 
just said that. Tell me the document. 

ML: Gerald - 

GP: You don't have it - 

ML: Oh yes, we do - and it is in the FBI's 
own files in Washington. Go ASK for it, 

GP: You can't tell me the document - 

ML: Go ask for it. I've told you what it is - 
it is the arrest report on the arrest of 
Donnell Whitter and Lawrence Miller on 
November 18th, 1963 - 

GP: (under) That does not mean that Oswald - 

ML: Go get it - Oswald was the informant on 
that arrest, Gerald. 

GP: That does not - 

ML: Go ask the FBI for that report, Gerald. 

GP: That is your document, Mary, if that's 
what you - 

ML: That and thousands of other documents 
discussed in this book make an 
incontrovertible case for a conspiracy in the 
assassination of President Kennedy - and you 
have a problem, Gerald: you're obsessed with 
this case. You can't go on, because this was 
your one - your one - happy day in the media. 

JK: No, no, of all the people who I can say 
was NOT overly obsessed with this case - I 
would have to say that Gerald Posner has 
spread his books around a number of subjects - 

ML: They're not read. His book on Perot was a 
disaster - 

GP: (continuing) historian - 

ML: It was a disaster, it didn't sell. 

JK: (continuing) ...his book on Mengele, I 
mean there's a - you know - 

GP: My life's - 

ML: By the way, is Mr. Marwell, the chairman 
of the Assassination Records Review Board, 
wasn't he your assistant on the Mengele book? 

GP: Absolutely not, Mary - you have either - 
boy, I'll tell you - your information's wrong 
or your research is as bad as it looks in 
your book - 

ML: Oh, you don't know Mr. Marwell? Do you 
know Mr. Marwell? 

GP: (continuing) ...he was a historian for 
the United States Government at the time that 
I was doing the Mengele book - 

ML: Uh huh, did he help you with that book? 

GP: What? 

ML: Did he help you with the book? 

GP: Everybody in the United States Government 
helped me on that - 

ML: Did Mr. MARWELL help you with the book? 

GP: Yeah, it was supposed - 

ML: Uh huh. 

GP: My research assistant is my wife. But 
boy, Mary, do you mean to tell me that you as 
a journalist thought David Marwll, a 
historian in the United States Government, is 
my research assistant? 

ML: No, no - I said did he help you with your 
research on the book, and you confirmed that 
he did. 

GP: (continuing) ...not surprised that the 
book - 

ML: You confirmed that he did assist you 
with that. 

JK: Now listen, if you'd like to read these 
two books, both of whose authors claim that 
the other one is shoddy and slipshod - 

ML laughs. 

JK: (continuing) Let me get the information 
to you. "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and 
the Assassination of JFK," by Gerald - 

ML: It's on remainder and you can get it for 
$8.99 - unfortunately, that's not true with 
our book. 

GP: Buy a couple of copies and save - 

ML: Yeah, and light your fire with 'em. 

JK: (continuing) ...Random House. Then you 
have "Oswald Talked: The New Evidence in the 
JFK Assassination," by Ray and Mary La 
Fontaine, by Pelican Books, and both are 
available on your book shelves. And thank you 
both for not allowing anyone in the listening 
audience to get in - 

ML: I think it's the first time Gerald had a 
hard time getting a word in edgewise, he's 
decimated everybody with his motor mouth. But 
he finally met somebody who could talk and 
knew the evidence better than he did - 

GP: Boy, I'll tell you, are you bad with the 
facts - 

ML: (laughs) I'm sorry you lost the argument, 



Special Cases
Social Issues