From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams) Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: La Fontaines' Use of Evidence - IV (revised) Approved: jmcadams@execpc.com Organization: PrimeNet Lines: 88 The La Fontaines used that silly "Oswald got VD in the line of duty" stuff! Yes, on page 59 of OSWALD TALKED they say that: ----------------------------------------------- . . . Oswald's military CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF MEDICAL CARE shows the disease's "origin" to be "in [the] line of duty, not due to own misconduct." The medical entry clearly suggests that if the Marine was involved in intelligence work, it was on the U.S. side. -------------------------------------------------- Then later (p. 90): --------------------------------------------------- Is it possible to be both a good Marxist and a temporary asset of some U.S. government intelligence agency? In the Platonic world, perhaps not. In the real world, however, where contracting syphilis in the "line of duty" is an unsurprising matter duly noted in official reports, it would appear that almost anything is possible . . . ---------------------------------------------------- It would seem that if Oswald got VD "in the line of duty" that this suggests that he was, for example, having sex with prostitutes on orders of his intelligence handlers. It seems that way, that is, if you haven't *begun* to do your homework, and indeed haven't read the WARREN COMMISSION REPORT. The WC REPORT, probably in deference to 1964 sensibilities about discussion of peoples' sex lives, does not discuss the VD issue -- although it is easy enough to find the documents that show his case of VD and the testimony of an officer discussing the issue in the WC volumes. But it *does* mention that Oswald shot himself with a pistol he was not supposed to have. Having the pistol was a violation of Marine regulations. He was court martialled, and given a fairly stiff sentence, which was suspended. But Oswald's actions were ruled "in the line of duty" and not the result "of his own misconduct." WCR, p. 638. How could a violation of Marine rules not constitute "misconduct?" The simple fact is that the formula the Corps used was a bureaucratic term of art. A memo from the Judge Advocate General, dated 17 October 1958, is included in the WC volumes. See 19H749 (page 111 of the Folsom Exhibit). The memo notes that: ------------------------------------------------ Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however, does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law, regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences. ------------------------------------------------ Thus, "misconduct" for the Corps was not any wrong act. If you could keep a pistol that was illegal, and not have this ruled "misconduct," you could get VD from careless sex and also have this ruled "not due to own misconduct." In the 1970s, Tony Summers followed up on this issue by phoning one of the doctors who treated Oswald. He explained that this was a common formula placed on records, which basically meant "cut this kid some slack." Quoting Summers: "When I talked to one of the doctors who treated Oswald he did not recall the episode and explained that the notation was most probably a routine device to avoid jeopardizing Oswald's pay." See CONSPIRACY (Paragon House edition, 1989), p. 126. If the LaFontaines didn't want to look at the Warren Commission materials, and didn't want to read Summers' CONSPIRACY, they might have read THE THIRD DECADE. In July 1992, almost four years before OSWALD TALKED was published, Mark Zaid debunked the "VD in the line of duty" conspiracy theory in an article titled "Oswald & VD: An Intelligence Connection?" You can see it here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm If the La Fontaines could not do their homework, learning what the WC and Summers and Zaid found out about this, they at *least* could have used a bit of critical judgment. Did they *really* believe that the CIA, ONI, or whatever, would recruit a Marine for some ultra-secret spook assignment, and then allow his commanding officers, doctors at the base where the Marine was stationed, and so on to know about this? A Marine getting VD would not in *itself* send up any flags implying Oswald was a spook. And even if we assume that officers at Oswald's base did know, would they put something on Oswald's Marine record that basically said, "this guy is a spook?" This is all too typical of OSWALD TALKED. Evidence is ignored, and issues are not thought through. .John