response to Linda O'Hara aka Leslie Sharp

#1 · October 3, 2025, 4:02 pm

Quote from Greg Parker on October 3, 2025, 4:02 pm
I will refer to her as "Leslie Sharp", or as she would be called here, "Les" or "Lesso", or dearie, to avoid confusion.
Recently, she made the following ill-advised and ill-informed post at the JFK Education Forum:
The more I follow the research community dynamics related to the Luna Task Force – at least those updates now flowing on a number of Education Forum threads – the more concerned.
The Prayer Man team, unless they have adjusted their agenda recently, are not in search of who killed Kennedy but are solely in pursuit of complete exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald – 'an innocent patsy' – which surely any rational student of the assassination knows cannot be the case, therefore full exoneration is not justified.
You are concerned, Lesso, for one reason and one reason only. Oswald on the steps blows up your theory and the fake-ass daybook of sand it was constructed upon.
And your "concern" you say, is supported by this..."which surely any rational student of the assassination knows cannot be the case, therefore full exoneration is not justified."
Let's count how many logical fallacies that covers
Argument from Authority:
The statement argues for the exoneration being unjustified because "any rational student" knows the alternative is untrue. This is a fallacy if the "rational student's" knowledge is being presented as evidence, rather than the actual evidence from the argument itself.
Begging the Question:
The phrase "which surely any rational student of the assassination knows cannot be the case" makes a claim that is the conclusion of the argument. It assumes the truth of what it is trying to prove, which is the faulty premise that the opposing view is demonstrably impossible.
Ad Hominem
If the rational student is being used to discredit the opposing view.
Nice going , Lesso! Three for the price of one!
To paraphrase one leader of the PM pack some years ago, I don't really give a fxck who killed JFK. Exonerate Poor Lee. What better example does one require to fully grasp why Oswald was indeed The Perfect Patsy now serving as the distraction sixty years (and counting) later.
No need to paraphrase. Give us the quote, the platform it was made on, and the context- otherwise, it just looks like you're making shit up.
I could imagine you being told something like, it is not our job to be snipe hunters. Before a new investigation can begin into the who and why, the government and it's agencies have to be made to accept that Oswald was innocent.
Context: we are making the effort to clear the way for a real investigation of the who and why. By contrast, Lesso, you are making an effort only to sell a book based on a fake-ass datebook. If you had an ounce of commitment to historical accuracy, and truly believed you have ground-breaking evidence, you would hand it over to the proper authorities. Why haven't you?
In tandem with this tack is the push to demand NBC release the original films shot by Darnell and Weigman which, it is argued, will prove Oswald was standing "out with Bill Shelley in front." However, I was told only recently that there's a possibility either or both D and W failed to actually capture Oswald on film, BUT we should still take Lee's word for it that he was out front, not inside the TSBD, regardless of evidence to the contrary? A new bar that those who support the PM hypothesis have lowered only in the last month or so, at least to my knowledge.
Firstly, the films should have been handed over to the National Archives ages ago as they met the definition of a "JFK assassination record" under the JFK Act. That should end the argument right there, regardless of who believed what about where Oswald was. You've claimed in the past that you supported getting the films - presumably just for their historical significance. The reason doesn't really matter. What is "concerning", Lesso, is that now that we are getting closer to achieving that goal, you are walking your support backwards.
And the bar was never lowered. It has always been the case that it is either Oswald, or a random from the street - the latter a proposition that though possible - makes little sense since such a person would be giving up a ground level view, to fight their way up crowded steps to spot at the back corner which offered a very poor view.
And no. We are not taking Lee's word for it since he was not recorded saying it. We are taking the word of Fritz, Holmes, Hosty, Campbell, and Jarman, among others who all placed him outside or on the first floor at the relevant time... consistent with a quick duck outside and a return inside.
Read all the evidence you persistently ignored , here.
Along with all of those on the steps who claimed they saw no strangers.
Along with the fact that all others on the steps have been identified.
Along with the film itself showing nothing that rules Oswald out, and some things about the figure which are consistent with it being Oswald.
I was then admonished, "when the Task Force establishes Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy because he was out front, then and only then can Luna's 'investigators' advance the investigation." I believe Luna's mandate has a shelf life, so the current administration can and will claim, "well we tried, and we at least proved that THE cia withheld documents, Oswald was outside, ergo, the deep state killed JFK." A pyrrhic and highly suspect victory by any reasonable measure, in my view.
You should be admonished daily, deary. I used the Ed Forum search function and part of your quote to locate the original source. But you have been the only person to say it on that forum. So who said it, where and in what context?
You speak with such authority... it is scary... how truly ignorant you are.
Anyone taken in by two con artists in the past, isn't by definition, the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. So why should anyone listen to you at all?
Should I remind you?
What the hell. Why not?
Case number 1: Circa 2002: Renowned fraudster and prison escapee (twice appearing on America’s Most Wanted), Michael Souter, was released from prison and used investment money conned out of a prison guard to kickstart an Art Market in his new home town of Santa Fe. One of his early hires for this venture was James O’Hara, husband of Linda.
The market was set up using money from investors who had no idea who they were dealing with. Market stalls were indeed rented out to artists. But the proposed restaurant was never built and money disappeared without trace.
One of the alleged victims was James O’Hara’s brother in New York, to the tune of over $32,000. James and Linda spent years chasing a bit over $5000 allegedly owed James in wages.
The story here. More here, showing the O’Hara’s in a political ad concerning the case. It also shows that neither James nor his brother were ever listed as victims of Souter.
Case number 2, 2022 Chasing alleged unpaid wages seems to be a recurring pattern for you and James.
Santa Fe man files lawsuit over sale of hotel for affordable housing
Sean P. Thomas, The Santa Fe New Mexican
August 24, 2022·2 min read
Aug. 23—A man who says he helped a couple of business partners negotiate a multimillion-dollar deal to sell Santa Fe Suites has filed a lawsuit against the pair, alleging they didn't pay him for his work.
Santa Fe resident James O'Hara filed the complaint last week in state District Court against Ranbir Bajwa, Anil Dharna and their business, Santa Fe Holdings LLC, accusing them of making a profit from the hotel's sale in 2020 through +++a plan he designed+++ to help create affordable housing in Santa Fe with investments from the city, state and federal governments and nonprofits that serve the homeless community.
Gullible when it comes to recognizing fraud when it is biting you on the ass? I think not. Smells like something other than gullibility to me.
Will it now be argued that Oswald was entirely clueless in the weeks and days leading to Dealey, and that the plethora of evidence indicating he was witting on at least one if not a number of levels can now conveniently be ignored? How will that solve the cold case murder investigation, a mandate yet to be assigned to any governing body?
Everyone can speak for themselves. But, yes, I have concluded he was clueless. I actually know the case and the evidence inside and out. You only know what fraudsters and liars have told you.
You can't comprehend how Oswald being clueless AND be on the steps works, because you yourself are fucking clueless. Unlike you, I am writing a FACTUAL book, but more than that - again unlike you - if the films show it is Oswald, I will be offering all my files to the proper authorities.

I will refer to her as "Leslie Sharp", or as she would be called here, "Les" or "Lesso", or dearie, to avoid confusion.

Recently, she made the following ill-advised and ill-informed post at the JFK Education Forum:

The more I follow the research community dynamics related to the Luna Task Force – at least those updates now flowing on a number of Education Forum threads – the more concerned.
The Prayer Man team, unless they have adjusted their agenda recently, are not in search of who killed Kennedy but are solely in pursuit of complete exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald – 'an innocent patsy' – which surely any rational student of the assassination knows cannot be the case, therefore full exoneration is not justified.

You are concerned, Lesso, for one reason and one reason only. Oswald on the steps blows up your theory and the fake-ass daybook of sand it was constructed upon.

And your "concern" you say, is supported by this..."which surely any rational student of the assassination knows cannot be the case, therefore full exoneration is not justified."

Let's count how many logical fallacies that covers

Argument from Authority:
The statement argues for the exoneration being unjustified because "any rational student" knows the alternative is untrue. This is a fallacy if the "rational student's" knowledge is being presented as evidence, rather than the actual evidence from the argument itself.
Begging the Question:
The phrase "which surely any rational student of the assassination knows cannot be the case" makes a claim that is the conclusion of the argument. It assumes the truth of what it is trying to prove, which is the faulty premise that the opposing view is demonstrably impossible.
Ad Hominem
If the rational student is being used to discredit the opposing view.

Nice going , Lesso! Three for the price of one!

To paraphrase one leader of the PM pack some years ago, I don't really give a fxck who killed JFK. Exonerate Poor Lee. What better example does one require to fully grasp why Oswald was indeed The Perfect Patsy now serving as the distraction sixty years (and counting) later.

No need to paraphrase. Give us the quote, the platform it was made on, and the context- otherwise, it just looks like you're making shit up.

I could imagine you being told something like, it is not our job to be snipe hunters. Before a new investigation can begin into the who and why, the government and it's agencies have to be made to accept that Oswald was innocent.

Context: we are making the effort to clear the way for a real investigation of the who and why. By contrast, Lesso, you are making an effort only to sell a book based on a fake-ass datebook. If you had an ounce of commitment to historical accuracy, and truly believed you have ground-breaking evidence, you would hand it over to the proper authorities. Why haven't you?

In tandem with this tack is the push to demand NBC release the original films shot by Darnell and Weigman which, it is argued, will prove Oswald was standing "out with Bill Shelley in front." However, I was told only recently that there's a possibility either or both D and W failed to actually capture Oswald on film, BUT we should still take Lee's word for it that he was out front, not inside the TSBD, regardless of evidence to the contrary? A new bar that those who support the PM hypothesis have lowered only in the last month or so, at least to my knowledge.

Firstly, the films should have been handed over to the National Archives ages ago as they met the definition of a "JFK assassination record" under the JFK Act. That should end the argument right there, regardless of who believed what about where Oswald was. You've claimed in the past that you supported getting the films - presumably just for their historical significance. The reason doesn't really matter. What is "concerning", Lesso, is that now that we are getting closer to achieving that goal, you are walking your support backwards.

And the bar was never lowered. It has always been the case that it is either Oswald, or a random from the street - the latter a proposition that though possible - makes little sense since such a person would be giving up a ground level view, to fight their way up crowded steps to spot at the back corner which offered a very poor view.

And no. We are not taking Lee's word for it since he was not recorded saying it. We are taking the word of Fritz, Holmes, Hosty, Campbell, and Jarman, among others who all placed him outside or on the first floor at the relevant time... consistent with a quick duck outside and a return inside.

Read all the evidence you persistently ignored , here.

Along with all of those on the steps who claimed they saw no strangers.

Along with the fact that all others on the steps have been identified.

Along with the film itself showing nothing that rules Oswald out, and some things about the figure which are consistent with it being Oswald.

I was then admonished, "when the Task Force establishes Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy because he was out front, then and only then can Luna's 'investigators' advance the investigation." I believe Luna's mandate has a shelf life, so the current administration can and will claim, "well we tried, and we at least proved that THE cia withheld documents, Oswald was outside, ergo, the deep state killed JFK." A pyrrhic and highly suspect victory by any reasonable measure, in my view.

You should be admonished daily, deary. I used the Ed Forum search function and part of your quote to locate the original source. But you have been the only person to say it on that forum. So who said it, where and in what context?

You speak with such authority... it is scary... how truly ignorant you are.

Anyone taken in by two con artists in the past, isn't by definition, the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. So why should anyone listen to you at all?

Should I remind you?

What the hell. Why not?

Case number 1: Circa 2002: Renowned fraudster and prison escapee (twice appearing on America’s Most Wanted), Michael Souter, was released from prison and used investment money conned out of a prison guard to kickstart an Art Market in his new home town of Santa Fe. One of his early hires for this venture was James O’Hara, husband of Linda.

The market was set up using money from investors who had no idea who they were dealing with. Market stalls were indeed rented out to artists. But the proposed restaurant was never built and money disappeared without trace.

One of the alleged victims was James O’Hara’s brother in New York, to the tune of over $32,000. James and Linda spent years chasing a bit over $5000 allegedly owed James in wages.

The story here. More here, showing the O’Hara’s in a political ad concerning the case. It also shows that neither James nor his brother were ever listed as victims of Souter.

Case number 2, 2022 Chasing alleged unpaid wages seems to be a recurring pattern for you and James.

Santa Fe man files lawsuit over sale of hotel for affordable housing

Sean P. Thomas, The Santa Fe New Mexican

August 24, 2022·2 min read

Aug. 23—A man who says he helped a couple of business partners negotiate a multimillion-dollar deal to sell Santa Fe Suites has filed a lawsuit against the pair, alleging they didn't pay him for his work.

Santa Fe resident James O'Hara filed the complaint last week in state District Court against Ranbir Bajwa, Anil Dharna and their business, Santa Fe Holdings LLC, accusing them of making a profit from the hotel's sale in 2020 through +++a plan he designed+++ to help create affordable housing in Santa Fe with investments from the city, state and federal governments and nonprofits that serve the homeless community.

Gullible when it comes to recognizing fraud when it is biting you on the ass? I think not. Smells like something other than gullibility to me.

Will it now be argued that Oswald was entirely clueless in the weeks and days leading to Dealey, and that the plethora of evidence indicating he was witting on at least one if not a number of levels can now conveniently be ignored? How will that solve the cold case murder investigation, a mandate yet to be assigned to any governing body?

Everyone can speak for themselves. But, yes, I have concluded he was clueless. I actually know the case and the evidence inside and out. You only know what fraudsters and liars have told you.

You can't comprehend how Oswald being clueless AND be on the steps works, because you yourself are fucking clueless. Unlike you, I am writing a FACTUAL book, but more than that - again unlike you - if the films show it is Oswald, I will be offering all my files to the proper authorities.