JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
Jerry Freeman:
--- Quote from: Ross Lidell on September 05, 2018, 12:18:22 AM ---Chief of police, Jesse Curry, said that Oswald was shown to the news reporters: "... to demonstrate that he had not been mistreated." (or words to that effect).
--- End quote ---
Curry was in charge of nothing. Just read his testimony.
--- Quote ---Mr. RANKIN - Do you know who was there to try to identify Lee Oswald?
Mr. CURRY - No, I don't. The news media, a number of them, had continued to say, "Let us see him. What are you doing to him? How does he look?"
I think one broadcaster that I had heard or someone had told me about, said that Lee Harvey Oswald is in custody of the police department, and that something about he looked all right when he went in there, they wouldn't guarantee how he would look after he had been in custody of the Dallas police for a couple of hours, which intimated to me that when I heard this that they thought we were mistreating the prisoner.
Mr. RANKIN - Did you do anything about that?
Mr. CURRY - I offered then at that time they wanted to see him and they wanted to know why they couldn't see him and I said we had no objection to anybody seeing him. And when he was being moved down the hall to go back up in the jail they would crowd on him and we just had to surround him by officers to get to take him to the jail elevator to take him back upstairs, to let him rest from the interrogation.
Mr. RANKIN - And this showup, how many people attended?
Mr. CURRY - I would think perhaps 75 people.............
--- End quote ---
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/curry1.htm
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Richard Smith on September 04, 2018, 03:13:09 PM ---You nailed it exactly. John is a dishonest contrarian. The single worst poster on this board. He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy. Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator? We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic. Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one. It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others. The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
--- End quote ---
He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy.
How does taking issue with the evidence equate to implying that there was a conspiracy? If you don't accept the evidence at face value you must believe in a conspiracy? Is that how your mind works
Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?
This may be over your head, but why do you feel there has to be faked or manufactured evidence? Why can't there simply be misrepresented evidence?
We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's a void at all
Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.
Which is exactly what any detective does every day.
It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.
Where is it written that one has to have an alternative theory to examine the evidence that allegedly supports another theory?
The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
Whining again? Just make your case, present the evidence and convince somebody, will ya?
Jerry Freeman:
--- Quote from: Richard Smith on September 04, 2018, 03:13:09 PM --- John is a dishonest contrarian. The single worst poster on this board.
--- End quote ---
Trolls appoint themselves as forum magistrates ...judging the content of other members' posts that do not agree with their rigid formulated perspective.
Is that about right?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Jerry Freeman on September 05, 2018, 05:19:24 AM ---Trolls appoint themselves as forum magistrates ...judging the content of other members' posts that do not agree with their rigid formulated perspective.
Is that about right?
--- End quote ---
yes
Richard Smith:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on September 05, 2018, 04:44:49 AM ---He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy.
How does taking issue with the evidence equate to implying that there was a conspiracy? If you don't accept the evidence at face value you must belief in a conspiracy? Is that how your mind worksWho exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?
Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?
This may be over your head, but why do you feel there has to be faked or manufactured evidence? Why can't there simply be misrepresented evidence?
We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's a void at all
Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.
Which is exactly what any detective does every day.
It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.
Where is it written that one has to have an alternative theory to examine the evidence that allegedly supports another theory?
The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
Whining again? Just make your case, present the evidence and convince somebody, will ya?
--- End quote ---
While you are rambling away, why not clear up John I.'s claim that you did not post on the "Richard Smith" thread? Wouldn't an intellectually honest person want to do that? This one is simple Here is an example. If you argue as John does that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is not convincing and does not prove that he owned that rifle, then what other explanation can there be for that evidence (documents, testimony, photos etc) that links Oswald to that rifle other than it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime? There are documents that confirm a rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box. Because much of that evidence predated the assassination and comes from a variety of sources, it is genuine or the product of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. There is no third option in which this evidence somehow exists but neither Oswald nor a conspirator is responsible for it. I understand why John takes this dishonest and lazy approach. If he confirmed that he was suggesting a conspiracy, then he might have to do something other than be a contrarian. He might actually have to provide some support or at least a narrative that makes sense. Easier to shrug away everything as suspect without making any attempt to explain an alternative.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version