Witnesses
| Experts
|
I recently have been getting reacquainted with the OJ case and it left me wondering how would JFK CT's handle the Oswald conspiracy in court?
To win the OJ case the "Dream Team" capitalized on the alleged racist atmosphere of LA, so the "Dream Team" invented a reasonably plausible alternative narrative, whereas the JFK CT's have given us virtually nothing?
Who planted what and why? What did they have to gain?
The prosecution would be presenting evidence piled on evidence and eyewitness after eyewitness, and in return what would the JFK CT's present and where do your theories go?
JohnM
OJ was from a different era with a sympathetic jury. Oswald was the most hated man in America and the evidence was overwhelming against him. A 1964 Texas jury convicts him a thousand times out of a thousand. Oswald's best legal advice would have been to plead guilty in return for no death penalty. Something akin to what James Earl Ray did. The only question is whether Oswald wanted a show trial to espouse his grievances.
The racism in Dallas and the whole South at the time was massive, it was a powder keg, with bombings etc, this was number one motive as was the fact that J.F.K was a Catholic and this stood to ruin the US UK special relationship and and most importantly a new foreign policy direction.
If Milteers prediction could have been presented, along with the possibility that another firing point was available, to still carry the same line of fire., and with Oswald himself put into the witness box, to tell us exactly where he was for the shooting, he would have been acquitted.
A 1964 Texas jury convicts him a thousand times out of a thousand.
Showing off your amazing speculative powers again?
IMO A good defense team would have asked for a change of venue.
LHO would have most likely had his day in court relatively soon after the crime as compared to today's world. I watched the mock trial they produced in April of 1964 recently. In that one they stood mute (which legally meant he pleaded not guilty) and also plead the insanity plea. That was probably his only hope of avoiding the electric chair.
LOL. You would probably get a hung jury. Half would want to hang Oswald and half would want to hang you. A change of venue? What for? To find someone that didn't know about the assassination? How about Mars? That is comedy gold.
An insanity defense would not have worked for Oswald. In a criminal law context, a defendant can be held culpable under the M'Naghten rule if they can distinguish right from wrong (i.e. cognitive insanity). Even if they are otherwise nuts. And the most basic way to determine if someone can distinguish right from wrong is whether they took measures to conceal their actions. There are any number of actions that Oswald took to conceal his intended actions beforehand along with his flight from the crime scene afterward which are all highly indicative of someone who knew they were committing a criminal act.
That is comedy gold.
Indeed. Your opinions usually are.
You didn't answer my question. Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue? Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL. Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?
You didn't answer my question. Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue? Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL. Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?
Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?
Better chance of a fair trial? ...... Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet. But you had to go and make up the acquittal angle to make a lame point, didn't you?
Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?
And you call my suggestions idiotic?
Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT.
Preach on, preacher man....
"Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT"
>>> No, you face it: You've just characterized yourself perfectly.
In my view, you characters, more than anything, don't want to be seen as sheep in a 'nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do-or-think' paranoia. Can't make up your mind? Not our problem. Grow up.
Is that right? You sure, Richard?
Absolutely, not long after Weidmann first started posting both Bill and I independently made posts accusing Weidmann of being Roger Collins, so I gathered all the evidence from Bill, others and myself and made a Poll Thread. The Poll results were dramatically in favour of Weidmann either being Collins or Weidy used a dozen Collins posts as an exact template for his own.
JohnM
::)
Thumb1:
No worries Martin, after being discovered you instantly deleted Roger Collins so no harm done, but naughty naughty!
JohnM
Pathetic reply. Could it be you haven't managed to resolve those anger issues yet?
Can't make up your mind?
But you "probably" can, right?
Go ahead, act like an adolescent
At least say something worthwhile
If I was a Lawyer for the defense, I would call upon Jacqueline Kennedy to take the stand. She was the only one exempt from sharing her opinion as to where the shots came from. She obviously was told to not say anything because she was warned that if she voiced what she saw, the country would have been put in chaos when it realized that a coup had just taken place.(https://www.twofreeboots.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/JBA1112sm.jpg)
She was not allowed to give her account or statement and she was looking right at JFK when the shots came in! She would know the direction the shots came in from - grassy knoll or otherwise! Most people ran up the grassy knoll indicating that it was the likely spot where the sound came from. The initial reporter on the scene said there was a shot like a firecracker and then 2 shots fired in quick succession. What little statements she was heard to say were: "THEY killed him" and "That is not him" - this would indicate that she had a story tell and was muffled. No one is exempt from testimony when someone else dies and you are a witness! Pretty simple defense for LHO and the only person not questioned in the entire matter! The best defense ever!
Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?
Better chance of a fair trial? ...... Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet. But you had to go and make up the acquittal angle to make a lame point, didn't you?
Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?
And you call my suggestions idiotic?
Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire thread only serves the purpose that you and your ilk can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT.
Preach on, preacher man....
Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet.
According to Wade, by law, the trial would have to be held in Texas. I haven’t verified that, but I think that you might want to research the law before you actually make that request. 😉
Yes, but don't forget that Martin/Roger claimed to be a lawyer. LOL.
How big was the mirror you were looking at when you wrote that?
Btw your personal attacks and attempts to provoke conflict, rather than taking part in the debate, are getting extremely boring.
Is that worthwhile enough for you?
Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet.
According to Wade, by law, the trial would have to be held in Texas. I haven’t verified that, but I think that you might want to research the law before you actually make that request. 😉
I haven’t verified that
perhaps you should verified it first and then comment on it Thumb1:
The racism in Dallas and the whole South at the time was massive, it was a powder keg, with bombings etc, this was number one motive as was the fact that J.F.K was a Catholic and this stood to ruin the US UK special relationship and and most importantly a new foreign policy direction.
If Milteers prediction could have been presented, along with the possibility that another firing point was available, to still carry the same line of fire., and with Oswald himself put into the witness box, to tell us exactly where he was for the shooting, he would have been acquitted.
OJ was from a different era with a sympathetic jury. Oswald was the most hated man in America and the evidence was overwhelming against him. A 1964 Texas jury convicts him a thousand times out of a thousand. Oswald's best legal advice would have been to plead guilty in return for no death penalty. Something akin to what James Earl Ray did. The only question is whether Oswald wanted a show trial to espouse his grievances.
Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet.
According to Wade, by law, the trial would have to be held in Texas. I haven’t verified that, but I think that you might want to research the law before you actually make that request. 😉
The indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald was for the murder of John F. Kennedy.
There was no Federal law regrading murdering the President of the United States.
The trial would have to be in Texas.
I haven’t verified that
perhaps you should verified it first and then comment on it Thumb1:
The indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald was for the murder of John F. Kennedy.True, but there was (and is) a Federal law against murder. Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111)
There was no Federal law regrading murdering the President of the United States.
The trial would have to be in Texas.
True, but there was (and is) a Federal law against murder. Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111)
The question would be who had jurisdiction to prosecute Oswald. Since it was on Texas property it was a state crime. Had Oswald shot JFK on federal property - say at the White House - he would have been prosecuted for murder by the federal government.
And as Bugliosi pointed out, if there was evidence that he conspired to murder JFK then the Federal government - not just Texas - would have had jurisdiction to charge him with conspiracy to murder. So he could have been charged with conspiracy to murder by the state of Texas AND conspiracy to murder by the Federal government. The Supreme Court just ruled that is allowed because they are two separate sovereign (thus, double jeopardy does apply if he was found innocent in Texas).
In a 1999 interview Robert Oswald told me Lee was looking forward to a trial and would have confessed. I asked him how he knew this. He responded “I know my brother”. For what it’s worth.
Showing the residues from the muzzle blast of a rifle. Oswald's rifle did not have muzzle blast/baffle protection. The overpressure from a shorter barrel than the cartridge was designed for increases the effect.
For your sake? :D
I recently have been getting reacquainted with the OJ case and it left me wondering how would JFK CT's handle the Oswald conspiracy in court?
To win the OJ case the "Dream Team" capitalized on the alleged racist atmosphere of LA, so the "Dream Team" invented a reasonably plausible alternative narrative, whereas the JFK CT's have given us virtually nothing?
Who planted what and why? What did they have to gain?
The prosecution would be presenting evidence piled on evidence and eyewitness after eyewitness, and in return what would the JFK CT's present and where do your theories go?
JohnM
[quote author
The paraffin test "alone" would not exonerate Oswald.
The suspect was apprehended an hour and a quarter after the assassination shots were fired. Oswald had an opportunity to wash his face and remove traces of nitrates.
The idea with applying a very "hot vax" paraffin test was to actually get "under the skin" to find residues "despite" having watched the face ...
Just for the record regardless of legal implications.
Showing "positive" would make him guilty whereas showing "negative" would not exonerate him ... :)
We agree about the paraffin test being "inconclusive".
No for your own
It seems a bit stupid to first make a claim and only later check if it's actually true
No for your own
It seems a bit stupid to first make a claim and only later check if it's actually true
"In court how would you defend Oswald?"
Demand the autopsy materials be allowed in court.
Have the autopsy doctors explain in court their conclusions illustrated by the autopsy photos. (Assuming the autopsy photos of the inside of JFK's right lung, that would have shown the direction and path of the bullet that allegedly went through his neck, and the photo of the inside of the skull, after the brain was removed. that showed the wound near the EOP, were still amongst the autopsy materials.) Those photos are no longer in the archives.
Jerry Ford muddied the waters on the throat wound location that the photo of JFK's right lung could verify.
The Clark Panel moved the entrance wound in JFK's skull 4 inches.
The photo of the inside of the skull would verify it's location.
Jerry Ford's and the Clark Panel actions aligned the wounds with the official LN narrative of LHO shooting from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.
I would have JBC and his wife testify in front of the jury that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
I would have the railroad workers, who were on the triple overpass, who heard shots and saw smoke from the Grassy Knoll, testify.
Brennan would need to explain to a jury why his affidavit from 11/22/63 stated he could identify the person he allegedly saw fire from the
6th floor, yet he was unable to pick LHO from a police line up later that afternoon.
Expert testimony for the defense to counter government experts.
Cross examination of key eye witnesses and LE personal whose 1st day affidavit statements morphed into the official LN narrative.
It still appears to elude you that there could be no change in venue from Texas to another state for a crime that was committed in Texas that violated Texas law (i.e. murder). You may want to consult a lawyer like Roger Collins about why that is not an option.
I clarified that Wade made the claim. It seems really stupid to say that I made it.
Where does it say Brennan was 'unable' to identify Oswald
Stop twisting and ignoring Brennan's fear for his family's safety
Nobody changed the position of back/throat entry wound
...etc
So goes the CT Lunatic Fringe Rinse & Repeat Campaign
Where does it say Brennan was 'unable' to identify Oswald
Stop twisting and ignoring Brennan's fear for his family's safety
Nobody changed the position of back/throat entry wound
...etc
So goes the CT Lunatic Fringe Rinse & Repeat Campaign
Steve,Ross, this is above my pay grade <g>. I guess probably not if it had taken place on city/local property such as a DC street and not on Federal property (the attempt on Truman was done in the Blair House, which was federal property; so the attempted assassins were prosecuted under Federal law).
Would that law (1963) have been legislated to account for Washington DC which is not a State but is a separate part of the USA?
Military installations could also be subject to Federal Law not State's.
Was there any evidence (not speculation) discovered between November 22 - 24 November 1963 that would prove Lee Harvey Oswald conspired with a person or group to murder John F. Kennedy?
In a 1999 interview Robert Oswald told me Lee was looking forward to a trial and would have confessed. I asked him how he knew this. He responded “I know my brother”. For what it’s worth.
"Nobody changed the position of back/throat entry wound"
Nobody said the wound location was moved.
Jerry Ford did change the wording that described the location of the wound in the final draft of the WCR.
That is comedy gold.Don't anyone ring the golden buzzer yet...there are most likely sillier posts to come.
Not much.
I would love to defend Oswald! I'm not saying I would win with Hoover and Johnson and the cover-up team assassinating every bit of evidence they could. But let's start with the SBT. The actual bullet, CE 399 was almost certainly fired into nothing harder than cotton. It certainly could not create seven wounds on two adult men (including bone) and emerge looking like that. But there's a more important reason to dismiss the SBT PERMANENTLY. The autopsy witnesses described Humes probing the back wound and finding no outlet and no bullet. How can this wound be a threat to Governor Connally? IT DID NOT PENETRATE THE PRESIDENT. Do you get it yet??? Specter created this moronic theory because he knew the Zapruder film created a timing problem. There has never been a shred of evidence that supports the SBT. NOT ONE. It's just a Specter CYA job. Humes lied on several matters, none more vital than this one...
What else?
The "humanitarian rifle" (surplus Italian garbage no self-respecting assassin would consider)
No witness has placed Oswald in the "sniper's window." (Brennan?????)
How could Oswald fire off those shots, run to the other side of the building, stash the weapon and descend the stairs in time to be in the lunch room in time to meet Baker?
The Tippitt murder scene is almost as confusing as Dealey Plaza. What's with multiple contradictory eyewitness accounts Two different makes of ammo? Did Oswald have time to get there?
What about the witnesses who were introduced to Oswald by Ruby at the Carousel Club and others who saw them together?
What about Ruby's calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to the assassination?
Ruby kills LHO out of revenge for the First Lady? Come on, are we really that ignorant?
What is Oswald's motive?
Films show two shadowy figures in the alleged assassin's window.
Oswald's connections with Ferrie, Bannister, DeMohrenschildt, and others are extremely suspicious. Seems pretty clear Oswald's getting "sheep dipped" that last summer.
Zapruder Film shows no reaction that a shot impacted from the rear but it does show the violent head shot from the RIGHT FRONT. (In defending Oswald, a shot proving a frontal head shot would be diversionary since I believe shots originated from the rear as well.)
Dallas Police Dictabelt is controversial, but it's extremely hard to explain if you are a lone nutter.
That's just a start. I'm not a lawyer...
Can you stop being a 'bandwidth bandit' here and just link to your sources? Those 3-foot-deep posts are a messy eyesore
Says the guy who cuts and pastes Bugliosi drivel.
Bugliosi has successful court experience whereas Iacoletti has none, no wonder you'll try anything to suppress him.
And [Bugliosi's courtroom] experience leads him to make the rhetorical argument that leaving one's wedding ring behind is evidence of murder.
And his experience leads him to make the rhetorical argument that leaving one's wedding ring behind is evidence of murder.
:D
The wedding ring evidence is less than 2% of Bugliosi's case.
JohnM
Ok, let's say the wedding ring is evidence…… but evidence of what?
Evidence, obviously, that Oswald was a very happy-with-life man!
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
I'll take that reply as "I haven't got a clue", shall I?
Ok, let's say the wedding ring is evidence…… but evidence of what?
The wedding ring evidence is less than 2% of Bugliosi's case.
It demonstrates foreknowledge that he might be killed or arrested that day.
If he was honest, it would be 0%
Just like the rest of his contrived "evidence".
- Leaving his wedding ring behind at the Paine house is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he preferred Dr. Pepper is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
:D
It demonstrates foreknowledge that he might be killed or arrested that day. Can you guess why? Consult Roger Collins on the implications of that.
Bug said he exaggerated on purpose
Try to figure that out again; the first time around you got it wrong
Tell that to the members of his fan club who call his "exaggerations" evidence.
By the way, when did he say this? It this another one of your "if memory serves" claims?
You should be the one concerned with memory
I'll take that as an "I don't know".
:D
It demonstrates foreknowledge that he might be killed or arrested that day.
No it doesn't
Btw have you figured out already why the trial against Clay Shaw, as a conspirator in Kennedy's murder, was held in New Orleans, when, as you rather pathetically claimed, the trial could only be held in Texas as the JFK murder fell under that state's jurisdiction?
LOL. Try to figure out the difference for jurisdictional purposes. Can you afford Roger Collins' fees for his legal advice on the topic? Great contrarian argument on the ring "No it doesn't". Whew. Let's see. Oswald leaves his wedding ring at home for the first and only time of his marriage on the very day he is arrested for assassinating the president and killing a police officer. What bad luck for him if it was just a wild coincidence. If leaving his wedding ring at home was the ONLY evidence against Oswald in those cases, it would not be very probative. In the totality of all the evidence, however, (known as planet Earth) it becomes highly probative. It points to foreknowledge of some event that day that might preclude him from ever seeing his family again.
LOL. Try to figure out the difference for jurisdictional purposes. Can you afford Roger Collins' fees for his legal advice on the topic? Great contrarian argument on the ring "No it doesn't". Whew. Let's see. Oswald leaves his wedding ring at home for the first and only time of his marriage on the very day he is arrested for assassinating the president and killing a police officer. What bad luck for him if it was just a wild coincidence. If leaving his wedding ring at home was the ONLY evidence against Oswald in those cases, it would not be very probative. In the totality of all the evidence, however, (known as planet Earth) it becomes highly probative. It points to foreknowledge of some event that day that might preclude him from ever seeing his family again.
It still appears to elude you that there could be no change in venue from Texas to another state for a crime that was committed in Texas that violated Texas law (i.e. murder). You may want to consult a lawyer like Roger Collins about why that is not an option.
It seems to elude you two clowns that my comment had nothing to do with the content of the message and everything with the silly way it was presented.
As to the content itself; anybody who equates a change of venue to an automatic change of jurisdiction doesn't know the first thing about the law.
I'm not going to go into it too much as that would mean risking losing these two "legal scholars" along the way pretty qiuckly, but I will ask them this very simple question;
If the murder of JFK falls under the jurisdiction of the state of Texas, why was Clay Shaw, who was charged as a conspirator in Kennedy's murder, put on trial in New Orleans?
Any answers?
Well, Richard, since you claimed there was no other option but to have a trial in Texas, please explain to us why Clay Shaw, who was indeed charged as a consiprator in Kennedy's murder in Texas, was on trial in New Orleans?
Martin, Clay Shaw was arrested and charged in New Orleans on March 1, 1967, on conspiracy of murdering Kennedy. The murder was carried out in Texas but the actual conspiracy took place in New Orleans.
Martin, Clay Shaw was arrested and charged in New Orleans on March 1, 1967, on conspiracy of murdering Kennedy. The murder was carried out in Texas but the actual conspiracy took place in New Orleans.
Denis, I'm pretty sure you will agree that anybody found guilty of being part of a conspiracy to commit murder is equally guilty of that murder as the person who actually pulled the trigger, regardless when and where the plan for the murder was made.
The trial of Clay Shaw was not only about his possible involvement in the conspiracy, but also, and very much so, about the actual murder itself. Now, let's assume for a moment that Shaw had been found guilty of being part of a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, would that, in your opinion, provoke a second trial in Texas about the actual murder itself (which seems to be what Richard's claim requires) or would double jeopardy prevent such a case to go forward?
Martin, I'm just answering your question as to why Shaw's trial was in New Orleans and not Texas. As to if Oswald could only have been put on trial in Texas or not, I honestly don't know. I'm from Britain and know very little about USA state laws. What I do know is that defendants are generally put on trial in the state they're charged in. Are there precedents to making exceptions? Would those exceptions have covered Oswald? I havent a clue.
Thanks for that, Denis. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. First of all, if Shaw was a co-conspirator he would be in the same legal position as Oswald was, if indeed Oswald was part of the conspiracy. In other words, whatever rules would apply to Oswald should also apply to his co-conspirators, right?
Secondly, you are indeed correct in saying that defendants are generally put on trial in the state the murder took place and thus in the state they're charged in. However, in this case Shaw was not extradited to Texas, like one would usually expect for a murder suspect/conspirator charged with a crime in Texas. His trial went forward in New Orleans instead, making Richard's claim that a trial about a murder in Texas always has to be held in Texas a bit silly.
It seems to me that the Clay Shaw trial was held in New Orleans and not Texas simply because Texas didn't want it. They had never charged Shaw with anything and as far as they were concerned the case was closed (which it never is when unresolved by the death of the suspect). They, and I don't know this for a fact. most likely simply didn't want any part of Garrison prosectution.
Having said that, the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans proves beyond any doubt that Richard Smith was only blowing hot air when he pretended to be a know it all armchair lawyer. The fact that Richard Smith hasn't been able to answer the question I asked him just confirms the same as well.
It seems to me that the Clay Shaw trial was held in New Orleans and not Texas simply because Texas didn't want it.
The problem is, you've actually been dead for decades sir, maybe even 1.5 centuries. So why the fake name?
Pretty shallow.
Another Creep who googles my name.
STOP stalking me!
JohnM
Thanks for that, Denis. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. First of all, if Shaw was a co-conspirator he would be in the same legal position as Oswald was, if indeed Oswald was part of the conspiracy. In other words, whatever rules would apply to Oswald should also apply to his co-conspirators, right?
Secondly, you are indeed correct in saying that defendants are generally put on trial in the state the murder took place and thus in the state they're charged in. However, in this case Shaw was not extradited to Texas, like one would usually expect for a murder suspect/conspirator charged with a crime in Texas. His trial went forward in New Orleans instead, making Richard's claim that a trial about a murder in Texas always has to be held in Texas a bit silly.
It seems to me that the Clay Shaw trial was held in New Orleans and not Texas simply because Texas didn't want it. They had never charged Shaw with anything and as far as they were concerned the case was closed (which it never is when unresolved by the death of the suspect). They, and I don't know this for a fact. most likely simply didn't want any part of Garrison prosectution.
Having said that, the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans proves beyond any doubt that Richard Smith was only blowing hot air when he pretended to be a know it all armchair lawyer. The fact that Richard Smith hasn't been able to answer the question I asked him just confirms the same as well.
So you're just guessing the reason why the trial wasn't in Dallas, then you go on to make a beyond any doubt conclusion, maybe it's best for you to contact Roger Collins for some clarification?
JohnM
Johnny,
It doesn't matter why the trial was held in New Orleans. What matters is that it was held there proving Richard Smith's claim to be wrong.
Btw Your obsession with a guy who hasn't posted on this forum for several years now seems to be spinning out of control. Get help!
https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/usa/en_usa-int-desc-guide.html
Oh boy another armchair lawyer thinks he's on to something…..
Why don't you simply make the point your want to make instead of just posting a link and leave us all guessing what it is you want to convey?
Just trying to help.
I take it that means you've got no point to make.
The point is that I have given up trying to reason with unreasonable people.
Let me guess.... anybody who disagrees with you is unreasonable, right?
That is an unreasonable guess.
Oh boy another armchair lawyer thinks he's on to something…..
Why don't you simply make the point your want to make instead of just posting a link and leave us all guessing what it is you want to convey?
But a correct one nevertheless
JFK and Tippit were murdered in Texas. Oswald was arrested for those crimes in Texas. He was held in custody in Texas. The Texas authorities charged Oswald and only Oswald with those murders under Texas state law. All of the overt acts relating to this crime took place in Texas. See any theme? Oswald was not charged with a conspiracy much less a conspiracy that took place in another state. Oswald's defense team could not force the prosecution to charge him with conspiracy to change the venue to another state. So that has no relevance to his situation in 1963. His prosecution would have been under Texas laws for murders committed within its jurisdictional boundaries. Similar to Jack Ruby. A change of venue would be appropriate if there was some reason to believe Oswald could not get a fair trial in the Dallas court where it would be handled. As in Jack Ruby's successful appeal. Like Ruby, Oswald's trial would have been in Texas even if the venue was moved to a county outside of Dallas. Thus, Oswald's trial for murder would have taken place in Texas even if the venue were changed. Not as you stupidly suggested to another state but to another county in Texas. Ruby's second trial was, for example, going to take place in Wichita Falls, Texas. There would be no legal basis to move to another state. I'm sure Roger Collins could clear much of this up for you.
BTW; are you denying that you posted here as Roger Collins and claimed to be an attorney? You have suggested this is a "fantasy" but have never confirmed or denied. All you have to do to clear this up is say that you did not post as Roger Collins. An honest person would just admit it.
Wow, yet another rant with theoretical scenarios none of which answers the question I asked regarding the Clay Shaw trial.
The obsession of some LNs with Roger Collins has surfaced several times before. It is of no interest or concern to me whatsoever. There is nothing for me to confirm or deny.
You can clear up the Roger Collins business by just confirming it wasn't you. Perhaps the fact that you won't answer is all we need to know. It highlights your dishonest nature to refuse to answer while implying that it wasn't you.
No, I can't clear it up. This idiotic claim has surfaced several times in the past and it doesn't matter what I say, there will always be clowns like you who don't accept what I say and bring it up again. There is no need for me to defend myself or to do what you want me to do and so I won't. You just keep on living in your fantasy world, but I won't respond anymore to this nonsense.
It [the ring] demonstrates foreknowledge that he might be killed or arrested that day.Demonstrate any kind of proof that he ever habitually wore this wedding ring in the first place [something besides Marina's implication] Not every married person wears their wedding ring.
Demonstrate any kind of proof that he ever habitually wore this wedding ring in the first place [something besides Marina's implication] Not every married person wears their wedding ring.
I am aware of this photo... https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5104854-3x4-700x933.jpg
However is that the ring in question....anybody? {while your at it, note that really deformed looking right arm!}
Now, there is this photo with a ring on right hand... https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/filer_public_thumbnails/filer_public/40/d3/40d33346-b143-4438-98c9-f31f5604579b/oswald-timeline-5-t_1962.jpg__2000x2164_q85_crop_subsampling-2_upscale.jpg
Russians---my wife is Russian---wear engagement rings and I guess wedding rings too-- on their right hand.
But did Oswald wear this ring in Dallas?
To defend Oswald, all you have to do is show that:
- Nobody can reliably place Oswald on the 6th floor during the shooting or at anytime after 11:50
- Even Brennan failed to identify Oswald at the lineup and then changed his mind after being pressured by the FBI
- Brennan couldn't have observed a shooter taking aim for the head shot from the alleged window "from the belt up" nor could he discern said shooter's height, weight, age, and clothing from that position, which would necessarily be crouched in the corner behind boxes.
- Carl Day's story about the magic palmprint does not comport with the observations of Drain and Latona and therefore there is no reliable evidence that Oswald ever touched the supposed murder weapon
- There is no evidence that the long bag was in the alleged sniper's nest when it was initially discovered, or that CE139 or any rifle was ever inside it.
- No documented chains of custody for the supposed limo "fragments".
- No documented chain of custody for the intact bullet found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
- No blood or tissue on the intact bullet found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
- And therefore no good reason to think that CE139 was necessarily even the murder weapon.
- Another expert handwriting "analyst" engaged by the defense to opine that the handwriting on the copy of the Klein's coupon either doesn't match or is indeterminate
- Cheek paraffin tests were negative for firing a rifle
- Dougherty said Oswald was empty-handed when he entered the building
Based on my mock-up, this is the view that Brennan had:
(https://i.vgy.me/lQXe6S.png)
If that's Ozzie wouldn't he be about 3 feet tall?
If that's Ozzie wouldn't he be about 3 feet tall?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/DillardA.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/DillardA.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/6thfloor4.jpg)
Eye level for a 5’-9” person sitting on a box that is 1’-1” high is approximately 3’ above finished floor. This is based on measurements made on myself.
To defend Oswald, all you have to do is show that:
- Nobody can reliably place Oswald on the 6th floor during the shooting or at anytime after 11:50
- Even Brennan failed to identify Oswald at the lineup and then changed his mind after being pressured by the FBI
- Brennan couldn't have observed a shooter taking aim for the head shot from the alleged window "from the belt up" nor could he discern said shooter's height, weight, age, and clothing from that position, which would necessarily be crouched in the corner behind boxes.
- Carl Day's story about the magic palmprint does not comport with the observations of Drain and Latona and therefore there is no reliable evidence that Oswald ever touched the supposed murder weapon
- There is no evidence that the long bag was in the alleged sniper's nest when it was initially discovered, or that CE139 or any rifle was ever inside it.
- No documented chains of custody for the supposed limo "fragments".
- No documented chain of custody for the intact bullet found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
- No blood or tissue on the intact bullet found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
- And therefore no good reason to think that CE139 was necessarily even the murder weapon.
- Another expert handwriting "analyst" engaged by the defense to opine that the handwriting on the copy of the Klein's coupon either doesn't match or is indeterminate
- Cheek paraffin tests were negative for firing a rifle
- Dougherty said Oswald was empty-handed when he entered the building
I believe Brennen said the shooter he saw in 6th floor SE corner window of the TSBD was standing.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/1274-001.jpg)
This entire thread is a complete waste of time since in real life the defense will always determine their strategy based upon what the prosecution has presented. There is no point in proving something wrong when the prosecution hasn't brought it up earlier.
Do you mean the part where he says: “he was just sitting up there looking down...”?
No, that's not what I mean.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you observe or hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Mr. BELIN. This man you saw previous? Which man are you talking about now?
Mr. BRENNAN. The man in the sixth story window.
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to this right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit this mark, and then he disappeared. And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side. [3H143-144]
Did Brennan ever say he went inside the Depository because if you weren't familiar with the inside of the building then anything could "appear" possible. The photo that Charles posted shows how low the window sill is.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/6thfloor4.jpg)
JohnM
From Brennan's position would it be possible for Brennan to see a sitting man from his belt up?
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
JohnM
So, sitting on the window sill satisfies this requirement. Seems reasonable. Is there a problem with the window opening far enough? Would the window need to be fully raised to allow this or was it still low when this occurred?
So, sitting on the window sill satisfies this requirement. Seems reasonable.
Is there a problem with the window opening far enough?
Would the window need to be fully raised to allow this or was it still low when this occurred?
Brennan is not a witness Belin would want to put on the stand for the simple reason that the more the investigation went on the more Brennan became a hostile witness and totally useless
I reckon when Oswald was sitting on the sill he was trying to get a look down at who was where, and must have been a little worried when he saw Jarman and Norman walk back towards the building.
Btw I think you were onto something with Bonnie Ray, Bonnie Ray wouldn't have gone to the 6th floor and not go to the window which he later went straight to on the 5th floor that doesn't make sense, Bonnie Ray saw the assassin, no bones about it!
JohnM
I suspect Jarman and Norman walking back might have been a little earlier than Brennan taking his position.
I believe BRW saw the assassin too. Just trying to work out a senario that was non-threatening enough for him to vacate his position but take up one a floor lower. Might he have seen Jarman and Norman heading back? Remember though he was not particularly close to those two. He was friends with Arce, from memory those two came from the other warehouse, and Givens too I think. They were also members of the floor laying crew, as opposed to Jarman and Norman.
I suspect Jarman and Norman walking back might have been a little earlier than Brennan taking his position.
I believe BRW saw the assassin too.
Might he have seen Jarman and Norman heading back?
Remember though he was not particularly close to those two.
He was friends with Arce, from memory those two came from the other warehouse, and Givens too I think.
They were also members of the floor laying crew, as opposed to Jarman and Norman.
Jarman testified that they left about between 12:20 and 12:25 and Brennan said he got there about between 12:22 and 12:24, a bit of possible overlap?
From the WC questioning tactics I think they also didn't believe Bonnie Ray.
Maybe, he also could have heard voices on the floor below?
And I heard that Oswald wasn't exactly a bundle of laughs?
Williams maybe thought the voices and or noises were maybe someone that would have to be better company than Oswald?
Why did they employ Oswald during the off-season, were they advertising?
Truly also employed someone else the same day, considering that Oswald was taken on a random phone call, what are the chances that someone else was also employed in the off season and on the same day?
If Norman knew there was a guy with a bolt action rifle firing while the President was going by, what would possibly motivate Norman to move even 1 inch from the opposite corner to the stairs and elevator? Wouldn't you just wait for the cops or perhaps they could be heroes and storm the 6th floor but they do neither and move closer to the stairs? Did they know it was Oswald and when they saw/heard him go down the stairs they knew the assassin was gone?
JohnM
Good discussion John and Colin. Together you've opened up an area that has bothered me for a long time. I think you are both on to a real possibility. It might be too early to ask seeing as it's being fleshed out at the moment but at some point the question of why BRW didn't speak up once he knew Oswald was in custody. An obvious possibility is that he didn't want to be known as the guy who could have averted the assassination if only he had drawn attention to the 6th floor by frantic waving and gesturing from the 5th.
Steve, I don’t believe Williams vacated the 6th floor because he saw someone with a rifle or was even threatened. However something made him vacate the SN, leaving his unfinished lunch behind, about 5 minutes before the assassination.
He was taken downtown an hour or so later to provide a statement. He knew the SN was of interest and while there saw Oswald in custody. He was specifically questioned about him. At that time would he have even known about his "commie" background. He had ample opportunity to identify him as the person who was there when he left and failed to do so. Instead he decided to deceive the authorities about his movements prior to the shooting. Interestingly, so did Jarman and Norman for some period of time. As I have stated previously, I think that the three had a conversation before Williams departed the TSBD that was designed to protect him.
Brennan's description which closely matched Oswald must have been the one broadcast on the Police radio about 15 minutes later.
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
/s/ H. L. Brennan
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
===========================================================================================================================
Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.
JohnM
https://www.maryferrell.org/search... (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&relPageId=579&search="probably_sold%20without%20a%20clip.")
......
1. Warren Commission Report, pg 555
Found in: Warren Commission Report
which bore the letters "SMI" (the manufacturer's markings) and the number "952" (possibly a part number or the manufacturer's code number) 24 The rifle probably
was sold without a clip; however, the clip is commonly available25 Rifle Cartridge and Cartridge Cases When the rifle was found, one cartridge was in
(https://i.vgy.me/5Y2mre.png)
So that's it, you have a lying eyewitness who didn't seek fame or fortune and wasn't even alive when a book about him came out,
a lying cop, more lying cops,
lying Whitehouse staff, likely planted evidence, still trying to separate 1 piece of evidence, lying ballistics experts
and ignoring their actual tests with C2766 which proved that C2766 didn't deposit any nitrates on to faces,
first day evidence from Frazier said Oswald entered the building carrying his long package but too bad it wasn't the same door that Dougherty saw him come through DOH!
Brennan's description which closely matched Oswald must have been the one broadcast on the Police radio about 15 minutes later.
Thanks Charles. Does Brennan see this guy?
No, that's not what I mean.
I think he was saying he saw the man sitting before JFK reached DP.
However he's clear about what he said he saw when the shots were fired at JFK.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you observe or hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Mr. BELIN. This man you saw previous? Which man are you talking about now?
Mr. BRENNAN. The man in the sixth story window.
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to this right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit this mark, and then he disappeared. And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side. [3H143-144]
Brennan may have thought the sniper was in a standing position while firing the final shot by mistakenly assuming that the bottom of the window was much higher off the floor than it really was.
-- MWT ;)
Thanks Charles. Does Brennan see this guy?
Probably when the sniper stood up, Iacoletti.
Question: Could Brennan have seen "the full length of the barrel"?
I think so.
-- MWT ;)
Brennan may have thought the sniper was in a standing position while firing the final shot by mistakenly assuming that the bottom of the window was much higher off the floor than it really was.
-- MWT ;)
After the last shot, if the sniper had just sat straight up from his leaning forward shooting position, I believe that, from Brennan's position, he would have appeared to have stepped back and into the corner.
Here's Brennan's view of the same first shot:
(https://i.vgy.me/eo83Al.png)
I don't believe the sniper was sitting on anything during the second and third shots, so his "sitting up" after the final shot makes no sense to me.
He was squatting or kneeling during those two shots, imho.
-- MWT ;)
PS Uh oh. I see Scully's still cuttin'-and-pastin' together yet another entertainin' "post" for us here.
He's been workin' on it for twenty minutes, already.... ..............................
Brennan only claimed to see a guy aiming for the head shot. Is this person in your model accurately placed for the head shot?
Also, how does Brennan identify this guy's height, weight, and clothing? Or see him from the belt up?
Here are a couple of images showing that it wasn't necessary for him to squat or kneel for those two shots.
(https://i.vgy.me/9tt4Fv.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/QSFmhC.png)
As you can see, the rifle is a little above the top of the boxes. If he wanted to use the boxes as a support for the rifle he could have just scooted his ass back a little and leaned forward more in order to lower his eye level. I believe that this would be more stable than a squat or kneel. However, in my opinion, doing that would have slowed him down during the interval between the shots. The more likely case would be to hold the rifle above the boxes. I don't have the ability to adjust the arms and legs on the characters. So you have to use your imagination for that.
That image was at the first shot. This one is with the rifle aimed for the head shot and the model turned a few degrees accordingly. Brennan said he saw him sitting on the window sill earlier.
Thanks again, Charles. It's difficult to tell because these images are small, but are these two images different views of the same placement? In the top image, the shooter looks to be too far in the corner for his head to be visible from Brennan's position. Also, it looks like the rifle is too far below his face to be aiming with the scope or the iron sights. What angles are you using for the rifle barrel?
Thumb1:
You're the first one (to my knowledge) who has ever modeled a shooter aiming for a head shot as viewed from Brennan's position, so you deserve props for that.
Here are a couple of images showing that it wasn't necessary for him to squat or kneel for those two shots.
XXXXX
As you can see, the rifle is a little above the top of the boxes. If he wanted to use the boxes as a support for the rifle he could have just scooted his ass back a little and leaned forward more in order to lower his eye level. I believe that this would be more stable than a squat or kneel. However, in my opinion, doing that would have slowed him down during the interval between the shots. The more likely case would be to hold the rifle above the boxes. I don't have the ability to adjust the arms and legs on the characters. So you have to use your imagination for that.
Charles,
Why don't you like the sniper's nest scenario (including shooting positions and the expended cartridges' resting places) as spelled out in The Lost Bullet?
Have you even watched it?
-- MWT ;)
I watched it years ago but don’t remember much about the details. I will watch it again and let you know.
Here's a summary:
Hey if a shooter took shots at these particular times from these particular positions and ejected the shells then they might have bounced off these boxes and ended up in sort of similar locations as the shells in these photos
......
-- MWT ;)
PS Uh oh. I see Scully's still cuttin'-and-pastin' together an entertainin' "post" for us, here.
Been workin' on it for at least twenty minutes ...
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/79944838/ida-ann-senter
Ida Ann Senter
Birth 7 Mar 1868
Death 4 Dec 1944 (aged 76)
Burial Aspermont Cemetery Aspermont, Stonewall County, Texas, USA
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/114133448/adelaide-s-germany
Adelaide S Germany
BIRTH Apr 1898
DEATH Jan 1986 (aged 87)
BURIAL
Evergreen Memorial Park
Sumter, Sumter County, South Carolina, USA
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm
......
The CHAIRMAN. The witness has been driving a taxicab in Dallas for 36 years.
Mr. WHALEY. Thirty-seven, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-seven. ....
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/13730776/william-wayne-whaleyWhat did cab driver Whaley do to become so completely estranged from his son and namesake?
William Wayne Whaley
19 Jun 1905 – 18 Dec 1965
(http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleyBook1908.jpg)
....QuoteAlbuquerque Journal from Albuquerque, New Mexico on October 30 ...
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/157414971/
Oct 30, 1984 - SEALES Mr. Alvin S. Seales, age 73 and a resident here 21 years, died Monday in a local hospital following an illness. He is survived by his wife, Alice; a son William W. Whaley and wife Dorothy; granddaughter Jamy Whaley; grandson, William W. Whaley Jr. and wife Nancy, all of Albuquerque; a brother ..Quotehttps://www.newspapers.com/newspage/157070315/
June 24, 1997........
WHALEY William Wayne Whaley, 65, passed away unexpectedly on June 18, 1997 in Michigan while on vacation. Husband of 43 years to Dorothy; father and father-in-law of Jamy and Gregg Peevy and Bill Jr. and Dee Whaley, all of Albuquerque; son of Alice (Pat) Scales of Albuquerque. Mr. Whaley retired from Us Alamos National Ubs in 1993 after 17 years. A memorial service will be held Wednesday, 3:00 p.m. at French Mortuary, Umas Blvd. Chapel, 10500 Umas NE. Cremation has taken place. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Noonday Ministry, P.O. Box 8769, Albuquerque, NM 87198 or New Mexico Boys and Girls Ranch, 6209 Hendrix NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110. French Mortuary, 10500 Umas NE. Church with Rev. Archie Parker officiating. Interment to follow at Santa Fe National Cemetery with Wilson Cox Jr., David Cox, David O'Dell Jr., Timoth O'Dell, Patrick O'Dell and Jon Palmer serving as pallbearers......
.....
Whaley was born in June, 1908 as recently as in the information displayed on his son William W Whaley, Jr's 1931 birth certificate (http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleySon1931.jpg), but since then he was born in 1905 although his parents married in 1907 according to Hopkins County, TX records and the same familoy bible that describes Whaley's birth as in 1908.
UPDATED: Whaley's 1942 Selective Service document indicates he may have written his birth date as June 19, 1908,
three years later than the date on his death certificate and gravestone.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleyDOB1940DraftCard.jpg)
....
Thanks again, Charles. It's difficult to tell because these images are small, but are these two images different views of the same placement? In the top image, the shooter looks to be too far in the corner for his head to be visible from Brennan's position. Also, it looks like the rifle is too far below his face to be aiming with the scope or the iron sights. What angles are you using for the rifle barrel?
So, sitting on the window sill satisfies this requirement. Seems reasonable. Is there a problem with the window opening far enough? Would the window need to be fully raised to allow this or was it still low when this occurred?(https://i.ibb.co/h9HZ9zr/rather.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/h9HZ9zr/rather.jpg)
Here's a summary:
Hey if a shooter took shots at these particular times from these particular positions and ejected the shells then they might have bounced off these boxes and ended up in sort of similar locations as the shells in these photos that may or may not have been taken before Fritz picked the shells up and threw them back down.
Also, it looks like the rifle is too far below his face to be aiming with the scope or the iron sights.
I don’t have any way to adjust the arms, legs, head, etc independently. So you have to use your own imagination to bend the neck so that his right eye is looking through the scope and his arms and legs are positioned properly. If someone knows of a suitable character that has those abilities, I would be happy to use it.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Playboy/Item%2041.pdf
….
PLAYBOY: But didn't the Commission have eyewitness evidence that shots did come from the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository?
LANE: The Commission had one "star" witness who testified that a man fired from that window. He was Howard L. Brennan, a 45-year-old steamfitter. There was some other evidence that
shots came from there, but it was vague and frequently contradictory, so the Commission relied largely on the testimony of Brennan. He told the Commission he was seated on a concrete wall across the street from the Book Depository, 107 feet from the building and about 120 feet from the sixth-floor window. The Commission concluded that this placed him in an excellent position to observe anyone in the window." Brennan said he heard a noise he at first thought was a motorcycle backfire—so, naturally, he looked up to the sixth floor of the Depository, and saw a man standing behind the window firing a rifle. Brennan signed an affidavit to that effect on November 22, swearing that the man in the window 'was standing up and resting against the left window sill." However, the Commission concluded the window was open only at the bottom. So if Oswald, or anybody else, fired through that window from a standing position, he would have had to fire through the glass—which was unbroken. The Commission slithered out of this one by determining that "although Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting or kneeling." (https://books.google.com/books?id=TpzGMAmH2LEC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=%22although+Brennan+testified+that+the+man+in+the+window+was+standing%22&source=bl&ots=iluVyx0B4E&sig=ACfU3U1rCJiX8kdySqdTxYZgdP3UnFdK6A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihs4WU-pnjAhWJbs0KHal7DgoQ6AEwBHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22although%20Brennan%20testified%20that%20the%20man%20in%20the%20window%20was%20standing%22&f=true) The reason they gave was that the window ledge was only about a foot and a half from the floor, thus creating the illusion from the street below that a person was standing rather than sitting c.r kneeling behind the windov,
But Brennan himself invalidated this explanation, for he swore he saw the man both stand up and sit down—and withdraw from the window more than once. In any case, here we have the Commission contradicting its own star witness on a vital point of his testimony —the position of the assassin at the time of the crime.
PLAYBOY: Important as it may be, this is just one point, on which anyone could be mistaken. Was Brennan's testimony inconsistent in other respects?
LANE: Yes, it was. When Brennan was taken to the police line-up on November 22, to pick out the man he claimed to have seen in the window, Oswald was in the line-up, but Brennan failed to make a positive identification. When Brennan later testified before the Commission, he said he had known it was Oswald all along—but didn't select him from the police line-up because of his fear that the assassination was a Communist plot and "if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe." In other words, Brennan admitted to the Commission that he had deliberately lied to the Dallas police on November 22 when he told them he could not definitely identify Os- wald in the line-up. And yet the Commission chose to believe his subsequent identification of Oswald as the man in the window. In any court of law, Bren- nan would almost certainly have been discredited as a witness. The Commission concluded that Brennan was able to identify a man standing behind a half closed window 120 feet away from him. This was the Commission's star witness to support their conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired at the President from the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository.
PLAYBOY: Do you think that no shots actually came from the Depository?
LANE: It's not as simple as that. ...
Of course nothing can ever be proven about such interesting speculations but you must have a theory as to why these three men remained silent. Was it the natural fear of black men in the company of white law men or something more sinister?
We know the head shot and we know that Kennedy must have been struck while he was behind the sign and those two bullet casings are the two closest to Oswald, the third shell was further away and this is because the rifle was pointed more forward and is consistent of an earlier shot as confirmed by the Willis girl who stops and turns because as she said, she heard a shot.
JohnM
Why go here? 56 years and nothing is on...as far as advancing to a consensus on reliability of Brennan claims. Why do so many gravitate toward
eyewitness testimony, either to attempt to impeach it or to embrace it without appearing to some of us to have any solid foundation to justify the embrace?
Mark Lane with Playboy Mag. interviewer, three generations ago. It is a fact Mary Bledsoe had a curious familial connection with RD Matthews.
Does everyone understand the contrast? This Bledsoe background detail is progress in that it is not reasonably countered. Debating the question of Brennan
is obviously a waste of time, yet here we are, again? Why?
Brennan wasn’t the only one that was fearful. Connally had the windows blacked out and steel plates placed inside the windows while he was in Parkland for ten days. Many eyewitnesses never came forward or waited many years before they did due to their fears.
Brennan wasn’t the only one that was fearful. Connally had the windows blacked out and steel plates placed inside the windows while he was in Parkland for ten days. Many eyewitnesses never came forward or waited many years before they did due to their fears.
Exactly, I think some Depository workers deliberately said nothing, this exchange from Dougherty is I feel an honest recollection, some fellows saw Oswald with a package but who wants to admit that they could have stopped a Presidential Assassination but didn't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
JohnM
Exactly......shells bounced off the boxes to the shooters right......first shot is shell further away. Second and third are those against the wall.
Exactly, I think some Depository workers deliberately said nothing, this exchange from Dougherty is I feel an honest recollection, some fellows saw Oswald with a package but who wants to admit that they could have stopped a Presidential Assassination but didn't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
JohnM
But this is supposed to be a discussion of whether a criminal defense in a criminal court of law could possibly impress upon a jury that reasonable doubt
as to the question of Oswald's guilt persisted, or if it had been put to rest by the prosecution.
How would a defense attorney, presumably in late 1964, present in court crimminal proceeding, the details in your last post?
Thumb1:
There is no doubt that there were 3 shots and the majority of eyewitnesses only heard the shots from only one direction.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/r5k986miz/number_shots.jpg)
(http://static3.mbtfiles.co.uk/media/docs/newdocs/gcse/history/modern_world_history/usa_1941_80/802110/html/images/image00.jpg)
JohnM
Dougherty's words under oath are on record, what's not to believe? Frazier told us that Oswald walked from his car to the Depository annex while holding a long package, and it just makes sense that others saw him too but as I explained from the workers perspective getting involved could have negative consequences.
JohnM
Where did the polls come from? Oh, the same polling company in 2016 Presidential election. Hard to believe they are still around
Dougherty's words under oath are on record, what's not to believe? Frazier told us that Oswald walked from his car to the Depository annex while holding a long package, and it just makes sense that others saw him too but as I explained from the workers perspective getting involved could have negative consequences.
JohnM
Would Frazier have been likely to suffer greater negative consequences if he failed to recall Oswald carrying a package that morning?
But this is supposed to be a discussion of whether a criminal defense in a criminal court of law could possibly impress upon a jury that reasonable doubt
as to the question of Oswald's guilt persisted, or if it had been put to rest by the prosecution.
How would a defense attorney, presumably in late 1964, present in court crimminal proceeding, the details in your last post?
Connally was governor of the state he was hospitalized in. Does it not follow that his staff in Austin effected the window protection you described
with no supporting cite? How is their decisions on how to temporarily secure the governor in a Dallas hospital material to what an Oswald defense attorney
should present to a jury? Aren't you simply sharing some rather vaguely presented feelings of some witnesses and those of Connally's wife and staff
because you have been influenced by those details, seemingly emotions driven, concerns that I assume are anecdotal if you are offering no supporting cites?
And John, aren't you citing the testimony of a guy with this "baggage", contradicting himself, out of the gate (https://s3.amazonaws.com/omeka-net/30216/archive/files/e7daf6e008c631126a441b4f9cb17152.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI3ATG3OSQLO5HGKA&Expires=1563408000&Signature=wg0p%2B%2B8ShNZ52Ky6nv%2BwuIHQFh0%3D), as to the time he returned to work,
and his father lived with him. If you had something solid, I expect you would have brought it?
Are you not also countering the statement of Dougherty's father as to his son's stability, and also you must believe Dougherty was a supervisor
at Goodwill Ind.? Doesn't this nicely supports the assessment of son Jack's capacity?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDougherty1952GoodwillCRP.jpg)
Dougherty had the responsibility of coming in early and making sure that certain important systems were running smoothly, is that a sign that he couldn't recall a simple detail?
Mr. BALL - Let's see, Mr. Dougherty, you said that you have some extra chores--what are those extra chores?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I have to see to it that the water system is pumped up. In other words, the air pressure is up to where---up to 40 pounds so that if it isn't pumped up, the alarm goes off, and the ADT runs that alarm system, and we immediately call Mr. Truly and of course they call me.
Mr. BALL - What is the ADT?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's that---I don't know too much about it---it has something to do with the alarm system they have got down there.
Mr. BALL - You mean the pressure, do you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes
Mr. BALL - Is that a fire-alarm system?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes--you could call it that.
Mr. BALL - Now, what else do you do there early in the morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, let's see, I have to check and see that there is no leaks ,in the building, that the pipes are not leaking somewhere.
JohnM
What's that, John M...? I can barely hear you.... continuing from my last post, bottom image....third page:
Let me put this another way Tom, if Dougherty was as challenged as you make out then why was he employed at all and why was he given important responsibilities at the Depository where he worked for more than a decade?
If I was Dougherty without an alibi in the building from where shots were fired I would be a little nervous too, but this in no way diminishes his accumulated decade of working there.
Well Tom, I know I'm jealous of your ability to present mountains of worthless unconnected evidence, cheers!
JohnM
How can you dismiss the sworn testimony of his own wife?Answer..Quite easily.
Every picture or film that I'm aware of shows him wearing his ring . In photos it is difficult to tell but I'm not aware of any photo or film taken during his marriage that clearly shows him not wearing his wedding ring.So if there is a picture that doesn't show him wearing the ring ...he must have had it on anyway? OK. BTW link your pictures.
Answer..Quite easily. So if there is a picture that doesn't show him wearing the ring ...he must have had it on anyway? OK. BTW link your pictures.
.. post your own pictures showing he didn't?Could it be that none exist and therefore a wedding ring lying on a dresser proves nothing?
Could it be that none exist and therefore a wedding ring lying on a dresser proves nothing?
Research and find out!
Full designation for Oswald's ring should be 'marriage ring & knuckleduster'
;)
You've obviously never seen a knuckle duster.
::)
You've obviously missed the inference.
People make a lot out of the wedding ring being left but for all we really know he took it off and forget to put it back on.
Personally take mine off every night and then back on in the morning but have a couple of times have forgotten to do so
For all we know Oswald shot Kennedy.
No one has come forward with a better candidate.
You lot claim someone else? Name, please.
Why did he do it? Who put him up to it?
Your inferences are legend, Bill. Nobody understands them.
For all we know Oswald shot Kennedy.Bill, you are caving in
No one has come forward with a better candidate.
You lot claim someone else? Name, please.
Bill, you are caving in
For all you know he did it?
No one has come forward with a better candidate? And you'll go with a popular candidate to calm public anxiety? That did not work out
So you are not sure about Oswald, instead, you are more like ---I don't know, I guess he did it.
I remain 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
100% sure probably = you don't know if he did it
Bill thanks for being honest. I always knew he did not do it
Good for you.
It's cool as long as you don't try to claim that I'm in agreement with your conclusions, Peter.
I heard Dirty Harvey physically abused his wife. Characterizing the wedding ring as a 'knuckleduster' is symbolic of said spousal abuse.
My inference is clear.
I don't know what cool means, but I can tell you I could never conflate something like "100% sure probably" you did it on your own. It is like making a bet, it is still just a bet. You could be right but since you could be wrong that is doubt. I could be wrong but oh well I didn't claim he did it and I don't have to prove he did not do it, because he is innocent until proven guilty that is why you can only say "100% sure probably." You could have said that in terms of probability from 0 to 1 you give it a 1, but no, you decided to use probably which suggest less than 1.
Maybe you heard wrong, Bill, and only believe what you want to believe. Hardly a sound case for an inference.
I think he probably did it. That's 100%.That is right, you can't prove he did it
(I didn't say 'probably 100% sure')
It's tongue-in-cheek... it confuses those who are easily confused.
Anyone can see that I'm an LNer. If someone needs proof from me, then they are out of luck, because I can't prove Oswald guilty.
No one here can.
That is right, you can't prove he did it
Name your shooter, smart guy.
The point is I think Oswald probably did it.
Name your shooter, smart guy.What happened to your confidence...that he did it? What a change ... now Oswald probably did it? It ok people change their positions, but of course, you have always meant you are 100% sure Oswald probably did it. Sorry for spotting the inconsistency.
The point is I think Oswald probably did it.
"smart guy." :D :D :DThank you, Dennis, that is very kind. I am 100% sure Dennis probably meant to be kind, but...
What happened to your confidence...that he did it? What a change ... now Oswald probably did it? It ok people change their positions, but of course, you have always meant you are 100% sure Oswald probably did it. Sorry for spotting the inconsistency.
Is English your first language? Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
I've always said Oswald probably did it.
Again, try to recognize the sarcasm/tongue-in-cheek/rubbing-it-nature of expressing that conclusion as 'I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it'
Said the coward who doesn't want to commit for fear of having to answer questions he knows he can't answer
"smart guy." :D :D :D
Is English your first language? Your reading comprehension is atrocious.You like to play games and I am 100% sure you probably do, but I just don't know. It is sarcasm or is it a guilty conscience. How many ways does Bill's dictionary define it? Things a joker says
I've always said Oswald probably did it.
Again, try to recognize the sarcasm/tongue-in-cheek/rubbing-it-nature of expressing that conclusion as 'I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it'
You like to play games and I am 100% sure you probably do, but I just don't know. It is sarcasm or is it a guilty conscience. How many ways does Bill's dictionary define it? Things a joker says
Said the coward who doesn't want to commit for fear of having to answer questions he knows he can't answer
It's meant as sarcasm
LOL... a 'guilty conscience' about what, exactly?You are less than sure he did it. I don't doubt that
About concluding Oswald probably did it?
You are less than sure he did it. I don't doubt that
LOL. Still livin' the dream, I see. Cool.Perhaps sometimes always but maybe never.
This case was probably a slam dunk, served up on a silver platter by Oswald himself. Probably. Every little piece of evidence stuck to him like a post-it note. Probably. And no one else. Probably.
;)
Hilarious given the source. Does this mean you will be answering that question about Roger Collins?
Why should I answer it again? Just because you don't like the answer I have given? No thanks….
Btw, that's some obsession you have with Mr Collins. As far as I know he has not posted for years and he still occupies your mind. Wow!
Again? You have never answered the question as far as I know. Did you post as Roger Collins or not? It is not a trick question. There is no penalty for confirming or denying. I only ask because my recollection is that Roger Collins claimed to be an attorney while you seem devoid of even the most basic legal knowledge.
There is no doubt that there were 3 shots
Ruth Paine mentioned Oswald's physical abuse of Marina, in regards having Oswald move out.
The point is I think Oswald probably did it.
"There is no doubt" is LN-ese for "in my opinion".
No, the vast majority of the ear-witnesses said they heard 3 shots.
Cite please.
Mr. JENNER - I am not thinking so much within the letter. Did she go beyond stating that he was merely only angry? Was there any discussion about his having struck her?
Mrs. PAINE - No; none. No; none. She never mentioned to me ever that Lee had struck her.
Mr. JENNER - And during all the visits you ever had with her, all the tete-a-tetes, her living with you on this occasion we now describe as 15 1/2 days, and in the fall, was there any occasion when Marina Oswald related to you any abuse, physical abuse, by her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, with respect to her?
Mrs. PAINE - There was never any such occasion.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2884078-181/oswalds-wife-finds-a-cryptic%3fview=AMP
'By that time in the spring of 1963, Paine said, she'd come to resent that Oswald was physically abusive of Marina and he wanted to control and keep her isolated.'
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2884078-181/oswalds-wife-finds-a-cryptic%3fview=AMP
'By that time in the spring of 1963, Paine said, she'd come to resent that Oswald was physically abusive of Marina and he wanted to control and keep her isolated.'
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon)
Huh?
Your example is chalk and cheese, this isn't an "idea", these people were not imagining anything, they can only give evidence of what they heard.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/Grant.png)
JohnM
Are you pleading ignorance or do you truly not understand John's valid point?
Did you read the page that was linked to, they were discussing "ideas" that haven't been experienced, like "Flat Earth" or "Leprechauns" whereas these people actually heard the evidence that we are discussing, what's the connection?
As usual I provide the evidence and you call them liars, when will it ever end?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/Grant.png)
JohnM
No, the vast majority of the ear-witnesses said they heard 3 shots.A vast majority of people say a lot of things. You are not saying you are influenced by popularity contests? You also have seen the film of many more people running up the grassy knoll or am I confusing that with a film of NO people running up the street to a building that deals with school books or something???
JohnM
Perhaps sometimes always but maybe never.
BTW post-it notes didn't exist until 1979 but unreliable versions were tested the ten years leading up to 3m selling the official post-it in US markets. I am confident there are no pictures of Oswald with post-it notes all over him. Maybe you probably think there is
Being personally sure about something is not a particularly compelling argument.
A vast majority of people say a lot of things. You are not saying you are influenced by popularity contests? You also have seen the film of many more people running up the grassy knoll or am I confusing that with a film of NO people running up the street to a building that deals with school books or something???
Are you under the impression that I'm arguing about my personal conclusions?
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/05/e5/cc/05e5cc20f0543864879976671fbb7c35.jpg)
You also have seen the film of many more people running up the grassy knoll or am I confusing that with a film of NO people running up the street to a building that deals with school books or something???
So it is indeed ignorance…. got it!
I didn't call anybody a liar, but the fallacy is that even if the majority of people say something happened one way, it still does not mean it really happened that way. Ergo;
any appeal to a majority opinion doesn't constitute proof of anything.
The corroborated evidence.
81 eyewitnesses out of every 100 eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/Grant.png)
3 shells found in the Sniper's nest.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JBary KampbBN6KJKE/TZEOJYRVCNI/AAAAAAAATcc/D0i89sUs91Y/s726/CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.jpg)
JohnM
3 shells found in the Sniper's nest.
How in the world is that "corroboration"?
Can you say with certainty that no shots were fired from other directions?
Can you show that those three shells were fired that day?
How in the world is that "corroboration"?
Can you say with certainty that no shots were fired from other directions?
Can you show that those three shells were fired that day?
3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.
The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.
Can you show they weren't fired that day?
JohnM
3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.
Circular argument.
The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.
Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
Can you show they weren't fired that day?
Don't need to. If you can not prove those three shells were fired that day (and you can't, regardless of what Norman thought he had heard) those shells do not corroborate anything.
Circular argument.
Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
Don't need to.
Huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
I keep supplying evidence and you haven't yet explained why it shouldn't be regarded as evidence
Yeah this old chestnut, they're trying to set up a Lone Gunman and they place shooters in other locations, real smart!
I knew you couldn't, in fact nobody can precisely date an expended shell and the fact that you even asked shows that you need more ballistics education. Try again!
JohnM
I'm fairly confident that most of the people on this board, most of the time, do not have a clue what it is you are rambling about.
81 witnesses corroborate 3 shells
3 shells corroborate 81 witnesses
Circular reasoning!
Beside the point and of no value at all.
Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.
No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.
Great... so since you can not prove that the 3 shells found at the TSBD were fired on 11/22/63, they also can not serve as corroboration of your "81 witnesses" claim.
No need for ballistics… just simple down to earth logic. You should try it once.
3 expended shells along with Norman's recollection directly below is corroborated by 81% of the eyewitnesses.
Circular argument.
The amount of eyewitnesses who heard shots from more than 1 direction is statistically very low.
Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
Can you show they weren't fired that day?
Don't need to. If you can not prove those three shells were fired that day (and you can't, regardless of what Norman thought he had heard) those shells do not corroborate anything.
You keep arguing for what I don't know, all I can do is quote evidence.
Norman who was directly below heard 3 shots and shells hitting the floor.
A vast majority of eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.
3 shells found in the sniper's nest.
No need for ballistics in a case which involves a rifle murder, really?
JohnM
Means absolutely nothing. Even if nobody heard shots from another direction, it still does not prove there were no such shots.
>>> You are certainly fond of saying that sort of thing. So, by comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs? Or does this 'Absence-of-Evidence-does-not-necessarily-mean-Evidence-of-Absence' thing of yours short circuit when inconvenient to your contrarianism?
regardless of what Norman thought he had heard
>>> Thought* he heard, huh? LOL.
*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.
I'm fairly confident that most of the people on this board, most of the time, do not have a clue what it is you are rambling about.
It's even more compelling since according to that chart 95% of the witnesses heard three shots or less. If three shots were fired from the SN, that accounts for all these shots. There would be no second shooter. So one shooter firing all the shots from the SN.
It's even more compelling since according to that chart 95% of the witnesses heard three shots or less. If three shots were fired from the SN, that accounts for all these shots. There would be no second shooter. So one shooter firing all the shots from the SN.
The corroborated evidence.
81 eyewitnesses out of every 100 eyewitnesses heard 3 shots.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/Grant.png)
3 shells found in the Sniper's nest.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JBary KampbBN6KJKE/TZEOJYRVCNI/AAAAAAAATcc/D0i89sUs91Y/s726/CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.jpg)
Btw it's not up to me to prove anything, all I did was present evidence.
JohnM
Are you under the impression that I'm arguing about my personal conclusions?
*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.
I said 'like' post-it notes, professor.Exactly, you change your mind all the time. You don't even know what you mean
Don't try to be witty, you're just not good at it.
Amazing….
In her testimony Paine says that Marina never mentioned to her that Lee had struck her and even after her return to Dallas in September 1963 Marina never mentioned any abuse by Lee.
So, how could Paine "come to resent that Oswald was physically abusive of Marina" when she had no way of knowing that?
This is so stupid, that it doesn't even warrant a reply.
By comparison, does no one seeing or hearing Oswald on the stairs post shots prove that he wasn't on the stairs?
No it doesn't. But you need to prove he was there, not that he could have been there.....
*You arrogant troll. Do I detect the scent of racism here?
You (and Iacoletti) demean Euins, too.
You are an idiot. This entire conversation has nothing to do with Euins....
'regardless of what Norman thought he had heard'---Martin
>>> That statement sticks in my craw. You arrogantly, like your tag-team attack-dog doppelgänger Iacoletti, continue to tell witnesses what they thought they saw, and what they really meant.
Both Norman and Euins are African-American
Both are ridiculed by you and Iacoletti.
As somebody with no dog in this fight, your comment about racism is totally stupid.
I'm fairly confident that most of the people on this board, most of the time, do not have a clue what it is you are rambling about.
Thanks for playing along..You're welcome.
BS: Cite Martin or I ever "demeaning Euins".
P.S. Bonnie Ray Williams in his first day affidavit reported only hearing two shots.
'regardless of what Norman thought he had heard'---Martin
>>> That statement sticks in my craw. You arrogantly, like your tag-team attack-dog doppelgänger Iacoletti, continue to tell witnesses what they thought they saw, and what they really meant.
Both Norman and Euins are African-American
Both are ridiculed by you and Iacoletti.
Nobody is ridiculing anybody, fool!
Did Norman see the rifle being operated? NO!
He was on another floor and heard clicking sounds, so he can only have THOUGHT that it was a rifle.
I really don't want to know what goes on in that big echo chamber you call a head, but you seriously need to go and look for help because you are losing it completely.
Nobody is ridiculing anybody, fool!
Did Norman see the rifle being operated? NO!
He was on another floor and heard clicking sounds, so he can only have THOUGHT that it was a rifle.
I really don't want to know what goes on in that big echo chamber you call a head, but you seriously need to go and look for help because you are losing it completely.
Nobody is ridiculing anybody, fool!
Did Norman see the rifle being operated? NO!
He was on another floor and heard clicking sounds, so he can only have THOUGHT that it was a rifle.
I really don't want to know what goes on in that big echo chamber you call a head, but you seriously need to go and look for help because you are losing it completely.
Both Norman and Euins are African-American
Both are ridiculed by you and Iacoletti.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Connally#Early_life_and_education
....Children 4...
.....Early life and education
Connally was born on February 27, 1917, into a large family in Floresville, the seat of Wilson County southeast of San Antonio. He was one of seven children born to Lela (née Wright) and John Bowden Connally Sr., a dairy and tenant farmer.[1] His six siblings included four brothers: Golfrey, Merrill, Wayne, and Stanford Connally and sisters Carmen and Blanche.[2] Connally attended Floresville High School and, upon graduation, was one of the few graduates who attended college. He graduated from the University of Texas at Austin, where he was the student body president and a member of the Friar Society. He subsequently graduated from the University of Texas School of Law and was admitted to the bar by examination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Connally#Later_years
....Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, for whom Connally's daughter had been employed in the state treasurer's office, won the seat by a wide margin in the special election runoff against the appointed Democratic Senator Robert Krueger.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Daniel#Personal_life
....
Personal life
Marion Price Daniel Sr. is also known as Marion Price Daniel Jr. and as Marion Price Daniel II, because his father, Marion Price Daniel Sr. (1882–1937) was the first generation with the name. Daniel II married the former Jean Houston Baldwin on June 28, 1940. Their son publicly known as Price Daniel Jr. is properly Marion Price Daniel III. The couple also had three other children: Jean Houston Murph, Houston Lee, and John Baldwin.
Governor Daniel died of a stroke on August 25, 1988, and is interred at the family ranch in Liberty County.[24] His wife died December 14, 2002 and is buried with him.[25].....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Korth#Life_and_career
Life and career
Korth was born in September 1909 in Yorktown, ....
.....A commentary in the May, 1985 edition of Proceedings magazine exonerates Korth for any improprieties relating to the awarding of TFX.
When he was not serving in the above public or private sector capacities, Fred Korth was a lawyer in private practice. One of his better known cases[4] was a small one heard June 24, 1948 in the County of Tarrant, Texas, when his client, Edwin A. Ekdahl, was officially divorced from Marguerite Frances Claverie Ekdahl (also known as Marguerite Oswald), whose son from a previous marriage was Lee Harvey Oswald.[5] Following the end of Korth's first marriage in 1964, he began a romantic relationship with heiress and socialite Marjorie Merriweather Post, daughter of breakfast-cereal magnate C. W. Post, twenty years his senior. He was a co-executor of Post's will. Part of her estate was her mansion on Palm Beach Island, Mar-a-Lago, purchased in 1980 by Donald Trump.
On August 23, 1980 at Immaculate Conception Church in Washington, D.C., he wed widowed Charlotte Brooks Williams.[6][7] Korth died in September 1998 in El Paso, Texas and buried under a three century old Texas Live Oak tree on his ranch in Karnes County, Texas.[8]
His stepdaughter, Melissa Williams O'Rourke, is the mother of former U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke.[9]...
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
....
Mr. RANKIN. Where did he find work at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course, if I had been told now I would have remembered it because I have learned some English but at that time I didn't know, but Lee told me that it wasn't far from Mercedes Street where we lived, and it was really common labor connected with some kind of metal work, something for buildings.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever say whether he enjoyed that work?
Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't like it.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall how long he stayed at that job?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know but it seemed to me that he worked there for about 3 or 4 months. Perhaps longer. Dates are one of my problems.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he left that job voluntarily or was discharged?
Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that he had been discharged but I don't know why.
Mr. RANKIN. When you left the mother-in-law's house where did you go?
Mrs. OSWALD. I have already said that we moved to Mercedes Street....
.....
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how much he looked for jobs before he found one then?
Mrs. OSWALD. He looked for work for some time but he could not find it and then some Russian friends of ours helped him find some work in Dallas.
Mr. RANKIN. How long was he out of work?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems to me it was about 2 weeks; hard to remember, perhaps that long.
Mr. RANKIN. Where did he find work in Dallas, do you remember the name?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know it was some kind of a printing company which prepares photographs for newspapers.
Mr. RANKIN. Was he working with the photographic department of that company?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Was he an apprentice in that work trying to learn it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, at first he was an apprentice and later he worked.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what his income was when he was working for the welding company?
New York Magazine - 22 Oct. 1975 (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ZugCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=hale+shotgun+inquest+connally&source=bl&ots=ax0Gxhjllw&sig=ACfU3U3iS0dM5waXf2vo7s1R7J-eyYmWFw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hale%20shotgun%20inquest%20connally&f=true)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ConnallyHale1959CoronerNYmagazine102275.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HaleLesleyWelding.jpg)(http://jfkforum.com/images/Hale1959.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HaleExnerPg4.jpg)
Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was about $200 a month, I don't know. I know it was a dollar and a quarter an hour.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he work much overtime at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not too much but sometimes he did work Saturdays.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall how much he received as pay at the printing company?
Mrs. OSWALD. A dollar forty an hour.
Mr. RANKIN. How many hours did he work a week, do you recall?
Mrs. OSWALD. He usually worked until 5 p.m. But sometimes he worked later, and on Saturdays, too.
Mr. RANKIN. The ordinary work week at that time was the 5-day week then, and the Saturdays would be an overtime period?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Who were the Russian friends who helped your husband find this job in Dallas?
Mrs. OSWALD. George Bouhe.QuoteIs it remarkable that W. Brainerd Spencer attended Hill School with CIA's Phill Strong and was his Princeton roommate for two years
and seven years later was best man in the wedding of future southeast U.S. chief of CIA's DCS, William P. Burke?
Burke's wife was a bridesmaid in the 1917 Napoleonville, LA wedding of her uncle, Willoughby Kittredge. Willoughby married the aunt of Harry Souchon, also a member of that wedding party.
Souchon shows up again in the 1931 wedding party of George W. Dodge, a member of a small group of Princeton performers called Triangle Club. Dodge's best man was John S. Coxe, also a Triangle performer, along with Herbert Seay. Coxe and Seay were also in the Glee Club, along wuth Seay's Princeton roommate, Tilbury O. "Buck" Freemam.
Freeman married for life in 1935. His bride was George Bouhe's sister. According to SSA death record George Bouhe died in 1981 in the town the Freemans resided in, Plainfield, NJ.
The most prominent member of Triangle in late 1927 when the small group toured 19 cities with their production of a show titled, "Napoleon Passes", was fellow member of Dodge's, Seay's, and Freeman's class of 1929 was Squiirrel Ashcraft, William Burke's and Lloyd Ray's longtime boss at CIA DCS.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000621349.pdf
Approved for release 09/23/2009 ,,,,Quotehttps://paw.princeton.edu/memorial/tilbury-ogers-freeman-’29
Memorial Tilbury Ogers Freeman ’29
BUCK DIED Apr. 11, 1991. He had prepared at Irving and Horace Mann Schools, New York Military Academy, and Barnard. At Princeton he was in the Glee Club and belonged to Gateway Club, Bert Seay was his roommate. Upon graduation he went to the National Acceptance Bank of New York, which later merged with the Bank of Manhattan. In 1942 he went to Hamilton Standard Propellers in Hartford. After participating in various business enterprises, he sold his interest in a booming firm and started traveling. His hobby continued to be music, and he served as president of the Plainfield Mendelssohn Glee Club, and was a soloist both there and in the Grace Episcopal Choir. In 1934 he married Irena Alexandrovna Bouche, and she survives, together with a son, Tilbury O. Jr. Buck's brother Herbert C. '38 is deceased, The Class extends its sympathy to Buck's family.
The Class of 1929
Mr. RANKIN. Did this friend and other Russian friends visit you at Mercedes Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. When we lived at Fort Worth we became acquainted with Peter Gregory, he is a Russian, he lives in Fort Worth and through him we became acquainted with others.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us insofar as you recall, the friends that you knew in Fort Worth?
Mrs. OSWALD. Our first acquaintance was Gregory. Through him I met Gali Clark, Mrs. Elena Hall. That is all in Fort Worth. And then we met George Bouhe in Dallas, and Anna Meller, and Anna Ray and Katya Ford.
Mr. RANKIN. By your answer do you mean that some of those people you met in Dallas and some in Fort Worth?.....
https://paw.princeton.edu/memorial/jack-k-howe-’30
JACK HOWE, a 1930s premier jazz musician, died Oct. 11, 1992, in Chapin, S.C., after a long illness. Jack prepared at Chicago Latin School. At Princeton, he was coxswain of the freshman crew and was a member of Tiger Inn and Triangle Club. Jack is best remembered, however, as the leader of the Sons of Bix, an orchestra which he formed and in which he played the saxophone and clarinet. This group continued after graduation and played at many of our major reunions.
Most of Jack's business life was involved in the management of several manufacturing concerns. During WWII, he spent four years in Washington helping break Japanese codes. After the war, he helped establish the C.I.A. office in Chicago. Jack retired from business at age 80. He devoted much of his later life to teaching young people to play Dixieland jazz and was responsible for the formation of the Youth Music Foundation.
Jack is survived by his widow, Mary Lou; a son, Jackson '69; and two grandchildren. To them we extend our deepest sympathy on the loss of this friend who provided us with so many pleasant hours on the dance floor.
The Class of 1930
William Rappaport Says:
2009-04-23 14:26:05
I was one of the very fortunate young musicians who was lucky enough to cross paths with Jack Howe. I met him when I was at Evanston Township High School in about 1964. He introduced me to great musicians like Peanuts Hucko, and through recordings, to Bobby Hackett and Jack Teagarden. He taught me how to play Dixieland jazz in the best possible way and gave me something I have enjoyed all my life since then. He was an ideal teacher, both supportive and honest. I now play in the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, and from time to time several of us from the orchestra will play Dixieland jazz for a Young People's Concert. He gave me support and appreciation for my music at a time when I really needed it and I will always be grateful for that. I remember him with love. William (Billy, as he knew me) Rappaport
Doug James ’62 Says:
2015-12-03 15:48:20
I was fortunate enough to play with and record the Princeton Bix Festival band for many class 50th reunions from the late ’70s to about 1990. Jack put the band together. It included original members of the Triangle Club Jazz Band (1920s-1930s, in which Jimmy Stewart ’32 was an early vocalist), "Squirrel" Ashcraft ’29 and Bill Priestley ’29, as well as Ron Hockett ’69 on clarinet and myself (’62) on drums. Jack's enthusiasm and charisma inspired the band, which always included well-known jazz players from outside the Princeton world. Hopefully the recordings will remain and attest to this significant Princeton musical tradition.
https://jazzlives.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/hot-music-good-stories-lasting-friendship-kindnesses-hank-oneal-recalls-squirrel-ashcraft-nov-2-2018/
HOT MUSIC, GOOD STORIES, LASTING FRIENDSHIP, KINDNESSES: HANK O’NEAL RECALLS SQUIRREL ASHCRAFT (Nov. 2, 2018)
Posted on January 28, 2019 | 3 Comments
.....
....Paging through
Squirrel’s 1928-9 notebook, “JAZZ MUSIC,” with entries devoted to the Wolverines, Hoagy Carmichael, Benny Goodman, the Georgians, Jack Pettis, Leon Roppolo, Henderson’s adaptation of RHAPSODY IN BLUE, and more:....
....The best part of this story, just over an hour with Hank, is his obvious affection and indebtedness to Squirrel, and Squirrel’s sweet feelings for the music and musicians. Thank you, Hank, for making the reclusive Squirrel appear to us in this century.
And . . . because Hank is a wonderful writer, here’s his “little piece” on Squirrel from his book on pianists. Some of the stories you will have heard from the videos above, but they don’t wilt with a second telling:
SQUIRREL ASHCRAFT
September 20, 1905 – January 18, 1981
Edwin Maurice Ashcraft III, better known as “Squirrel”, is the least known pianist in this book, but he was by far the most important to me. It all started because of two courses I’d taken at Syracuse University; one in Russian Studies and another in African Studies. The Russian Studies course ultimately led me to be employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The African Studies course, particularly one taught by Eduardo Mondlane, who was later to lead and win the revolution in Mozambique, led me to the CIA’s Office of Operations, where Squirrel Ashcraft was the Director.......
.....World War II closed down the Monday night sessions; Squirrel was inducted in the U.S Navy, and assigned to naval intelligence. After the war, he returned to Chicago, his law practice, and the music and recording began again, this time on a crude tape recorder that used paper tape. The music didn’t last long, however, because in the late 1940s Squirrel was selected by the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency to run its Chicago field office, and the music slowed down once again. He was so good at the CIA game, he was urged to become the Director of all domestic operations in the early 1950’s.
Squirrel accepted the challenge, closed down the house in Evanston, moved to Washington, and vanished into another world, his whereabouts unknown, except to the musicians and friends with whom he kept in touch. There were no sessions at Squirrel’s massive apartment in Washington. When I arrived on the scene in 1964, his piano sounded a bit like one from a Charles Addams’ haunted house. But that was soon to change.
Suddenly there was someone around who knew his past, and even had one of those old John Steiner-issued Paramount records to prove it. I was the junior guy in the Office of Operations, but I had immediate access to the Director because of the music. This is when I learned that love of jazz of a certain sort could cross any cultural divide, regardless of age, race, or anything else....
Edwin "Squirrel" Ashcraft was head of CIA Domestic Contacts, his deputy William P. Burke, Jr. was chief of CIA Domestic Contacts Southeastern region.
George W Dodge, Princeton '29 classmate and fellow Triangle Club member of Edwin Squirrel Ashcraft, Herbert Seay, and John Coxe, was briefly first married in 1931.
Seay was roommate of George Bouhe's sister's Husband, Tilbury O. "Buck" Freeman. From Dodge's 1931 wedding announcement.:
..........
John Coxe and George Bouhe's wife's husband Freeman were both members of Princeton Glee Club. Squirrel Ashcraft was Triangle Club V.P. and credited withmoving the musical emphasis of Triangle Club
performance in 1927 to jazz. As recently as the 45th reunion of class of '29, Ashcraft was leading a jazz ensemble as reunion musical entertainment.
George W. Dodge was born n Illinois and moved with his family at a young age to Napoleonville, LA
In 1917 in Napoleonville, Willoughby Kittredge married the aunt of George W Dodge's 1931 wedding usher Harry Souchon.
In the 1917 wedding party of Kittredge and Souchon was Kittredge's niece, Frances Kittredge as a bridesmaid, a ringbearer Harry Souchon,nephew of the bride.
.....
In 1927, William P Burke, later CIA chief of the DCS office Southeast, married Frances Kittredge.
https://books.google.com/books?id=No...f+fortunate%22 (https://books.google.com/books?id=NoAJAQAAMAAJ&dq=Souchon+considered+himself+fortunate&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22considered+himself+fortunate%22)
Edmond Souchon
New Orleans Jazz Club., 1984
(https://books.google.com/books/content?id=NoAJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP7&img=1&pgis=1&dq=%22considered+himself+fortunate%22&sig=ACfU3U2JxIfcJ2XgQSeiv7pR8wPH-dTc-g&edge=0)
In the 1917 wedding party of Kittredge and Souchon was Kittredge's niece, Frances Kittredge as a bridesmaid, a ringbearer Harry Souchon,nephew of the bride.
In 1927, William P Burke, later CIA chief of the DCS office Southeast, married Frances Kittredge.
Nothing to see here, move along, folks....mere coincidence that CD Jackson was Pottstown, PA boarding school mate of William P Burke's best friend and his roommate, father of U-2, Gen. Phil Strong, or that George Bouhe's sister's husband was a Princeton classmate of Burke's boss, Squirrel Ashcraft, and both were classmates of George W. Dodge, or that Willard E. Robertson is the most neglected person of interest in producing the dramatic production AKA Jim Garrison investigation.....
Last edited by Tom Scully; 05-06-2017 at 11:52 PM.
A great example of how a dishonest contrarian tries to set forth an impossible standard of proof. Here we have a witness that describes hearing shots directly over his head including the operation of the rifle and the shell casings hitting the floor, and we are told to discount this because he didn't "see the rifle being operated." LOL. You can't make up that kind of idiocy. To compound this stupidity of course is the fact that other witnesses did see a rifle in that window at that moment, three shell casings were found by that window, and a rifle was found on that floor. What does this contrarian believe was going on to explain all this if no one was firing from that location? Who knows? Maybe Roger Collins could enlighten us as Martin seems clueless.
Kup's Chicago: A many-faceted and affectionate portrait of Chicago
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1891053752 (https://books.google.com/books?id=e2eO3nVZHDYC&pg=PT23&dq=kupcinet+hoy+cement+crown&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirk-Ck2K_jAhWBY98KHQVPD7MQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=kupcinet%20hoy%20cement%20crown&f=false)
Irv Kupcinet - 2012 -
A many-faceted and affectionate portrait of Chicago Irv Kupcinet ... Crown also surprised many Chicagoans by appointing hotelman Pat Hoy of the ShermanAmbassadors Hotel Corporation to succeed ... "I know nothing about mixing concrete.
Malcolm X: The Last Speeches - Page 1
What are the chances that both Connally and Korth were Secretaries of the Navy, and each had daughters that committed suicide with a 20 gauge....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
....strange, very strange...
- Antti Hynonen Posted April 13, 2006
Comparison of contact shotgun wounds of the head produced by ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7595324
by RC Harruff - 1995 - Cited by 38 - Related articles
Twelve gauge shotguns were the most common, accounting for 69% of the cases, followed by 20 gauge (18%), .410 caliber (10%), and 16 gauge (3%). ... Brain Injuries/pathology; Craniocerebral Trauma/pathology*; Facial Injuries/pathology; Female ... Scalp/injuries; Scalp/pathology; Suicide; Wounds, Gunshot/pathology*
Pilgrim's Wilderness: A True Story of Faith and Madness on the ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307587835 (https://books.google.com/books?id=p8dvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=twins+hale+high+school+oswald&source=bl&ots=cInBBwxtDZ&sig=ACfU3U3KSWBJlCNS1JGbaSLkqOWj2g9OdA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwictcCWxq_jAhWYG80KHVxzBNsQ6AEwD3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=twins%20hale%20high%20school%20oswald&f=false)
Tom Kizzia - 2014 - Family & Relationships
the ties to John Connally, General Dynamics, and J. Edgar Hoover, and the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald attended the same high school as the Hale twins before dropping out to join the Marines....
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55067&relPageId=48
13. Reel 17, Folder U - ROBERT EDWARD WEBSTER., pg 48
Found in: HSCA Segregated CIA Collection (microfilm - reel 17: Ruiz - Webster)
FNU Webster, the Ra employee who defected in Moscow, had written several letters to his father io the US stating that he wanted to come home.
Webster did not go into detail but said that be would be interested in coming back o the _ES. ))a. rt.
Accost panying him on the trip will be Dan Moore formerly of OSS, and amw~li. y :. 10-low of Drew Pearson. Moore is a resident of.
Law Clerks - The Papers of Justice Tom C. Clark - Tarlton Law Library ...
https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/clark/clerks
Apr 25, 2019 - 1956-57, Harry L. Hobson; John J. Crown, 1966-67, …..
Here we have a witness that describes hearing shots directly over his head including the operation of the rifle and the shell casings hitting the floor, and we are told to discount this because he didn't "see the rifle being operated."
Talk about real dishonesty! Nobody told you to discount anything. The argument is a fairly simple one; Norman did not see anything. He only heard things and thought what it could have been.
the fact that other witnesses did see a rifle in that window at that moment
Who exactly saw the rifle in that window when the shots were being fired?
three shell casings were found by that window, and a rifle was found on that floor.
Indeed, and it was never established that those shells and/or the rifle were actually fired that day.
Martin seems clueless
Says America's greatest "legal mind", mr Richard "know it all" Smith...... :D
You aren't discounting it? Then what do you call this kind of nonsense "he only heard things"? Yes, like BANG, BANG, BANG. LOL. I missed the part where you explained what you thought he heard if it wasn't someone firing a rifle. For example, what were those loud bangs coming from directly over his head?
Norman confirmed that shots were fired above his head.
He was on the 5th floor of a building with seven floors. That means there were two floors above his head. The 7th floor windows are closed at the time of the assassination. The only 6th floor window that is open above his head is the SN window.
Three fired bullet casings were found by that window. Witnesses saw a rifle in that window. Does that narrow it down? If there were any doubt, the secret service staged a recreation in which Norman confirmed that the operation of a rifle with the bullet casings hitting the floor from the SN location were the same sounds he heard on 11.22.
Norman confirmed that shots were fired above his head. He was on the 5th floor of a building with seven floors. That means there were two floors above his head. The 7th floor windows are closed at the time of the assassination. The only 6th floor window that is open above his head is the SN window. Three fired bullet casings were found by that window. Witnesses saw a rifle in that window. Does that narrow it down? If there were any doubt, the secret service staged a recreation in which Norman confirmed that the operation of a rifle with the bullet casings hitting the floor from the SN location were the same sounds he heard on 11.22.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything as to where they thought the shots came from?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, I don't recall of either one of them saying they thought where it came from.
Mr. BALL. But You did?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And you said you thought it came from where?
Mr. NORMAN. Above where we were, above us
.
Nobody is ridiculing anybody, fool!
Did Norman see the rifle being operated? NO!
He was on another floor and heard clicking sounds, so he can only have THOUGHT that it was a rifle.
I really don't want to know what goes on in that big echo chamber you call a head, but you seriously need to go and look for help because you are losing it completely.
Martin, this is not rocket science:
A) Norman told us what he heard (3 BOOMS, each accompanied in short order by 3 corresponding double clicks.
B) Brennan and Euins saw a shooter and a rifle in that window, being aimed downrange.
C) A number of others saw part of what most assuredly must have been a rifle, given the aforementioned ear & eyewitness reports.
Martin, this is not rocket science:
A) Norman told us what he heard (3 BOOMS, each accompanied in short order by 3 corresponding double clicks.
B) Brennan and Euins saw a shooter and a rifle in that window, being aimed downrange.
C) A number of others saw part of what most assuredly must have been a rifle, given the aforementioned ear & eyewitness reports.
'regardless of what Norman thought he had heard'---Martin
>>> That statement sticks in my craw. You arrogantly, like your tag-team attack-dog doppelgänger Iacoletti, continue to tell witnesses what they thought they saw, and what they really meant.
Both Norman and Euins are African-American
Both are ridiculed by you and Iacoletti.
Trying to move the goalposts again?
You objected to me saying that Norman thought what he had heard.
By now it is established, by Norman's own testimony, that I was correct.
You can now try to argue a circumstantial case to show that what Norman thought he had heard was indeed what had happened, but that still doesn't alter the basic fact that Norman never saw any of it and thus could only have thought what it was he had heard.
You can call John and I arrogant as much as you like, but in this instance I was right and you were wrong! Live with it!
Dear Weidmann,
Have you ever thought you'd seen something, but really hadn't?
Is our sense of hearing to be less trusted than our sense of sight?
Other than a rifle, what else could it have plausibly been that he thought he'd heard?
-- MWT ;)
Martin, this is not rocket science:
A) Norman told us what he heard (3 BOOMS, each accompanied in short order by 3 corresponding double clicks.
B) Brennan and Euins saw a shooter and a rifle in that window, being aimed downrange.
C) A number of others saw part of what most assuredly must have been a rifle, given the aforementioned ear & eyewitness reports.
It's hopeless. But add in the fired bullet casings found by the window, the fact that all the 7th floor windows were closed and the only open window above Norman's head is the SN window, Norman heard the operation of a rifle, and a rifle was found on the 6th floor etc. It's all just an assumption though that what he heard was shots. LOL. If a person enters a sealed room with a Big Mac, and exits without the Big Mac and no Big Mac is found in the room, we can't conclude this person ate it. We can only "assume" they did so. No logical inference from the totality of facts and evidence is ever permitted by defense attorney contrarians defending a guilty client. Of all the outrageous arguments made by these loons, the notion that someone who hears three loud noises that he identifies as shots above his head at the moment someone is shot can only be deemed his assumption that he heard the rifle fired ranks high on the list of kookery.The 3 clowns had to say they heard something from above. This is because of the last known person to be on the sixth floor, remember he was one of the clowns.
The 3 clowns had to say they heard something from above. This is because of the last known person to be on the sixth floor, remember he was one of the clowns.
No, not Ronald McDonald, and not a Big Mac. This pothead was so high he left his Dr. Pepper along with his bag of chicken bones. The pothead admits he was on the Sixth Floor, he admits it was his pop and bag of chicken bones and says no one else was present there while he ate his lunch.
So now you can use the Big Mac logic, only this clown admits the evidence was left by him. He also said he did not see Oswald, but I bet Richard will say Oswald was in one of the boxes.
The 3 clowns had to say they heard something from above. This is because of the last known person to be on the sixth floor, remember he was one of the clowns.
No, not Ronald McDonald, and not a Big Mac. This pothead was so high he left his Dr. Pepper along with his bag of chicken bones. The pothead admits he was on the Sixth Floor, he admits it was his pop and bag of chicken bones and says no one else was present there while he ate his lunch.
So now you can use the Big Mac logic, only this clown admits the evidence was left by him. He also said he did not see Oswald, but I bet Richard will say Oswald was in one of the boxes.
Actually Jack Dougherty was on the 6th floor after BRW departed the SN a few minutes before the shots.And using Richard's Big Mac logic, we would be safe to assume Jack must be who their shooter is. I only say "their" because I don't believe Connelly or Kennedy were hit by any shots from the TSBD
Martin, this is not rocket science:
A) Norman told us what he heard (3 BOOMS, each accompanied in short order by 3 corresponding double clicks.
B) Brennan and Euins saw a shooter and a rifle in that window, being aimed downrange.
C) A number of others saw part of what most assuredly must have been a rifle, given the aforementioned ear & eyewitness reports.
You can call John and I arrogant as much as you like, but in this instance I was right and you were wrong! Live with it!
Strike another argument.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do on the roof?
Mr. BAKER - I immediately went around all the sides of the ledges up there, and after I got on top I found out that a person couldn't shoot off that roof because when you stand up you have to put your hands like this, at the top of that ledge and if you wanted to see over you would have to tiptoe to see over it.
No, not Ronald McDonald, and not a Big Mac. This pothead was so high he left his Dr. Pepper along with his bag of chicken bones. The pothead admits he was on the Sixth Floor, he admits it was his pop and bag of chicken bones and says no one else was present there while he ate his lunch.
Actually Jack Dougherty was on the 6th floor after BRW departed the SN a few minutes before the shots.He said he went to the 6th floor AFTER the shots were fired. He said he was on the fifth floor at the time that he heard shots fired. Neither Jarman, Norman or Williams mentioned seeing him there.
Dougherty is all over the place with regard to time.
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute---did you go to lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I went back downstairs to eat lunch---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, it was 12 o'clock.
. . .
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute---did you hear the shots before or after you had your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Before---before I ate my lunch.
Mr. BALL - You heard shots before you ate your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let's see---yes, I believe I did.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=781
4. Commission Document 87 - Secret Service report of 08 Jan 1964 re: Oswald, pg 781
Found in: Warren Commission Documents
Truly furnished the information 'that, although Dougherty is a very good employee and a hard worker, he is mentally retarded and has difficulty in remembering
You are making me hungry but not making any sense. You seem to imply that Norman was forced to lie about hearing the shots above his head. Presumably by the nefarious fantasy conspirators (perhaps including the Hamburglar) but then you rely on him to claim Oswald was not on the 6th floor. If Norman was under duress to lie in order to implicate Oswald in the grand plot, then why can't your fantasy conspirators also get him to confirm that old Ozzie was hanging around on that floor and/or looking mighty anxious around lunch time?
Not directed at John Iacoletti who works harder here than any other poster to actually hold posters to accountability for their actually unsupported assumptions and opinions.
WCR defenders deviate from the deliberations resulting in the WCR, taking advantage by citing Dougherty because the WC did not disclose in the WCR for privacy grounds the ample evidence Dougherty was mentally retarded to the point of confusion. I presented proof he repaired furniture at Goodwill Industries immediately before Truly hired him at TSBD.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDougherty1952GoodwillCRP.jpg)
Instead of pursuing his military record his own father told the FBI resulted in his early discharge, in wartime, as a result of mental and emotional impairment, the WCR defenders repeatedly emphasize Dougherty's assigned TSBD responsibilities associated with the heating and fire sprinkler systems. Those assignments are lacking specifics compared to what his boss Truly and his own father described about Jack's limitations.
Impairment disclosed in WCR:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136&relPageId=638
Winning an argument at the expense of the apparent truth is the actual point. Amost all posters here are habitually unresponsive to new, well supported research in favor of rehashing ad infinitum the SoS gray with age that so far has resolved nothing. If it ain't a 55 year old dead end,why even indicate the slighted interest in well supported new research?
Back to originally scheduled diversion.
And using Richard's Big Mac logic, we would be safe to assume Jack must be who their shooter is. I only say "their" because I don't believe Connelly or Kennedy were hit by any shots from the TSBD
It's the logic part that seems to be your issue. Did they find Dougherty's rifle on the 6th floor? Did they find fired bullet casings from his rifle by the window? Did they find his prints on the SN boxes and bag? Did he flee the building, get his pistol, shoot a police officer, and resist arrest? Can you see how he is distinguishable from Oswald when you look to the totality of the facts.
The first problem would be for the jury to believe that any of the so-called witnesses would be able to tell the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth . The only thing that was for sure was the fact that JFK had been murdered . As Carlos Hathcock said , we tried to duplicate the feat that LHO was supposed to have pulled off and we could not do it ! Of course it was the classic case of killing the so-called assassin of JFK before he could talk . How many more witnesses would have been murdered if LHO would have made it to trial . To defend Oswald would have taken a lawyer who was willing to take the heat all the way until the end of the trial and of course for the jury to be able to not give in to the threats . I would defend LHO with the facts in the case that would prove that Oswald could not shoot JFK from the break room and could not have shot Tippit from the Texas Theater. A person can't be in two different places at the same time . Two magic shots in one day ! I don't think so ! And how about that blasted out hole in the back of JFK's head !
It's the logic part that seems to be your issue. Did they find Dougherty's rifle on the 6th floor? Did they find fired bullet casings from his rifle by the window? Did they find his prints on the SN boxes and bag? Did he flee the building, get his pistol, shoot a police officer, and resist arrest? Can you see how he is distinguishable from Oswald when you look to the totality of the facts.
Trying to move the goalposts again?
You objected to me saying that Norman thought what he had heard.
By now it is established, by Norman's own testimony, that I was correct.
You can now try to argue a circumstantial case to show that what Norman thought he had heard was indeed what had happened, but that still doesn't alter the basic fact that Norman never saw any of it and thus could only have thought what it was he had heard.
You can call John and I arrogant as much as you like, but in this instance I was right and you were wrong! Live with it!
I don't have to see somebody shooting a gun on the floor above me to know that somebody is shooting a gun on the floor above me. Add in click>>click and what I, with high confidence, would hear as spent shells hitting the floor after each 'boom'.Bill your right and you just showed no one needs to see the second shooter because we have that evidence on the dictabelt recording. Good work Bill
Tell us what else might have caused that particular series of sounds in the particular circumstance, Sherlock.
Bill your right and you just showed no one needs to see the second shooter because we have that evidence on the dictabelt recording. Good work Bill
Of course, you wouldn't need to see somebody shooting a gun, but to say it as if you have experienced a situation comparable is disingenuous. When were you in a building where you heard click and boom? If you were, did you think "hey, that sounds like someone just shot a gun from one story above, there must be a motorcade outside"
I don't have to see somebody shooting a gun on the floor above me to know that somebody is shooting a gun on the floor above me. Add in click>>click and what I, with high confidence, would hear as spent shells hitting the floor after each 'boom'.
Tell us what else might have caused that particular series of sounds in the particular circumstance, Sherlock.
The problem is that those are not facts about Oswald either.
Well Watson, you are wrong again, as usual....
I don't give a damn about what you call "high confidence"... the bottom line is that Norman only heard sounds (of shots being fired and possibly shells dropping) but he did not see where the shots came from. He merely THOUGHT they came from above him....
I'm not going to let you go to the usual "give us an alternative" crap, when it is painfully obvious that Norman only heard some sounds and thought they were shots coming from above. It's beyond silly for you to keep fighting my use of the word "thought", even if - as you claim - Norman was right in what the thought, the fact still remains that Norman did not see anything and from what he heard he reached a conclusion.....
My use of the word "thought" was and is correct and you are making a complete fool of yourself trying to fight it.
Btw, if there had been a trial do you think Norman would be a witness for the prosecution?
Mr. BALL. Was there more noise or less noise on the day you conducted the experiment last Friday, March 20, than on November 22, at 12:30?
Mr. NORMAN. It was more noise last Friday than it was November 22.
JohnM
Well Watson, you are wrong again, as usual....
I don't give a damn about what you call "high confidence"... the bottom line is that Norman only heard sounds (of shots being fired and possibly shells dropping) but he did not see where the shots came from. He merely THOUGHT they came from above him....
I'm not going to let you go to the usual "give us an alternative" crap, when it is painfully obvious that Norman only heard some sounds and thought they were shots coming from above. It's beyond silly for you to keep fighting my use of the word "thought", even if - as you claim - Norman was right in what the thought, the fact still remains that Norman did not see anything and from what he heard he reached a conclusion.....
My use of the word "thought" was and is correct and you are making a complete fool of yourself trying to fight it.
Btw, if there had been a trial do you think Norman would be a witness for the prosecution?
Craig Roberts alleges Hathcock said this. There's absolutely no proof he actually did so. Craig Roberts was (surprise surprise) touting his conspiracy book 'Kill Zone' at the time.Did you listen to the video? Of course not.
Were these guys better shots than Hathcock...I seriously doubt it.
Well Watson, you are wrong again, as usual....
I don't give a damn about what you call "high confidence"... the bottom line is that Norman only heard sounds (of shots being fired and possibly shells dropping) but he did not see where the shots came from. He merely THOUGHT they came from above him....
I'm not going to let you go to the usual "give us an alternative" crap, when it is painfully obvious that Norman only heard some sounds and thought they were shots coming from above. It's beyond silly for you to keep fighting my use of the word "thought", even if - as you claim - Norman was right in what the thought, the fact still remains that Norman did not see anything and from what he heard he reached a conclusion.....
My use of the word "thought" was and is correct and you are making a complete fool of yourself trying to fight it.
Btw, if there had been a trial do you think Norman would be a witness for the prosecution?
Where did Norman say he 'thought' he heard shots from above him?Brennan and Euins must have seen BRW we know he was up there plus BRW didn't see anyone else up there.
Besides, Euins and Brennan saw the shooter in that window.
They were, in effect, Norman's eyewitnesses.
Did Norman say he 'thought' he heard shots from above him? I think not.
Pretty sure he said he heard boom, click-click, and pings 3 times in close sequence.
To have heard the bolt action, and spent shells dropping, from anywhere else would be quite a stretch.
Where did Norman say he 'thought' he heard shots from above him?
Besides, Euins and Brennan saw the shooter in that window.
They were, in effect, Norman's eyewitnesses.
What I've experienced is common sense: Norman heard what was going on above him; ergo anyone with hearing ability the equal of Norman's would hear the booms/clicks/'pings'.
2. Dan says there were 11 who participated, he describes 3 of the results. So a sample of 11 and Dan gives a sub-sample. I wonder how many samples he went through before he found one guy who had a time of 5.22 seconds in a controlled environment. That time is twice as long but then again on Nov 22 1963, there was more than one shooter. Maybe Dan meant to combine the times of the 3 participants he showed.
Besides, Euins and Brennan saw the shooter in that window.
They were, in effect, Norman's eyewitnesses.
I guess Jarman and Williams just didn't have "hearing ability the equal of Norman's".
If they were all an equal distance away then you may have had a valid point.
Craig Roberts alleges Hathcock said this. There's absolutely no proof he actually did so. Craig Roberts was (surprise surprise) touting his conspiracy book 'Kill Zone' at the time.
Were these guys better shots than Hathcock...I seriously doubt it.
If Williams hadn't been standing right next to Norman, then you may have had a valid point.
He also didn't mention that in 17 of the 37 attempts, the shooters were unable to get off three shots because of difficulty operating the bolt.
Sorry, Norman who was directly underneath was still closer, try again.
Big Mac logic:
Oswald worked on the 6th floor ------you got that right
His prints were on a box where he works-----that is normal but you are surprised
BRW was thereafter Oswald but before the assassination and did not see anyone. Richard where was Oswald when BRW is eating when BRW is leaving? Is Oswald in a box or on the roof?
The Big Mac logic allows a person to make crazy assumptions, therefore, it is not a guide for proving something.
Richard, here's an example of how your Big Mac logic can give people like yourself a way to use fantasy to justify what you can not prove.
"Hey guys, maybe Oswald was invisible when BRW was eating his lunch because when you are invisible no one can see you and that would be a good explanation for why BRW was unable to see Oswald"
a) how would you know who was closer to to the actual source of the shots?
b) how much closer than the guy kneeling (happy?) right next to him?
a) how would you know who was closer to to the actual source of the shots?
b) how much closer than the guy kneeling (happy?) right next to him?
Seriously? Above Norman there is one open window, do the math.
I didn't say "equal", you did.
No, you said "equal" and I didn't. Oops!
I guess Jarman and Williams just didn't have "hearing ability the equal of Norman's".
Laughable. If it was "normal" for employee prints to be on the SN boxes, then where are the prints of other employees?
So unlucky for Oswald to be implicated over and over again by bad luck!
You also forgot a couple of things Hamburglar. Oswald's prints are on the long bag as well.
And his rifle is found on that floor.
And Oswald fled the scene
not even bothering to ask what was going on after a cop pulled a gun on him.
And he got his pistol and shot a police officer.
Lied about owning a rifle and carrying any bag along the one described by Frazier. And on and on. It's a slam dunk.
Oops, indeed! LOL!
If they were all an equal distance away then you may have had a valid point.
I didn't say "equal", you did.
As discussed many times before, by the form of mislogic the brothers contrarian apply to this case, no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln.
No one has to see a murderer pull the trigger to know that he did so. Many murders are, for understandable reasons from the perspective of the murderer, not committed in the presence of witnesses. And yet they are solved.
To suggest that because no one saw Oswald pull the trigger that there is somehow doubt that he did so or that shots were fired from that window when a variety of witnesses place a shooter there
and the physical evidence discovered on that floor verifies it is outlandish kookery.
Even the most desperate defense attorney who knows he has a stone cold guilty client would blush at that bogus defense. And, of course, there is no attempt to explain the noises above Norman's head if he didn't hear shots. The best we are left to ponder by implication is that for some inexplicable reason some unknown person stuck a "pipe" like object out the window at the moment of the assassination and presumably beat a base drum before escaping unnoticed. And a variety of other unknown persons pulled off the assassination and planted all the evidence to frame Oswald. It is truly wacky, tin foil hat nonsense.
Do you need a lesson in what quotation marks mean?
P.S. Oops again!
I guess Jarman and Williams just didn't have "hearing ability the equal of Norman's".JohnM
You mean that bag that both Frazier and Randle said was not the bag they saw? You mean that bag that showed no evidence of a rifle ever being in it? That bag that doesn't show up in any crime scene photos? That bag that the first 6 law enforcement officers in the "sniper's nest" didn't see? That bag that the police couldn't even agree on where it was located and how it was folded?
That bag?
The bag that perfectly fitted the broken down rifle
had Oswald's prints
and was found in the Depository.
As usual you're not making any sense, they're my quotation marks because I was quoting you.
And you know this rifle was ever "broken down"....how, exactly?
Let's see 'em. Oops, destroyed by silver nitrate. Damn the luck.
Perhaps you can point it out.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49609/m1/1/med_res_d/)
And you know this rifle was ever "broken down"....how, exactly?
Let's see 'em. Oops, destroyed by silver nitrate. Damn the luck.
Perhaps you can point it out.
And I was quoting Chapman. So who's not making sense?
The rifle can be broken down and can be reassembled.
The prints that were recovered from the bag were from Oswald.
I didn't say they captured a photo of the bag in the sniper's nest, I said that a bag was found in the Depository and that bag was long enough and wide enough for C2766 and this bag had Oswald's prints.
No, Chapman said anyone of equal hearing in precisely the same place would hear the same sounds and you dishonestly tried to use Chapmans words and apply them to Williams and Jarman.
But how do you know it was?
Of course they were.
...and your point is ?
But how do you know it was?
Of course they were.
...and your point is ?
Brilliant. Except Chapman never said "in precisely the same place". So who's the one being dishonest?
Williams vacated the SN a few minutes before the shooting. He was photographed on the 5th floor in reaction to the shots by Dillard. Edwards and Fisher both saw a white man in the SN just before the motorcade arrived. With window open a significant way according to them. Did the assassin lower it just as the motorcade turned onto Houston? Analysis of the Hughes and Branson films might indicate a change in position consistent with Fisher and Edwards recollection.Unfortunately, Fisher and Edwards should have been drug tested.
I guess Jarman and Williams just didn't have "hearing ability the equal of Norman's".
Unfortunately, Fisher and Edwards should have been drug tested.
FISHER'S STATEMENT
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Robert E. (Bob) Edwards, we were standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, on the southwest corner; about thirty seconds before the motorcade came by, Bob turned to me and said that there was a man on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the window there, and I looked up and saw the man. I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].
I turned away and by that time the motorcade rounded the corner. And then I heard what I thought was [sic] three shots, and the motorcade was about where that Stemmons Freeway sign is there.
I do remember one peculair [sic] thing happened just at the time I saw the man up there. There was a girl walked in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a rather tall girl, and she looked to me like she might be an employee in that building. She was walking in while everyone else had been coming out.
EDWARD'S STATEMENT
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Ronald Fischer, and we were on the corner at Elm and Houston, and I happened to look up there at the building, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody. I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.
The motorcade rounded the corner about this time, and then I thought I heard four shots, but it never occurred to us what it was. The shots seemed to come from that building there.
The problem with these guys is Fisher says Edwards suggested to look at 5th story window. Fisher then does and describes "I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed"
Only for Edward's to describe something completely different " I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody."
Fisher thinks the man is laying down
Edwards thinks the man is trying to hide behind boxes
What is there to make of those two descriptions???
And I'm talking about Norman's position, not that of Jarman or BRW
"In court how would you defend Oswald?"
Demand the autopsy materials be allowed in court.
Have the autopsy doctors explain in court their conclusions illustrated by the autopsy photos. (Assuming the autopsy photos of the inside of JFK's right lung, that would have shown the direction and path of the bullet that allegedly went through his neck, and the photo of the inside of the skull, after the brain was removed. that showed the wound near the EOP, were still amongst the autopsy materials.) Those photos are no longer in the archives.
"In court how would you defend Oswald?"
I would have JBC and his wife testify in front of the jury that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
"In court how would you defend Oswald?"
Brennan would need to explain to a jury why his affidavit from 11/22/63 stated he could identify the person he allegedly saw fire from the
6th floor, yet he was unable to pick LHO from a police line up later that afternoon.
Absolutely, not long after Weidmann first started posting both Bill and I independently made posts accusing Weidmann of being Roger Collins, so I gathered all the evidence from Bill, others and myself and made a Poll Thread. The Poll results were dramatically in favour of Weidmann either being Collins or Weidy used a dozen Collins posts as an exact template for his own.
JohnM
As I have stated previously, I think that the three had a conversation before Williams departed the TSBD that was designed to protect him.
I believe BRW saw the assassin too. Just trying to work out a senario that was non-threatening enough for him to vacate his position but take up one a floor lower. Might he have seen Jarman and Norman heading back? Remember though he was not particularly close to those two.
Frazier said to Tom Meros that Oswald was so far ahead of him by the time he entered the annex (not the building) that he couldn't tell whether he was still carrying the package or not. So, the evidence that Oswald carried ANYTHING into the TSBD? Big fat squat.
A vast majority of people say a lot of things. You are not saying you are influenced by popularity contests? You also have seen the film of many more people running up the grassy knoll or am I confusing that with a film of NO people running up the street to a building that deals with school books or something???
You also have seen the film of many more people running up the grassy knoll...
or am I confusing that with a film of NO people running up the street to a building that deals with school books or something???
Here is a photo not long after the assassination, where did the running people come from?
(http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/bond1.jpg)
A little bit later we see a cop running towards the railway overpass but we still see NO one running up the knoll, where are they?
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MX8C2Kb/after-assassination.jpg)
The motorbike cop we saw running towards the railway was followed by the first witnesses and this is NO where near the popular grassy knoll assassin positions?
(https://i2.wp.com/jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-30-at-5.48.50-PM.png?ssl=1)
Here is more people starting to gather, some seem to be moving towards the cop at the railway overpass and still NO one is running up the Knoll steps, where did they come from?
(http://goochinfo.homestead.com/files/dealey_plaza_aftermath.jpg)
So in conclusion it's obvious that people moved to this end of Elm street because this is where the President was shot and the people who were later running up the steps were not initially that close.
JohnM
Seriously, "Richard"? Not only was one of the prints unidentified, but Truly refused to allow all the employees to be fingerprinted.
The above doesn't lend itself to subscribing to this (below):
So Bonnie Ray Williams was not particularly close to Junior Jarman and Harold Norman, yet Jarman and Norman have a conversation with Williams designed to "protect" Williams from something related to the murder of the President of the United States of America. That's difficult to get on board with.
In 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.
The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from above and behind.
The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from behind.
The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck from behind.
John Connally heard the first. He knew for a fact that he was not hit by this shot. He mistakenly assumed that the President was hit by this shot.
John Connally knew he was hit by the next shot. He knew that the President was hit in the head by the final shot. He knew that the President was hit only twice. Since he mistakenly assumed that the President was hit by the first shot, he also mistakenly assumed that this second shot (which did hit him) did not hit the President.
The Zapruder film verifies that these two men were NOT hit by separate shots.
Straw man. Howard Brennan would not be called by the Prosecution.
Do you mean film of many people running up the knoll AFTER every single vehicle in the motorcade has passed through? How much time do you believe passed between the last shot and "many more people running up the grassy knoll"?
Marrion Baker is seen on film immediately running towards the front entrance of the building that deals with school books.
The Zapruder film gets interpreted to show whatever pet theory the proponent needs it to show.
John Connally's wife, Nellie, was sitting next to him in the Limo. She testified she heard the sound, saw JFK react to being hit before JBC was hit by and reacted to the second shot.
Figure out how to engage your peripheral vision and you'll find that JFK/LBJ react simultaneously to the twofer.What does that mean?
The above doesn't lend itself to subscribing to this (below):
So Bonnie Ray Williams was not particularly close to Junior Jarman and Harold Norman, yet Jarman and Norman have a conversation with Williams designed to "protect" Williams from something related to the murder of the President of the United States of America. That's difficult to get on board with.
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
Oh My GodWow, next you'll be saying the whole Hunt family was there too.
Have you found
The Mastermind
E. Howard Hunt ...
... dressed up like a spy?
What, pray tell?
-- MWT ;)
Wow, next you'll be saying the whole Hunt family was there too.
Tom, was your daddy, uncle, auntie, brother or any other relative in the CIA. It wouldn't surprise me, for two reasons. You defend the CIA like a kid whose favorite pro team is the Detroit Lions, maybe your one of Henry Ford's great-great-grandsons(daughters) The second reason is you just can't help yourself, every time you interject it is accompanied by CIA related talk. How would that help you? Well, like I just said, you just can't help yourself
Dear Peter,
Don't stereotypical CTers like Oliver Stone and James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio often talk about the "evil, evil, evil CIA" practically in the same breath as "those nice Ruskies would never even think of doing [fill in the blank]"?
Or am I the only one who talks a lot about that evil agency?
The CIA, that is.
.....
LOL
-- MWT ;)
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/trump-mueller-differ-on-whether-mueller-sought-fbi-job/969763858
Trump, Mueller differ on whether Mueller sought FBI job
Pence spokeswoman Alyssa Farah told The Associated Press that the vice president "was present in the Oval Office when Robert Mueller ...
Joseph Farah - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah
Children, Alyssa Farah. Joseph Francis Farah (born July 6, 1954) is an American author, journalist and editor-in-chief of ...QuoteBIRTHDAY OF THE DAY: Alyssa Farah, press secretary for Vice ...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/15/alyssa-farah-birthday-1365845
Jun 15, 2019 - Farah will be celebrating her 30th birthday.....How is the Trump presidency going? “That’s an easy one. Absolutely — the most stark example of the success of President Trump’s presidency to me personally is our near 50-year low in unemployment.....
I am confused.... are you saying I should not set my watch after asking "Jumbo vlad Duh" for the time of day?
Yes, sir.
Twenty generations back, at least.
Btw, have you read ...
Aw, never mind.
-- MWT ;)
Dear Peter,Thank you for confirming the fact that you can't help yourself. You are right back at it
Don't stereotypical CTers like Oliver Stone and James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio often talk about the "evil, evil, evil CIA" practically in the same breath as "those nice Ruskies would never even think of doing [fill in the blank]"?
Or am I the only one who talks a lot about that evil agency?
The CIA, that is.
Question: When's the last time you said anything about the KGB?
"I can't remember, Tommy, because it obviously didn't have anything to do with with the assassination of JFK. Heck, Yuri Nosenko even said as much! And he was a true defector, just like Christopher Andrew, Oleg Gordievsky, Oleg Kaugin, and George 'Reverse Midas Touch' Kisevalter say!" ?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
By golly, Tom.More proof that Thomas Graves can not help himself. LSD =CIA promoting and testing on those willing and unwilling to use it
I think you've proved it yet again.
LSD is not to be taken lightly.
-- MWT ;)
More proof that Thomas Graves can not help himself. LSD =CIA promoting and testing on those willing and unwilling to use it
Off Topic
Why do you refuse to debate me vis a vis Tenant Bagley?
Why did you scamper off like a little whipped pup with his tail between his legs?
Whatever, you had your chance to have your day in he sun, and you reneged.
In 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.
The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from above and behind.
The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from behind.
The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck from behind.
Dear Peter,You make the CIA look worse because you just can't help yourself
You've hit the nail right on the head, dog gone it.
But how about the other hangnail, "Byetkov (sp?)"?
Do me a favor, Peter, and ask Bill Simpich about him.
Why was he so problematic for that evil, evil, evil James Jesus Angleton?
Did June Cobb recruit him?
Ivan Obyedkov, that is?
And if not until July or so 1964, what's the problem as far as the assassination was concerned?
Did JJA take too much of the Owsley stuff, and screw up on the dates (no pun intended)?
Fried minds want to know!
-- MWT ;)
You make the CIA look worse because you just can't help yourself
I'm just doing what my handler told me to do, Peter.Not too bad, the slow retreat
"Okay, let's try a little reverse psychology on 'em, see how THAT works."
-- MWT ;)
Not too bad, the slow retreat
Uh-huhYou are almost there. Close your eyes
Just for giggles.....is this supposed to be a jury trial? Are we able to use all known information revealed today, or limited to 1964?
Colin,
Do you mean, for example, that we now know the KGB "interviewed" Oswald at least twice in Moscow, and God knows how many times in Minsk?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
"But, but, but Tommy, those weren't formal, sit-down interviews in Belarus, just ... social interactions! And so what if Lee just happened to fall in love with a good-lookin' Saint Pete honeytrap artist who could understand English a dang spot better'n she let on!"
The questions were clear I believe. Will wait for JohnM to respond as he initiated the proposition.
Dear Colin,
Well, did you know those things before ... now?
(Very few people do, so don't feel bad.)
-- MWT ;)
PS People have different beliefs, don't they?
You believe that your question was clear, for example.
Trying to have a discussion or debate, with Thomas Graves around, is like trying type while there is a needy, attention-seeking cat that insists on sitting on your keyboard. Of course the keyboard is of no interest to the cat the moment you walk away from the keyboard.
Yes, you're absolutely right. I've finished with the guy, his 'superior' attitude sucks. Why does he think he's something special?
Thomas, being [sic] that you did some time [sic] in law school, supposedly, how would you defend Oswald?
I posted something near the beginning of the thread, Michael.What happened? I successfully got you down to one-word responses, but only a few hours later, you are talking nonsense again.
But, just off the top of my head, I'd tell him to confess and keep his fingers crossed.
-- MWT ;)
PS Supposedly?
Like, supposedly I saw Chuck Berry give a live outdoor concert in Brno, Czech Republic, in 1996 (which you "jokingly" accused me of lying about, right after you'd joined Jumbo Duh's Big Top Circus a couple of years ago)?
(https://www.covertbookreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/image1.jpg)
Bill Brown are you allergic to this lovely photo. Maybe you and Mytton get your info by way of horseback
Thumb1:
Since when was any CTer question ever clear...
Gee Bill, how can every post of yours be better than the next one?
>>> There you go again. Translation, please.
I wonder whether that is as clear to you as it is to most of us.
>>> (See above)
You missed the point entirely.I wish you understood how silly your suggestion is. You and Mytton fail to keep up with reality and somehow find a way to get lost. If "immediately" means getting run over crossing the street, maybe you could give a live demonstration to show what you are talking about. Like the people you see running towards the knoll, next, you'll say they were intending to climb a tree, right?
The rush across the street and up the knoll didn't occur immediately (as correctly pointed out by John Mytton). The photo you posted was taken well after every single vehicle in the motorcade disappeared (including the press bus at the end of the procession) and was well on it's way to Parkland.
Understand now?
Thanks for the proof with alacrity.
Translation, please.You don't need one, you are just bored
Translation, please.
I wish you understood how silly your suggestion is. You and Mytton fail to keep up with reality and somehow find a way to get lost. If "immediately" means getting run over crossing the street, maybe you could give a live demonstration to show what you are talking about. Like the people you see running towards the knoll, next, you'll say they were intending to climb a tree, right?
Bill Brown are you allergic to this lovely photo. Maybe you and Mytton get your info by way of horseback
(https://www.covertbookreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/image1.jpg)
Hahaha, in your first wave all I see is mostly a bunch of women who were going to hit the gunman/gunmen with their handbags? LOL!
Look closely at the whole picture and we see some people running to get off the road, some people standing about and some people in the distance who are just walking or standing, not particularly compelling.
A better representation of people running up the stairs is the following Bell Film but because of the edit we don't know exactly how long after the shots these people were running or why?
Here's panoramas of both Nix and Zapruder and there is hardly anyone this far down Elm street so where were the people who ran up the knoll and what did they see and/or hear?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GmjLDBjY/panorama-nix-zapruder-antdavision.jpg)
JohnM
Holland says there were 40 to 50 people searching behind the fence within 15 minutes.
Within 3 to 5 minutes after the shots the area behind the fence was sealed off by about 50 policemen. - Lee Bowers
What are you talking about?His shows what the other photo shows. Let me guess how many times you've been wrong... all of them. You've never been right. Nice batting average
Look, this is real simple.
There was no immediate rush to the knoll. The images posted by John Mytton show that. What don't you understand?
Straw man
"Holland says there were 40 to 50 people searching behind the fence within 15 minutes."
Straw man.
"Within 3 to 5 minutes after the shots the area behind the fence was sealed off by about 50 policemen." - Lee Bowers
An interesting interview here with Fisher......starts @42.40
"Frazier said to Tom Meros" LOL
"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm." -- Buell Wesley Frazier (affidavit, 11/22/63)
No.
Every employee who had cause to handle the boxes found in the sniper's nest was indeed fingerprinted.
Frazier said to Mary Rattan LOL.
But note that he didn't say he saw the package under Oswald's arm at that time. He merely assumed it, because it was under Oswald's arm when he walked away from the car. Of course, none of this has anything to do with Oswald entering the TSBD building itself.
Do you think it's reasonable to demand that Frazier, in order to be credible regarding his witnessing Oswald's carrying the package into the TSBD, state, "... and I could see with my very own 20/20 eyeballs that Oswald hadn't jettisoned or hidden the package of curtain rods somewhere in front of me in the parking lot, but was STILL carrying that package of curtain rods when he entered the TSBD"?
No need. Frazier was quite clear when he spoke to Tom Meros.
Tom Meros: And when he walked on ahead of you could you even see the package?
Buell Frazier: No
Tom Meros: Unless you knew it was there, you wouldn't know what to look for. You wouldn't even know that he had a package in his hand.
Buell Frazier: That is correct.
If Oswald had jettisoned or hid his package while walking through that part of the parking lot, don't you think Frazier would have noticed his doing so?
No, he was watching them switch the train cars.
So, are you saying that Oswald did jettison or hide his curtain rods (or broken-down rifle) in the part of the parking lot he and Frazier walked through?
If so, why would Oswald do that?
Or rephrased, why do you think the evil, evil, evil CIA would have Oswald do that, or ... gasp ... have Frazier "make the whole thing up"?
I'm saying just what I said. That Frazier didn't see Oswald carry a package into the building (or even the annex). Nobody did.
1) Did the package ever exist?
If so, what happened to it? Was it left in Frazier's car? Hidden under a car in the parking lot?
2) Could the fact that Frazier "didn't see Oswald carry the package into the building" be attributed to the possibility that Oswald was walking some distance ahead of Frazier, that Oswald was holding the package somewhat in front of himself, and that Frazier wasn't exactly watching Oswald like a hawk to make sure he didn't drop those "curtain rods"?
3) How many other TSBD employees, other than Dougherty, encountered Oswald after he'd entered the TSBD?
PS I may be "old," but I'm not confused.
Do you think all "old" people are confused?
The package that Frazier described was never found. The point is that nobody saw Oswald carry a package into the building ...
Frazier said to Mary Rattan LOL.
But note that he didn't say he saw the package under Oswald's arm at that time. He merely assumed it, because it was under Oswald's arm when he walked away from the car. Of course, none of this has anything to do with Oswald entering the TSBD building itself.
It has everything to do with your playing your semantic seesaw game.
It has everything to do with you playing your semantic seesaw game.You are 100% sure Oswald probably did it but of course, each day that goes by you can't come to terms with smallest bits of evidence. Here, an eyewitness account fails to support what you want to believe. Remember, you think Oswald probably did it and here Frazier's account shows everything you don't want to believe. You can't even follow your own fly by night rules, which is not easy when you keep changing them as you go along
You are 100% sure Oswald probably did it but of course, each day that goes by you can't come to terms with smallest bits of evidence. Here, an eyewitness account fails to support what you want to believe. Remember, you think Oswald probably did it and here Frazier's account shows everything you don't want to believe. You can't even follow your own fly by night rules, which is not easy when you keep changing them as you go along
Dear Peter,
You mean Buell Wesley Frazier didn't say (under penalty of perjury) that he saw, with his very own 20/20 eyeballs, Lee Harvey Oswald not only carry that long package into the building that morning, but assemble the rifle up there in the sniper's nest, as well?
Gosh darn it, I guess Oswald was innocent, after all, huh.
-- MWT ;)
I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept walking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AdorableGrizzledAdmiralbutterfly-max-1mb.gif)
JohnM
John,
Dang-nabbit, I guess it was curtain rods, after all.
-- MWT :(
I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm.Now you are a witness to seeing something? Did you change your name? No one saw LHO bring a rifle into the TSBD. That is just something you'll have to struggle with. I can't help you if you can't help yourself. You can't figure out the silly photos.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AdorableGrizzledAdmiralbutterfly-max-1mb.gif)
JohnM
Now you are a witness to seeing something? Did you change your name? No one saw LHO bring a rifle into the TSBD. That is just something you'll have to struggle with. I can't help you if you can't help yourself. You can't figure out the silly photos.
Now you are a witness to seeing something? Did you change your name? No one saw LHO bring a rifle into the TSBD. That is just something you'll have to struggle with. I can't help you if you can't help yourself. You can't figure out the silly photos.
Please don't breed
John,
Dang-nabbit, I guess it was curtain rods, after all.
-- MWT :(
No need. Frazier was quite clear when he spoke to Tom Meros.
Tom Meros: And when he walked on ahead of you could you even see the package?
Buell Frazier: No
Tom Meros: Unless you knew it was there, you wouldn't know what to look for. You wouldn't even know that he had a package in his hand.
Buell Frazier: That is correct.
Question: Was a group of un-packaged curtain rods found in the TSBD? How about a rifle, still broken-down or ... otherwise?
Question: Was a homemade paper bag that could have contained either of those things found in the sixth floor "sniper's nest" after the assassination?
Question: Does the fact that neither did Frazier see (from some distance away and from behind) a longish package in one of Oswald's hands when he (Oswald) entered the building, nor did Jack "I Got A Real Sketchy Memory When I'm Nervous" Dougherty remember seeing Oswald with a package, somehow prove (to your satisfaction, anyway) that Oswald did not enter the building with said package --
In short, I find Iacoletti impossible to debate on a common "horse sense," shared-understanding-of-the-common-meanings-and-significations-of-words-and-phrases level.
He seems to be on an "Exoneration Of Oswald At All Costs" mission, and therefore seems to be more than willing to ignore the common meanings of words and phrases used by certain witnesses in their testimonies and FBI statements when he shortsightedly THINKS it suits his purpose to do so.
No, he was watching them switch the train cars.
Did Frazier say he didn't look at Oswald again until he arrived at the door?
No, he watched Oswald enough to realize that he was getting further and further away.
And watching the trains doesn't rule out a Frazier head-angle that could be at a shallow angle off-plumb, with Oswald well-within his peripheral vision. The corner of his eye, and all that.
Someone intent on ditching that package is hardly going to do it in front of a person walking only 50' (at best) behind him.
;D
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
JohnM
Please don't breed
No one saw anyone bring a rifle into the TSBD. Yet it was there. So we know that someone did. Oswald was in the process of committing a crime. He took measures to avoid being seen carrying a rifle into the building. Like wrapping it up in a paper bag and then hiding it. You appear to be suggesting that unless a witness had x-ray vision then it can't be proven that Oswald carried the rifle.
Absurd. How do we know it was him? He carried a long package into work that morning then lied about it.
A long bag was found next to the SN with his prints.
The rifle found in the building had the same serial number as the one ordered under an alias that Oswald used.
It was sent to his PO Box.
His prints were on that rifle.
It can't be linked to any other person.
He is pictured holding it.
His wife confirms he owned a rifle and that it was stored in the Paine's garage.
There is no accounting for that rifle except as the one found in the TSBD.
It is a slam dunk.
Difficult to understand how there could possibly be anymore evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle.
::)
No coaching there..
And watching the trains doesn't rule out a Frazier head-angle that could be at a shallow angle off-plumb, with Oswald well-within his peripheral vision. The corner of his eye, and all that.
Yeah, we're supposed to trust Fritz's word-for-word recollection of conversations when Ball kept having him refer to his report when it conflicted with his testimony.
Do you have any evidence that Oswald carried a package into the TSBD building?
No worries.. Oswald took the package and hid it as soon as he could
Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
A 24 inch bag that contained a 40 inch rifle. That is 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag and Oswald must have hid it in a 2 pound cubbyhole. Speculate away there---- (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
Was there a number two man in there?
::)
Another brilliant evidence-based rebuttal from Chapman.
The fewer of your species left on the planet the better
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Do you have any evidence that Oswald carried a package into the TSBD building?
Of course, who cares about actual evidence when you have Bill Chapman's opinion.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/Twwv6bXB/buell-affidavit-tsbd-entrance.png)
No one saw anyone bring a rifle into the TSBD. Yet it was there. So we know that someone did. Oswald was in the process of committing a crime. He took measures to avoid being seen carrying a rifle into the building. Like wrapping it up in a paper bag and then hiding it. You appear to be suggesting that unless a witness had x-ray vision then it can't be proven that Oswald carried the rifle. Absurd. How do we know it was him? He carried a long package into work that morning then lied about it. A long bag was found next to the SN with his prints. The rifle found in the building had the same serial number as the one ordered under an alias that Oswald used. It was sent to his PO Box. His prints were on that rifle. It can't be linked to any other person. He is pictured holding it. His wife confirms he owned a rifle and that it was stored in the Paine's garage. There is no accounting for that rifle except as the one found in the TSBD. It is a slam dunk. Difficult to understand how there could possibly be anymore evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle.
Difficult to understand how there could possibly be anymore evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifleIf you did not have everything backward you wouldn't confuse yourself. Don't bring up things you can't prove and then whine about people not having x-ray vision.
Not only Fritz, Holmes corroborates Fritz's testimony.
No worries on the 22nd, Frazier's affidavit said Oswald still had the package under his arm as he entered the back door at the Loading dock.
Btw the scenario that after they arrived at the TSBD, Oswald took the package and hid it as soon as he could,
which ironically is exactly what he did at Frazier's house, indicates that Oswald had something to hide therefore this new narrative just makes your client look even more guilty! Congrats!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
A 24 inch bag that contained a 40 inch rifle. That is 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag and Oswald must have hid it in a 2 pound cubbyhole. Speculate away there---- (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
Thumb1:
Whatever it takes...
Please don't breedAt all? Or like rabbits?
...to defend Oswald
Admit it, as far as you’re concerned, anything Oswald did would indicate guilt in your eyes.
Not true, Iacoletti.
"Breaking wind" is a perfectly normal and not necessarily incriminating "human" thing to do.
Hell, even I have done it once.
(Or twice, max.)
You? Seein' as how you're so full of beans and everything ...
-- MWT ;)
Are you saying you did it? I knew Oswald didn't. Why have you been so dishonest about the assassination until now?
Even if in jest (which I don't think it is in this case), is it against the rules of this forum to call another member "dishonest"?
I have done an outstanding job of distracting you. You have not brought up the KGB, CIA, spies, etc in days, to me anyway. Very interesting. You are focused.
I know you don't like it, "Richard", but that's the nature of what it means to prove something. If you have no evidence whatsoever that Oswald carried a rifle into the building (and you don't), then you don't get to claim that you've proven it.
That's right, Richard.
Just remember: If no one actually sees a bear defecate in the woods, it didn't defecate in the woods.
Next to the tree that didn't fall.
-- MWT ;)
It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case. They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!). But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag. So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag. This entirely ignores the totality of evidence such as the serial number of the rifle sent to Oswald's PO Box matching the one found in the TSBD. The fact that Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that can't otherwise be accounted for in anyway except as containing the rifle. The fact that Oswald lied about owing a rifle, there are pictures of him holding it, and his wife confirmed he owned and stored a rifle in the Paine's garage. It's a slam dunk of evidence rebutted only by the ridiculous argument that because no one can see through paper there is somehow doubt of the matter. Absurd and a great example of the dishonest contrarian approach. Focus on one aspect of the evidence as though removed from the totality of evidence. Frame the discussion in terms of an impossible standard of proof (i.e. no one can see through paper). From this imply there is false doubt. Repeat endlessly.
All that takes is you being unable to prove your case.
It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case. They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!). But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag. So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag. This entirely ignores the totality of evidence such as the serial number of the rifle sent to Oswald's PO Box matching the one found in the TSBD. The fact that Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that can't otherwise be accounted for in anyway except as containing the rifle. The fact that Oswald lied about owing a rifle, there are pictures of him holding it, and his wife confirmed he owned and stored a rifle in the Paine's garage. It's a slam dunk of evidence rebutted only by the ridiculous argument that because no one can see through paper there is somehow doubt of the matter. Absurd and a great example of the dishonest contrarian approach. Focus on one aspect of the evidence as though removed from the totality of evidence. Frame the discussion in terms of an impossible standard of proof (i.e. no one can see through paper). From this imply there is false doubt. Repeat endlessly.
That's right, Richard.
Just remember: If no one actually sees a bear defecate in the woods, it didn't defecate in the woods.
It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case. They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!).
But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag.
So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag.
This entirely ignores the totality of evidence such as the serial number of the rifle sent to Oswald's PO Box matching the one found in the TSBD.
The fact that Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that can't otherwise be accounted for in anyway except as containing the rifle.
The fact that Oswald lied about owing a rifle,
there are pictures of him holding it,
and his wife confirmed he owned and stored a rifle in the Paine's garage.
It's a slam dunk of evidence rebutted only by the ridiculous argument that because no one can see through paper there is somehow doubt of the matter.
Absurd and a great example of the dishonest contrarian approach. Focus on one aspect of the evidence as though removed from the totality of evidence. Frame the discussion in terms of an impossible standard of proof (i.e. no one can see through paper). From this imply there is false doubt. Repeat endlessly.
I wonder who needs to prove their case to a crazed contrarian interested in nothing beyond playing games on the semantics seesaw...
Richard,
Not only that, but no witness, with or without the required x-ray vision, came forward to say he or she had watched Oswald like a hawk and seen him step through the doorway that morning with the package, ... so, obviously, "it never happened -- you're making that up".
Right, because in "Richard" and Tommy-land, a wild-ass guess is automatically true unless somebody can disprove it.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)
It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case.It's a
"A wild-ass guess," says the man so desperate to prove Oswald innocent.
-- MWT ;)
"A wild-ass guess," says the man so desperate to prove Oswald innocent.
Peter,
Nice damage-control "spin" job!
Regardless, now that you've brought it up, why does my posting about "the KGB, CIA, spies, etc," bug you so much?
Do you think Yuri Nosenko, the guy who eventually convinced CIA that the KGB (there I go, again) had had nothing to do with Oswald in the USSR and that there were no moles or triple-agents in U.S. Intelligence ... was a true defector?
Do you think Nosenko, with a little help from some spiteful and underendowed CIA officers, didn't destroy CIA's counterintelligence efforts against Russia and thereby enable someone like Aldrich Ames go undetected for as long as he did (9 years, iirc)?
Do you think Vladimir Putin and his virtual agent, Julian Assange, had nothing to do with "useful idiot" Donald Trump's getting "elected"?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
I am disappointed with the CIA. I realized they use LSD for all sorts of silly experiments, interrogations etc. Vincent Bugliosi was CIA. CIA is responsible for spreading LSD all over this country even Chuck Manson's family
Iacoletti dies and arrives at the Gates of Hell
Satan shows up, with Oswald in tow.
Iacoletti exclaims 'Lee, what are YOU doing here?'
Oswald responds 'I killed JFK and Tippit'
Iacoletti cries ''No you didn't! You made that up! YOU'RE LYING!'
Keep up the good work, Mr Iacoletti. Seems you're really getting under their skin now.
>>> Why would you need me to prove anything to you? You sure are insecure... so badly needing others to agree with you.
Oswald: I'm innocent
CT Jury: Okay, you can go
Oswald: [SMIRK]
Skin?
How do you know it's skin when in reality it's all just steaming, stinking blobs, and the gas put off by one of them has concentrated near the top and has caught on fire and has an eery Baby Boy Blue glow about it from this distance, almost as though the darn thing's wearing a ... LOL ... Headscarf In Hades!
Skin?
LOL! You just made that up!
(Say, you didn't happen to bring any icewater down here with you by any chance did you Ray Old Boy?)
This is the kind of nonsense that Tommy spews instead of providing evidence for his wild-ass guesses. The less evidence he has, the more sarcasm spews forth.
I don't care if you agree with me or not (agree about what?). I'm just pointing out that your opinion is faith rather than evidence-based.
You think this is so cute you trot it out every few days, but in the absence of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that's exactly what a jury should do. You seem to think that a defendant is required to prove that he didn't do it.
I don't care if you agree with me or not (agree about what?). I'm just pointing out that your opinion is faith rather than evidence-based.
You think this is so cute you trot it out every few days, but in the absence of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that's exactly what a jury should do. You seem to think that a defendant is required to prove that he didn't do it.
.....
::)
Again with the gaslighting
This is the kind of nonsense that Tommy spews instead of providing evidence for his wild-ass guesses. The less evidence he has, the more sarcasm spews forth.
Memo to Iacoletti: There is no reasonable doubt.
-- MWT ;)
Memo to Iacoletti: There is no reasonable doubt.
This is two-way traffic, Bubba: You lot are the ones stuck with making the 'wild-ass guesses'
Like Jack Dougherty as shooter, for instance... show us the evidence for that little gem, Sherlock.
Or as Bugliosi put it, there's no doubt at all
High-5
Memo to Graves:
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
You can always tell when a CTer starts running scared. They trot out things like "burden of proof" and "convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." When does this fantasy trial begin? Until then we need only look to the evidence to reach conclusions about what likely happened as normal people do when assessing any other event in human history. There is no "burden of proof" outside the criminal justice system which is designed to protect the rights even of the guilty. Fifty plus years after Oswald's death, the only issue is what happened. Not whether he would be convicted in a trial where there is a presumption of innocence. That's the stuff of lazy contrarians playing defense attorney in their mother's basement instead of making an honest assessment of the facts and evidence.
And they made that poor Frank Olson guy take, like, three ounces of it and jump out of a window, didn't they?The government admitted that Olson had been dosed with LSD, without his knowledge, nine days before his death. After the family announced they planned to sue the Agency over Olson's "wrongful death," the government offered them an out-of-court settlement of $1,250,000, later reduced to $750,000, which they accepted. The family received apologies from President Gerald Ford and then-CIA director William Colby.
And, according to Douglas Valentine ...
The government admitted that Olson had been dosed with LSD, without his knowledge, nine days before his death. After the family announced they planned to sue the Agency over Olson's "wrongful death," the government offered them an out-of-court settlement of $1,250,000, later reduced to $750,000, which they accepted. The family received apologies from President Gerald Ford and then-CIA director William Colby.
There is no "burden of proof" outside the criminal justice system which is designed to protect the rights even of the guilty.
How in the world are you even remotely qualified to make a determination of what an "honest assessment of the facts and evidence" would be?
"Richard" is the guy who keeps bleating "he was photographed with the rifle" over and over again.
"Honest assessment" my aunt Fanny.
???
He wasn't photographed with a Carcano?
Why? You've never shown a single piece of evidence that Oswald was a shooter, Holmes.
'single piece of evidence'
Now there's a Freudian Slip if I ever saw one, Watson...
Translation?
Does anyone understand what Chapman is blathering about now?
Does anyone understand what Chapman is blathering about now?
Stop dodging
You can always tell when a CTer starts running scared. They trot out things like "burden of proof" and "convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." When does this fantasy trial begin? Until then we need only look to the evidence to reach conclusions about what likely happened as normal people do when assessing any other event in human history. There is no "burden of proof" outside the criminal justice system which is designed to protect the rights even of the guilty. Fifty plus years after Oswald's death, the only issue is what happened. Not whether he would be convicted in a trial where there is a presumption of innocence. That's the stuff of lazy contrarians playing defense attorney in their mother's basement instead of making an honest assessment of the facts and evidence.
It's a bizarre form of "logic" that CTers apply to this case. They suggest here that because no one "saw" Oswald carry a rifle into the TSBD that somehow creates doubt of the fact (i.e. there is "no evidence whatsoever" LOL!). But the rifle was wrapped in a paper bag. So unless a witness had x-ray vision no one could actually see the contents of the bag.
When someone makes an outstanding claim, the burden of proof is on them to produce that evidence. Seems like you're trying to mock the idea of holding people accountable for their claims, which is what people usually do when they have no evidence. So, it sounds like you're all for people spouting any sort of nonsense without having to answer for it. That's why we have all these conspiracy theories and frauds like Trump claiming anything they want.You are right about everything but Trump. Trump plays games with people who seem so sensitive to his meaningless claims. On the other, we have the actors who play dumb as a fox with their own gossip. Plant seeds every day hoping the public bites, which it will, but how long can a fake story stay alive? Take your pick, he is a racist or he is involved in collusion. Two claims by those who are professionally offended 24/7 and never back it up. It started with fake polling, where the media told you "he will not win" again and again. How did that work out? Well, if you dislike the man, you ignored the games the media played. What is really peculiar is the media becomes "fact-check happy", imagine that! So when we talk about claims you mean like LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin or how about the USS Liberty explanation as being mistaken for an Egyptian vessel that hauls horses Then you have Obama claiming if you like your Health care you can keep the doctor. Or Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynche claiming their tarmac conversation was about the grandchildren
Does anyone understand what Chapman is blathering about now?
When someone makes an outstanding claim, the burden of proof is on them to produce that evidence. Seems like you're trying to mock the idea of holding people accountable for their claims, which is what people usually do when they have no evidence. So, it sounds like you're all for people spouting any sort of nonsense without having to answer for it. That's why we have all these conspiracy theories and frauds like Trump claiming anything they want.
Seems to me your species are the ones claiming conspiracy and an AnyBodyButOswald shooter.
Your attempts to try each piece of evidence singly, in isolation from the whole of the evidence, is well-known. Lets see you get away with that in a court of law.
Seems to me your species are the ones claiming conspiracy and an AnyBodyButOswald shooter.
Well?
Obviously Oswald would hire Roger Collins and a contrarian to assist in his defense. They would have snappy rebukes to the evidence like "strawman," "you made that up," and "Oswald's rifle? LOL." Oswald would then fry faster than one of the Colonel's chickens. His only hope would be a hung jury in which half the jurors wanted to execute him and the other half would want to execute his defense team.
This is a common complaint from people who think that several things that don't prove Oswald killed JFK somehow combine to prove that Oswald killed JFK.
??? Who thinks that?
There's a compelling case. Just make a bunch of false claims, insist you're right and claim victory.
In the "Richard Smith" lexicon, "contrarian" is defined as someone who points out that his false claims are false.
The guy who thinks it's a problem to analyze the veracity of each item of purported evidence.
Actually, you're the one claiming OswaldProbablyDidIt, but are unable to articulate any reason for believing that.
Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?
Point out where I claim that
It's got nothing to do with belief
You don't have to claim it. It's obvious to anybody who reads your posts
The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.
I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.
But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?
The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.
I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.
But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?
I have no idea what you are talking about but I do remember asking you several times if you posted as Roger Collins who purported to be a lawyer only to get rants and the runaround. Never a straight answer. Why that is so difficult is perplexing since you obviously know the answer.
You have never answered the question as far as I know.
Right,...………... as far as you know
Perhaps you did not (want to) understand when I described the whole claim as utter nonsense, several times in the past.
Repeating the same question over and over again is not going to get you a different answer nor the answer you seem to be looking for.
my recollection is that Roger Collins claimed to be an attorney
Really? What kind of an attorney would that be? And could he have been a lawyer, rather than an attorney? You do know the difference, don't you, or do you need to google it?
while you seem devoid of even the most basic legal knowledge
And on what basis and authority did you make such a determination? Do you qualify as a legal eagle or are you just an armchair lawyer using google?
instead of making an honest assessment of the facts and evidence.
How in the world are you even remotely qualified to make a determination of what an "honest assessment of the facts and evidence" would be?
Or is this just your way of saying that if somebody doesn't agree with your opinion he's simply not making such an "honest assessment"?
No, I can't clear it up. This idiotic claim has surfaced several times in the past and it doesn't matter what I say, there will always be clowns like you who don't accept what I say and bring it up again. There is no need for me to defend myself or to do what you want me to do and so I won't. You just keep on living in your fantasy world, but I won't respond anymore to this nonsense.
Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?
Point out where I claim that
Your attempts to try each piece of evidence singly, in isolation from the whole of the evidence, is well-known. Lets see you get away with that in a court of law.
It's got nothing to do with belief
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Legalese Quote:
"It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence."
I have no problem with somebody looking at the evidence as long as it is not in isolation from said 'whole of the evidence'.
What makes you think I agree with others stating, for instance, "the Carcano" rather than "a Carcano"
"Richard" believes it's the Carcano, do you disagree?Actually, I do think that it ---[in the BYPics] is the rifle that was produced from the sixth floor. However [and we are repeating past threads ad nauseum]
When did I ever appoint myself as "Devil's Advocate"?
Why the horns, John?
"Richard" believes it's the Carcano, do you disagree? But I'll bite. What makes you think it's a Carcano in the backyard photos?
Are you claiming the design of the Carcano is common with some other bolt-action rifle?
Oh btw, do you believe the BYP fake?
Ask the guy who made the drawing.
I'm not claiming anything. What makes you think it's a Carcano in the backyard photos?
Define "fake".
If this is not a belief, then what do you call it?
What it your source for this quote?
There is no "whole of the evidence". Just a few weak and circumstantial things that are all questionable, impeachable, arguable, or tainted in some way, and a boatload of speculation and conjecture.
What it your source for this quote?You know if the SS would have done their job protecting the President from assassination there would not have been an assassination, so they failed and that means they did not do their job. It also was not their job to take the murdered body of the President out of the State of Texas. Those are facts that justify the speculative theory you are 100% sure probably might have happened or you think perhaps maybe sometimes but maybe never happened
>>> Huh? You post here as if this was a court of law, yet don't know that basic tenet?
Look it up, 'researcher'.
Oswald was the one 'tainted in some way'
He might as well have worn tshirt a saying 'Just Did It'
Everything is arguable to a guy openly demonstrating his contrarianism by using devil's horns on his portrait.
It's the CT Ship of Fools that has the 'boatload full of speculation and conjecture'.
Why? You're the one using the drawing. And JerryO is the guy who did the drawing if I remember correctly... and am I wrong in recalling you explaining DevAd connection with the horns?
Here, let me demonstrate the word 'believe' in a sentence:
"I believe you've weaponized the word both here and on TAE"
;)
What it your source for this quote?
>>> Huh? You post here as if this was a court of law, yet don't know that basic tenet?
Look it up, 'researcher'.
Oswald was the one 'tainted in some way'
He might as well have worn a tshirt saying 'Just Did It'
Everything is arguable to a guy openly demonstrating his contrarianism by using devil's horns on his portrait.
It's the CT Ship of Fools that has the 'boatload full of speculation and conjecture'.
I have no idea what you are talking about
Yeah right, of course you don't….
And btw....
Yes, you are wrong. Your recollections usually are.
What "weapon"? You either have reasons for the things you believe or you don't. If you have any reasons for your "100% sure that Oswald probably did it" belief, you've never actually articulated any of them on this forum.
So once again you won't clear up whether you posted as Roger Collins. You obviously would know the answer. It is truly mystifying that you won't just say yes or no. The only reason that I can surmise for your reluctance is that Collins claimed to be a lawyer. And you lied about that as demonstrated in your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.
No, I can't clear it up. This idiotic claim has surfaced several times in the past and it doesn't matter what I say, there will always be clowns like you who don't accept what I say and bring it up again. There is no need for me to defend myself or to do what you want me to do and so I won't. You just keep on living in your fantasy world, but I won't respond anymore to this nonsense.
So once again you won't clear up whether you posted as Roger Collins. You obviously would know the answer. It is truly mystifying that you won't just say yes or no. The only reason that I can surmise for your reluctance is that Collins claimed to be a lawyer. And you lied about that as demonstrated in your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.When are you going to get around to showing Oswald did it? You are easily distracted, just cough up the evidence
More BS from the king of BS....
As I stated previously,
Your question has been answered. You just don't like the answer. As it was pretty obvious to me that you would keep on pushing this false narrative regardless of what I say, I decided some time ago to have some fun and toy with you and…………. it worked by laying bare the obsession you have with Roger Collins. Thumb1:
I wonder what it must be like having a former poster on your mind all the time, but it can't be pretty. My honest advice to you; get over it and get a life.
your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.
Care to explain what qualifications you have to make such a determination, mr. Armchair Lawyer? You don't even know the difference between an attorney and a lawyer.
Btw, you didn't have a clue how to answer my question about the Clay Shaw trial, so when Denis offered a plausible, yet not actually correct, answer you just blindly jumped on his bandwagon! That's some legal expertise you have there! :D
Oh, just one more thing; how could I possibly lie about something that (according to you) Roger Collins claimed in the past?
Your "answer" is that you "can't clear up" whether you posted as Roger Collins? Why is that? You would obviously know if you posted under the name Roger Collins. In which case the answer is "yes." If not, the answer is "no." But you won't provide a straight answer for some inexplicable reason. Yet another incoherent rant and runaround. How could you possibly lie about something that Roger Collins claimed? Are you really that dense? If you are Roger Collins, and Roger Collins made a false claim then you lied. Can you follow that obvious line of logic? Good grief. And here you seem to imply that you have some legal qualification that others do not. Just like Roger Collins! What a coincidence. You criticize others for being an "armchair lawyer". That implies you have some legal qualifications. How about giving us a straight answer for once. Maybe you can clear that up for us as well.
The only reason that I can surmise for your reluctance is that Collins claimed to be a lawyer. And you lied about that as demonstrated in your complete lack of knowledge regarding the legal system.
You denied calling us 'lemmings'
I caught you out. Remember?
Oswald: 'My Prince, this Iacoletti guy, who has been instrumental in keeping my dream of being remembered for the next 10,000 years alive, is now promoting himself as your advocate'
Satan: 'Nah, he worships me. Even TAE kicked him out. He just sat there looking grumpy and even wore a Tshirt emblazoned with his own name, for Christ's sake.'
Oswald: [SMIRK]
'weapon' lol
>>> 'Weaponize'
Get in tune with modern-day lingo FFS
When are you going to get around to showing Oswald did it? You are easily distracted, just cough up the evidence
Frustrating isn't it ? :D What does it take for you to understand that I am not going to play your little game?
I never called you a lemming.
Why is nothing you claim about any subject accurate?
I did.
Colin, stop stirring the pot for Christ's sake. Aren't things bad enough between those two. :D :D :D
But I did Denis..... ;D. I assume we are all after the truth.
I also posted this......
Gee Bill, how can every post of yours be better than the next one?
I wonder whether that is as clear to you as it is to most of us. 8)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2031.msg57813.html#msg57813 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2031.msg57813.html#msg57813)
Yeah, I saw that one, very clever, very subtle..I wish I'd thought of it first...in fact, I may just pretend I did. To hell with the truth. :D :D
I did.
So did John.
And he acknowledged that later.
Yet here he is denying it again
Careful who you decide to believe, Colin
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPSCHwYG/iacoletti-schooled-lemmings.png)
When his arguments get dismantled he resorts to attacking the dismantler.He takes the easy side of the debate which was all laid out by the framers ( Oswald did it, the cops found a gun) and then wants anyone with an opposing view to prove he's wrong when he is wrong. I bet his posts are typed by someone else while he dictates
So did John.
And he acknowledged that later.
Yet here he is denying it again
Careful who you decide to believe, Colin
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPSCHwYG/iacoletti-schooled-lemmings.png)
When his arguments get dismantled he resorts to attacking the dismantler.
I simply owned up. I hadn’t seen the post by John, was that before the forum crash? I was hopeful of being the originator. But no big deal.....great minds and all that..... ;)
I was hopeful of being the originator.
>>> I'm not surprised at your retreat
But no big deal.....great minds and all that..... ;)
>>> Fools seldom differ, and all that..... ;)
I never called you a lemming.
You talk the talk.
I walk the walk:
Someone should explain to Iacoletti that there's an infinite number of Conspiracy Theories, each with its own "fact pattern," but only one Oswald-Did-It-By-Himself scenario.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
Point out a couple my 'dismantled' arguments.
I walk the walkNo..You talk the walk so go walk your talk :-\
What retreat?......I believe I originated the LN = lemming analogy. Do you agree? Remember the saying now.
Seems to me your species are the ones claiming conspiracy and an AnyBodyButOswald shooter.
Well?
>>> Sez Lord Haughty the Condescender III
You are right about everything but Trump. Trump plays games with people who seem so sensitive to his meaningless claims. On the other, we have the actors who play dumb as a fox with their own gossip. Plant seeds every day hoping the public bites, which it will, but how long can a fake story stay alive? Take your pick, he is a racist or he is involved in collusion. Two claims by those who are professionally offended 24/7 and never back it up. It started with fake polling, where the media told you "he will not win" again and again. How did that work out? Well, if you dislike the man, you ignored the games the media played. What is really peculiar is the media becomes "fact-check happy", imagine that! So when we talk about claims you mean like LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin or how about the USS Liberty explanation as being mistaken for an Egyptian vessel that hauls horses Then you have Obama claiming if you like your Health care you can keep the doctor. Or Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynche claiming their tarmac conversation was about the grandchildren
Remember the saying now
>>> Sez Lord Haughty the Condescender III
Cool, you can post a screen shot. Now show me where I call you a lemming.
Ironic that lemming is multi species.... :D
So you don't think I'm an LN then...
after all, you sent your rant directly to me.
How did you come to that conclusion? The post that you screenshotted makes no mention of LNs.
You have a strange notion of what constitutes "sent directly".
P.S. what rant?
My species? haha. So, don't you think you a person should have to provide evidence for a claim they make?
Only in courtThere you have it. Now you are admitting the WC was anything but a courtroom
This is a discussion forum
You didn't answer my question. Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue? Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL. Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?If it hasn't been mentioned by now...the Zapruder film was not shown publicly until the late '60's. Bet your last dollar a jury would have never seen it.
Only in court
This is a discussion forum
Sorry, a person isn't entitled to make stuff up on a discussion forum either. They should be able to provide evidence for what they claim is true or otherwise that person shouldn't be taken seriously as a poster. Sounds like you feel a person can make up whatever they want as long as it fits their false narrative. Is that so?
You're talking about formal debateYou already know and that is why you make up rules as you go along. Do you have every angle covered though?
This forum is the Wild West by comparison
Point out what I 'made up' other than clever mockery
There you have it. Now you are admitting the WC was anything but a courtroom
Point out where I ever claimed the WC a courtroom.You are only confusing yourself.
You are only confusing yourself.
You are playing games.
You are terrified of being pinned down.
So being a chameleon is normal for you.
It is just how you adapt.
You are just making a case for Oswald's innocence.
Just as you did when you started weakening your stance to 100% sure LHO Probably did it.
No big deal,
A reversal of sorts.
It is your current trend
One day it's about literal reasoning.
The next day it's about contextual reasoning.
I hope that helps because I like helping people
You're talking about formal debate
This forum is the Wild West by comparison
Point out what I 'made up' other than clever mockery.
That doesn’t alleviate you of the responsibility to back up your claims with evidence.
Your claim that Oswald was trying to shoot an officer in the theater is just your most recent example. That and your claim that I called you a lemming merely because I quoted one of your posts in a post where I mentioned lemmings.
Myclaimobservation is based on the factual reality of the cops v the NotResistingArrestOswald. Duh.
You 'mentioned' lemmings LOL
And tell us why you were 'mentioning' lemmings in the first place.
Pray tell, who are are you referring to when you say 'you guys' and who is the guy in your post to me that is following 'other lemmings' off a cliff in your post to me?
What "factual reality"? The one you don't actually claim to be right about?
Keep wiggling. You accused me of calling you a lemming and you have to twist and assume in order to make it say that. Just like you twist and assume your "factual realities" about the case.
Stop squirming and tell us who the 'you guys' you called 'lemmings' (in your post to me) are.
Bill Chapman, et al.,Don't volunteer to advise him or he will keep getting caught contradicting himself. He is 100% sure that he probably believes in something. That is almost 100% perfect, I think but I don't know. Do you follow?
When dealing with obnoxious people like Kleinschmidt in day-to-day life, just make it a habit to say, "That's a suggestion I refuse to accept".
-- MWT ;)
You are only confusing yourself.
You are playing games.
You are terrified of being pinned down.
So being a chameleon is normal for you.
It is just how you adapt.
You are just making a case for Oswald's innocence.
Just as you did when you started weakening your stance to 100% sure LHO Probably did it.
No big deal,
A reversal of sorts.
It is your current trend
One day it's about literal reasoning.
The next day it's about contextual reasoning.
I hope that helps because I like helping people
Bill Chapman, et al.,
When dealing with obnoxious people like Kleinschmidt in day-to-day life, just make it a habit to say, "That's a suggestion I refuse to accept".
-- MWT ;)
Tell us what stance I've 'reversed'
He didn’t say “reversed”. Fake quoter!
Supply what stance I changed to arrive at 'probably', SemanticSuckJohnny.
You're talking about formal debate
This forum is the Wild West by comparison
Point out what I 'made up' other than clever mockery.
Point out where I ever claimed the WC a courtroom.
Tell us what stance I've 'reversed'I don't have to show anything by your standard, remember it's not a courtroom? See it is an ongoing thing with you-you can't make up your mind but you can make it up as you go along. Very defensive and unsure of yourself. Flip flop waffle master
Dear Peter,
You mean Buell Wesley Frazier didn't say (under penalty of perjury) that he saw, with his very own 20/20 eyeballs, Lee Harvey Oswald not only carry that long package into the building that morning, but assemble the rifle up there in the sniper's nest, as well?
Gosh darn it, I guess Oswald was innocent, after all, huh.
-- MWT ;)
Probably notNope, Frazier didn't say that he saw LHO bring in a rifle, he did not say LHO assembled a rifle and also did not say anything about a sniper's nest. What else you got, anything from the Dirty Brown Shirt handbook of lies?
;)
Nope, Frazier didn't say that he saw LHO bring in a rifle, he did not say LHO assembled a rifle and also did not say anything about a sniper's nest. What else you got, anything from the Dirty Brown Shirt handbook of lies?
He didn’t say “reversed”. Fake quoter!
Well?
Well what? Have you forgotten over the last year and a half it took you to respond to this that you accusing somebody of "fake quoting" you for changing the tense of a word just like that?
I recently have been getting reacquainted with the OJ case and it left me wondering how would JFK CT's handle the Oswald conspiracy in court?
To win the OJ case the "Dream Team" capitalized on the alleged racist atmosphere of LA, so the "Dream Team" invented a reasonably plausible alternative narrative, whereas the JFK CT's have given us virtually nothing?
Who planted what and why? What did they have to gain?
The prosecution would be presenting evidence piled on evidence and eyewitness after eyewitness, and in return what would the JFK CT's present and where do your theories go?
JohnM
I’m not a CTer, but I would defend Oswald by having him testify that he found and rifle on the sixth floor and picked it up. He wished he didn’t do that. Then, 45 minutes later, while out for a walk, he saw a police officer had been shot, found a gun laying on the ground and picked it up. He wished he didn’t do that. He intended to turn the gun over to the police so he put it in his pocket but then forgot about it.
I’m not a CTer, but I would defend Oswald by having him testify that he found and rifle on the sixth floor and picked it up. He wished he didn’t do that. Then, 45 minutes later, while out for a walk, he saw a police officer had been shot, found a gun laying on the ground and picked it up. He wished he didn’t do that. He intended to turn the gun over to the police so he put it in his pocket but then forgot about it.
I’m not a CTer, but I would defend Oswald by having him testify that he found and rifle on the sixth floor and picked it up. He wished he didn’t do that. Then, 45 minutes later, while out for a walk, he saw a police officer had been shot, found a gun laying on the ground and picked it up. He wished he didn’t do that. He intended to turn the gun over to the police so he put it in his pocket but then forgot about it.
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin," Hoover said in the 1963 memo.
If the Warren Report were a used car..... and before the test drive, you insisted on a good long look under the hood...
Your Honor, an establishment rule: Other wikipedia bios of Texas Governors (and to some extent, Navy Secretaries...) are permitted to name and to discuss their children!
I prefer to live in a world in which the establishment exerts less control. How about you?
Wikipedia obviously does not censor the bio article of Connally's immediate predecessor.:
Connally's successor as Navy Secretary is afforded a wider wikipedia "leash" but not when the subject is the matter of Korth's daughter
going out the same way as Kathleen Connally Hale (and George DeM, too!).... self inflicted 20 gauge! (See 1969 article image @ bottom of post) Verita Korth death certificate indicates no autopsy was performed and time of coroner inquest is 2-1/2 hours after time of death!
So much for any thorough investigation!
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYBY-7RW?i=258&cc=1983324
(http://jfkforum.com/images/FredKorthDaughrerDeathCert050169.jpg)
Mr. RANKIN. Did this friend and other Russian friends visit you at Mercedes Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. When we lived at Fort Worth we became acquainted with Peter Gregory, he is a Russian, he lives in Fort Worth and through him we became acquainted with others.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us insofar as you recall, the friends that you knew in Fort Worth?
Mrs. OSWALD. Our first acquaintance was Gregory. Through him I met Gali Clark, Mrs. Elena Hall. That is all in Fort Worth. And then we met George Bouhe in Dallas, and Anna Meller, and Anna Ray and Katya Ford.
Mr. RANKIN. By your answer do you mean that some of those people you met in Dallas and some in Fort Worth?.....
The answer to the question of whether George Bouhe's wife's husband Tilbury O. Freeman was in direct contact (Freeman's roommate Burt Seay likely knew Squirrel Ashcraft well, in 1928) with CIA's Chief of Domestic Contacts, Edwin Squirrel Ashcraft, may lie in the keepsakes or memories of this man, last interviewed in late 2018!:
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/948198/verita_korth_amarillo_globe_2_may_1969/
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=0&id=29581068&width=557&height=2600&crop=69_58_427_2030&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1562887065&h=c43f7d9c201b80e71265eb594a737130)
https://jfkfacts.org/curtis-lemay-to-jfk-during-the-cuban-missile-crisis/#comment-441710
“Info on Special Ops Wanted Bruce McCaw writes: My father, Lt. Col. John Elroy McCaw, worked on OSS Special Projects known as operations Aphrodite, Simmons, and Javaman. He worked with OSSers John Shaheen and Jim Rand and is particularly interested in Javaman, which called for blowing up the tunnel…”
Tampico IL. May 1,1951 “John M. Shaheen And Eastern Young Lady Wed…. while H James Rand of Cleveland, Ohio was best man.”