JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on February 11, 2018, 12:34:12 AM
-
Lance Payette in the following post perfectly sums up how the conspiracy
Kooks theorists like to view the events of this case, by as Bugliosi says splitting the already split hairs. Lance's classic example of the drunk lady who kept doing actions that when looked at in isolation could have an explanation but when the overall picture is examined her behaviour followed an unmistakable narrative.
As of January 1, I am a "retired" attorney. Before that, my private practice was as a civil litigator.
I didn't think the mission of the JFK research community was merely to see if sufficient reasonable doubt could be raised to acquit LHO. As we have seen in any number of high-profile cases, juries can be convinced that reasonable doubt exists with respect to clearly guilty defendants. A trial is, unfortunately, closer to a game show or drama than to a quest for truth. As I said long before the OJ trial, I would cheerfully flip the switch on the electric chair. He's a sociopathic killer - but voila, he's "not guilty."
A good attorney starts with a plausible theory of the case that he hopes to sell to the judge or jury. He then amasses the evidence that, to one degree or another, supports that theory. If the theory is cockamamie, as the great majority of JFK conspiracy theories are, or is flatly contradicted by the best evidence, as the great majority of JFK conspiracy theories are, the attorney's case is going nowhere. Harvey & Lee, alteration of the body between Parkland and Bethesda, etc.? Going nowhere, except perhaps in the same sense that Scientology has gone somewhere, in the form of attracting a small cadre of faithful loonies.
You have probably heard the old saying, "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts and law are against you, scream and pound the table." This is essentially what a criminal defense attorney with a hopeless case does. It is what OJ's Dream Team did. It is what the proponents of the loony conspiracy theories do.
Another favorite tactic is to parse the evidence into ever-finer parts. This is likewise what OJ's Dream Team did. One of my few criminal experiences was a DUI case where the defense attorney asked the jury, "How many of you have driven your car over the curb? How many of you have spilled the contents of your purse, stumbled while getting out of your car, wobbled while trying to walk a straight line?" and so on and so forth through all the things the woman had been observed doing. The easy answer to that was, "How many of you have done ALL of those things on the same evening when you weren't drunk?"
Something like Harvey & Lee, which I know you do not support, starts with a cockamamie theory, ignores the mountains of contradictory evidence, and then plays an endless game of "Well, what about this ... what about this ... what about this?" OK, in a perfect world we believe that Dallas post office clerks should have been so on top of things that they would have reported to the FBI a package from Klein's Sporting Goods addressed to A. Hidell at a box owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, a former defector to the USSR who was receiving Communist literature at that box. OK, in a perfect world we believe that Holmes would have produced the post office record stub that led to the discovery of the postal money order. But the point is, the folks in 1963 had the Klein's order coupon in LHO's handwriting, the original postal money order in LHO's handwriting, the post office box application in LHO's handwriting, and solid evidence that LHO had been seen with, practiced with and otherwise handled the rifle that was found at the scene of the crime and determined to have fired the bullets responsible for the wounds. The Dallas post office clerks did not report the delivery of the rifle - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant. Holmes did not bring the record stub with him when he testified - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant. There is nothing "suspicious" about either of these non-events.
Perhaps that wasn't Holmes at all. Perhaps he was too inept to be trusted, so everything associated with Holmes was actually an FBI imposter. Did we ever see an ID? Did we, huh, huh? Why was every clerk who had worked at the Dallas post office in 1963 not interviewed by the Warren Commission? Why not, huh, huh? Why did they just take Holmes' word for anything? It's an ENDLESS and endlessly SILLY game.
Sure, the bare facts of the assassination - a widely detested President; an assassin who had worked at a U-2 base, defected to the USSR, and was enamored of Cuba; some pretty nifty shooting with a $21 rifle; the murder of the assassin himself while in police custody - scream for a close look. But when you get into the level of work that the FBI and Warren Commission did (some of which is truly mind-boggling), and then the review by the HSCA, you realize that the assassination DID receive a close look. It may be the accepted conspiracy gospel that the Warren Report was a slipshod effort, but that is simply not true, I have no problem if someone wants to keep looking, so long as it remains within the bounds of sanity. As I've said, I am not utterly opposed to the notion that LHO himself may have been the instigator of a small pro-Castro conspiracy that would have provided him with an escape route out of Dallas, or that LHO may have been a participant in a small-scale pro-Castro conspiracy. Those are within the bounds of sanity.
When your conspiracy theory is more elaborate, convoluted and multi-faceted than any conspiracy in the history of the world - and yet weirdly inept at crucial points - you have exceeded the bounds of sanity. When your conspiracy theory hinges on LHO being someone other than we know him to have been, and than everyone who knew him knew he was, you have exceeded the bounds of sanity.
Enough from me, these discussions inevitably go nowhere. One either has the conspiracy mindset, or one does not - that's my bottom-line conclusion on all the Weirdness forums on which I participate.
Lance Payette
Now using Oswald.
Oswald defected to the enemy.
Oswald attempted suicide as written in his diary.
Oswald sent a letter to Robert saying he was willing to Kill Americans who defended their Government.
Oswald made false identification in the name of Alek Hidell
Oswald bought a rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
Oswald attempted to kill General Walker.
Oswald beat his wife.
Oswald invented "Fair Play For Cuba" and Alek Hidell was the Chapter President.
Oswald went to Mexico.
Oswald went home on an atypical Thursday.
Oswald left most of his money with his wife.
Oswald left his wedding ring in Marina's family tea cup.
Oswald carried a long package to work.
Oswald lied about the long package.
Oswald had no alibi at 12:30
Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of his work.
Oswald fled the building immediately.
Oswald frantically caught buses and taxis.
Oswald got out of the cab further down the road.
Oswald got his jacket.
Oswald killed a Police Officer.
Oswald discarded his jacket.
Oswald was seen hiding from the Police.
Oswald hid in a theater.
Oswald punched an approaching cop.
Oswald pulled the trigger of his revolver while being apprehended.
Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
Oswald in custody lied about owning the rifle.
Oswald denied being photographed with his rifle.
Oswald denied going to Mexico.
Oswald denied carrying a large package.
Oswald denied placing the large package on the back seat.
All the above was just quickly off the top of my head but how is all this explained, were these facts invented and by whom?, sure someone like Iccy will attempt to deconstruct this fraction of the Mountain of Evidence piece by piece but in the end in court when this Mountain is presented in totality, Iccy will just look like the desperate defence lawyer in Lance's story.
JohnM
-
From Lance the lawyer......
But when you get into the level of work that the FBI and Warren Commission did (some of which is truly mind-boggling), and then the review by the HSCA, you realize that the assassination DID receive a close look. It may be the accepted conspiracy gospel that the Warren Report was a slipshod effort, but that is simply not true
Oh really......perhaps he has not read "Inquest".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2013/10/13/epstein-and-the-kennedy-assassination/2960611/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2013/10/13/epstein-and-the-kennedy-assassination/2960611/)
"None of these lawyers and commission members were bound by any secrecy agreement, as amazing as that might seem nowadays," Epstein continues to marvel. "Why didn't journalists from major news organizations interview these sources? Fifty years later, I still can't answer that question."
His interviews with the commission members ? including Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, Hale Boggs and John McCloy, and its young counsel, Arlen Specter ? convinced him not that Lee Harvey Oswald hadn't shot the president, but that the commission's work was "brief, sporadic and incomplete."
"All of the investigators were lawyers, and, as lawyers, they were paid by the hour," says Epstein. Obtaining their pay records, he demonstrated that much of the investigation had taken place in less than 4 months, with important aspects dispatched in a few hours of billing time.
Inquest was a challenge not just to facts per se, but an explication about the nature of information itself. The commission leapt to the easy conclusion that Oswald had fired the gun, but failed to earnestly address the more pressing question: To what extent was the act of his own volition?
Epstein's was an existential debunking: "God was the Warren Report. And the Warren Report was dead."
-
From Lance the lawyer......
But when you get into the level of work that the FBI and Warren Commission did (some of which is truly mind-boggling), and then the review by the HSCA, you realize that the assassination DID receive a close look. It may be the accepted conspiracy gospel that the Warren Report was a slipshod effort, but that is simply not true
Oh really......perhaps he has not read "Inquest".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2013/10/13/epstein-and-the-kennedy-assassination/2960611/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2013/10/13/epstein-and-the-kennedy-assassination/2960611/)
"None of these lawyers and commission members were bound by any secrecy agreement, as amazing as that might seem nowadays," Epstein continues to marvel. "Why didn't journalists from major news organizations interview these sources? Fifty years later, I still can't answer that question."
His interviews with the commission members ? including Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, Hale Boggs and John McCloy, and its young counsel, Arlen Specter ? convinced him not that Lee Harvey Oswald hadn't shot the president, but that the commission's work was "brief, sporadic and incomplete."
"All of the investigators were lawyers, and, as lawyers, they were paid by the hour," says Epstein. Obtaining their pay records, he demonstrated that much of the investigation had taken place in less than 4 months, with important aspects dispatched in a few hours of billing time.
Inquest was a challenge not just to facts per se, but an explication about the nature of information itself. The commission leapt to the easy conclusion that Oswald had fired the gun, but failed to earnestly address the more pressing question: To what extent was the act of his own volition?
Epstein's was an existential debunking: "God was the Warren Report. And the Warren Report was dead."
That's the problem. It was a book based on the interviews and not on the actual evidence. The problem with his interview is that some of those quoted in the book claimed not to have spoken to or were misquoted or had their remarks taken out of context by the shifty Epstein.
Among his reservations about the SBT was the clothing holes and his thought that teh President and the Governor were hit separately and too close in time for a single assassin. Had he the resources and inclination, he might have found several photos showing the President's jacket was bunched up and that Connally was below and to the left of Kennedy.
Epstein criticized the Commission's finding that foliage blocked Oswald's view because he thought the oak tree between the SN and the limousine had no foliage in November.
-
Jerry, I am making comment regarding the OP quote that indicated the WC did a amazing job....the SBT etc I am not concerned about but the basic conclusion of the competing intrinsic and extrinsic the nature of the investigation and the timeline of how it was undertaken and largely left to junior councel in a relatively short space of time cannot be questioned.
I have posted before that I think we owe the WC a great deal for calming the situation for us all.
As for critisizing Epstein for not researching the SBT more thoroughly, a bit rich don?t you think? He was just an undergrad, all the resources of the FBI couldn?t come up with the proof of that.
-
Epstein was asking some legitimate down-to-earth questions, like the clothing holes and Zapruder film timing. He found "support" for the three shots/three hits in the early FBI Report while he knew the Commission decided otherwise for reasons it spelled out in the Report and that were possibly relayed to him by some he interviewed.
When Epstein encountered his first "JFK conspiracy circus" (the Garrison case with homosexual thrill killing and charges that federal agencies contributed to the conspiracy) and observed for the first time the full blunt of the JFK conspiracy cult , he conscientiously rejected that in "Counterplot".
As far as I can tell, some of the Commission staff would have liked more time but all were pleased with the tremendous amount and quality of work that was done. Presidential Commissions and Special Committees generally have an end date when they're formed. If more work needed to be done, another investigation could be called, which is what happened in the 70s.
-
From Lance the lawyer......
But when you get into the level of work that the FBI and Warren Commission did (some of which is truly mind-boggling), and then the review by the HSCA, you realize that the assassination DID receive a close look. It may be the accepted conspiracy gospel that the Warren Report was a slipshod effort, but that is simply not true
Oh really......perhaps he has not read "Inquest".
.........
Colin, do not keep me in suspense. If you know who is trustworthy despite being connected to this tight little group of names, out with it, pul-eeze!
I am discouraged by how predictable their connections are. They certainly kept at staying ahead of it if knowing all there is to know at every given
time, from Oswald arrives in Moscow, until.....now? is any indication.
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/fakevictor.htm
.........Since Mark Lane was apparently staying at, or receiving mail at, Schoenman?s residence, I thought it likely that Lane had dispatched my visitor to get the FBI reports for his book.
I then called Arnold Krakower, the New York lawyer who had helped me before on my movie project. I knew Krakower loved a mystery (he had been married to the novelist Kathleen Winsor). When I told him about the incident, he said he was going to ?read the riot act to Lane?s publisher.?
Krakower called me two days later to report that Lane?s manuscript, entitled ?Rush to Judgment,? was at the Viking Press, to whose owner and publisher, Tom Guinzburg, he had spoken. He said that Guinzburg no longer wanted to publish Lane?s book but would be interested in my thesis. The editor there whom I was to contact was Clay Felker.
SON OF A SMOKING GUN - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...of.../7af8c406-1fec-487e-85e6-4cbb0bc7a1fe/ (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&ei=D9N_WpShLcKTzwKW1a-ABA&q=washingtonpost.com+skull+and+bone+protege+felker+lucy+donald+gregg&oq=washingtonpost.com+skull+and+bone+protege+felker+lucy+donald+gregg&gs_l=psy-ab.12...12995.15228.0.16882.3.3.0.0.0.0.152.285.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.CuRPYFl9qOg)
Jun 10, 1994 - ....Skull and Bones....He became a protege of New York magazine's editor, Clay Felker, and then became managing editor of Esquire at the barely post-pubescent age of 25. ... Through the job he met his wife, Lucy Gregg, the daughter of Donald Gregg, Bush's national security adviser, and gathered material for "The White ...
North Korea: Time for Talks Says U.S. Expert Don Gregg | Time
time.com ? Ideas ? North Korea
Jul 25, 2017 - That's the assessment of Donald P. Gregg, arguably, the man who knows more about North Korea than any living American. Gregg, 89, is a retired State Department and CIA veteran, a North Asia specialist, and a recipient of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal.
.....
Skulls and Keys: The Hidden History of Yale's Secret Societies
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1681775816
David Alan Richards - 2017 - History
More to the point, it was not true again in Jackson's own election year, when Bones tapped and was accepted by Thomas H. Guinzberg, Hotchkiss graduate, winner ... Anti-Semitism was still a force: the Fence Club, Yale's most exclusive fraternity, rejected Guinzburg because he was Jewish, until his close friend Bill Buckley ...
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17838-more-than-just-a-rant/?do=findComment&comment=271545
Well Greg.... I suppose all of these connections could simply be coincidental, but could this many really add up to nothing?
The CIA financed Paris Review "crew" and their Rockefeller / Bush connected "pals" seem to be surrounding Jackie.
Tom Guinzberg was a close friend of John D. Macomber.:
On 4/7/2013 at 10:55 PM, Tom Scully said:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-7lJv1AmKpFA/UWIjWB6q6AI/AAAAAAAAA38/WK1k5_s3C1k/s720/JohnMacomberThomasGuinzberg.jpg)
George Ohrstrom was an usher in Peter Matthiessen's (of the Paris Review and the CIA) wedding, as was the sister-in-law of Richard Ober of CIA. Usher Thomas Guinzburg would later hire Jackie Onassis. He was Matthiessen's Yale roommate and presented as not being witty to Matthiessen's CIA affiliation, but Guinzburg's father was OSS minister of propaganda (OWI) and immediately after WWII led a US intelligence program intended to influence what would and would not be suitable subject matter for publication...
In John Macomber's wedding article, his brother William was best man, as well as best man in the 1946 Bush-Ellis wedding
(Alexander Ellis was S&B) and in the 1973 wedding of Thomas Devine. Devine's new wife's father was Scroll and Key.
John Macomber's brother Robert was an usher, along with Tom Guinzburg.
William Macomber, Ed Hooker, George Bush:
http://jfkfacts.org/exchange-on-the-bush-did-it-theory/#comment-861370
Tom S. March 5, 2016 at 10:30 pm
The ?problem? is not where Bush was on November 22. It is that he had so many he was so close to who
had close contact with DeMohrenschildt, and in one example, with both DeMohrenschildt and with Garry Coit,
Priscilla Johnson?s CIA contact. In 1940, Bush lived in the small A.U.V. secret society house on the campus of Phillips Andover ? http://preservation.mhl.org/123-main-st
(https://preservation.mhl.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/images/survey/123_Main_St.jpg?itok=abeCKp_I)
(http://jfk.education/images/AUV1940HookerMacomber.jpg)
.......
Along with Bush in residence, were DeMohrenschildt?s step-nephew and later business partner, the man who introduced DeMohrenschildt to Wynne Sharples, Edward Gordon Hooker. Bush escorted Hooker?s daughter down the wedding aisle in 1972, and ?gave away? Susan B. Hooker to groom, Ames Braga, son of B. Rionda Braga.
Along with Bush and Hooker, also in residence was William B. Macomber, Jr., best man in the 1946 wedding of Bush?s sister, Nancy, and in the 1973 wedding of Thomas J. Devine. Devine, from 1944 to 1946, lived in the Sigma Chi fraternity house on the M.I.T. campus, with Priscilla?s future CIA handler, Garry Coit, and 16 other frat brothers. Devine and Coit attended Naval radio school at the same time in October, 1944.
On April 25, 1963, two weeks after the WC determined Oswald shot at Gen. Walker, DeMohrenschildt met with Thomas Devine, who was fronting for the CIA as an investment manager at Train, Cabot, Park Ave., NYC. Devine reported three other contacts with DeMohrenschildt by May 21, 1963, (see- http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8627&relPageId=9 ) and was tasked by CIA?s C. Frank Stone, III (see- http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=64083&relPageId=2&search=nattily )
to learn all he could about George DeM. HSCA witness Joseph F. Dryer, Jr. claimed he held a separate meeting on April 25, 1963 with DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles, and that a CIA contact told Dryer that a secretary traveling in the U.S. with Clemard Charles was reporting to CIA.
Dryer?s brother and business partner happened to be a longtime classmate of Devine?s at a small private, K-12 school in Rochester, NY. Joan Mellen wrote extensively about Dryer in her recent book, ?Our Man In Haiti,? and when I asked her if she was aware that Peter R. Dryer was Tom Devine?s schoolmate, she shared that Joseph F Dryer revealed to her only after her book went to publication, that he considered Devine his closest friend in Rochester.
CIA?s Gale Allen reported that Devine had ?read in,? Bush on detail related to CIA Op Wubriny, referred to in Devine?s reporting relating to his contacts with DeMohrenschildt. see- http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=12758&relPageId=2
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14052-thomas-j-devine/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-208679
Oct 13, 2009 -
Also in 1973, Macomber's brother, John, left his position as a McKinsey & Co. partner, to take the job as President of Celanese Corp. He then hired Thomas Devine, a Train, Cabot partner, as V.P. and controller at Celanese.
-
That's the problem. It was a book based on the interviews and not on the actual evidence. The problem with his interview is that some of those quoted in the book claimed not to have spoken to or were misquoted or had their remarks taken out of context by the shifty Epstein.
Among his reservations about the SBT was the clothing holes and his thought that teh President and the Governor were hit separately and too close in time for a single assassin. Had he the resources and inclination, he might have found several photos showing the President's jacket was bunched up and that Connally was below and to the left of Kennedy.
Epstein criticized the Commission's finding that foliage blocked Oswald's view because he thought the oak tree between the SN and the limousine had no foliage in November.
Among his reservations about the SBT was the clothing holes.... he might have found several photos showing the President's jacket was bunched up and that Connally was below and to the left of Kennedy.
Before the Internet age seeing a fair cross section of photos of the President in Dallas wasn't easy and the early Krooked Conspiracy Authors took advantage of this but anyone and I mean anyone who still uses the hole in the Jacket argument without considering the very obvious bunching is in serious need of glasses.
JohnM
-
Before the Internet age seeing a fair cross section of photos of the President in Dallas wasn't easy and the early Krooked Conspiracy Authors took advantage of this but anyone and I mean anyone who still uses the hole in the Jacket argument without considering the very obvious bunching is in serious need of glasses.
JohnM
Again, the Hole in JFK's Dress Shirt aligns with the Bullet Hole in his back. BOTH of these Holes Align with the Hole in the Jacket. The "bunching" argument is a David Copperfield maneuver intended to distract the audience. This tactic does Not Work on those that Focus their Attention on ALL of the pertinent FACTS.
PS - With regard to Mr Payette, he lists a date of Jan. 1 in regard to his becoming a "retired" attorney. In What YEAR is this crack attorney/civil litigator's retirement connected to?
-
Again, the Hole in JFK's Dress Shirt aligns with the Bullet Hole in his back. BOTH of these Holes Align with the Hole in the Jacket. The "bunching" argument is a David Copperfield maneuver intended to distract the audience. This tactic does Not Work on those that Focus their Attention on ALL of the pertinent FACTS.
PS - With regard to Mr Payette, he lists a date of Jan. 1 in regard to his becoming a "retired" attorney. In What YEAR is this crack attorney/civil litigator's retirement connected to?
The "bunching" argument is a David Copperfield maneuver intended to distract the audience.
Sorry.
(https://s17.postimg.org/jbanttk6n/spectorsbf.gif)
PS - With regard to Mr Payette, he lists a date of Jan. 1 in regard to his becoming a "retired" attorney. In What YEAR is this crack attorney/civil litigator's retirement connected to?
He's a member over at Ed Forum, if you want to know any specific details go ask him but be careful with you usual wild accusations because he just may sue your ass! Hahaha!
Btw what happened to your over the top pompous style of post formatting?
JohnM
-
Sorry.
(https://s17.postimg.org/jbanttk6n/spectorsbf.gif)
He's a member over at Ed Forum, if you want to know any specific details go ask him but be careful with you usual wild accusations because he just may sue your ass! Hahaha!
Btw what happened to your over the top pompous style of post formatting?
JohnM
(1) Being incapable of supply Details pertaining to Your Posted Source reflects poorly on that Source in addition to You having Blindly proffered said source.
(2) There is NO Avoiding the Bullet Hole in the JFK Jacket aligning with both the Bullet Hole in JFK's Dress Shirt & the Bullet Hole in JFK 's Back. Your Refusal to address this FACT Immediately renders your "bunching" issue D.O.A.
-
(1) Being incapable of supply Details pertaining to Your Posted Source reflects poorly on that Source in addition to You having Blindly proffered said source.
(2) There is NO Avoiding the Bullet Hole in the JFK Jacket aligning with both the Bullet Hole in JFK's Dress Shirt & the Bullet Hole in JFK 's Back. Your Refusal to address this FACT Immediately renders your "bunching" issue D.O.A.
1. First of all what happened to your sarcastic comments regarding Lance? typical Kook coward. Lance in his above post provided all the details required and if you want to further investigate his life story as verification then as I said he is a member at the Ed Forum, go right ahead.
2. Stop wasting our time, the jacket clearly shows BUNCHING on Elm street which corresponds 100% with the autopsy photos.Try again.
JohnM
-
1. First of all what happened to your sarcastic comments regarding Lance? typical Kook coward. Lance in his above post provided all the details required and if you want to further investigate his life story as verification then as I said he is a member at the Ed Forum, go right ahead.
2. Stop wasting our time, the jacket clearly shows BUNCHING on Elm street which corresponds 100% with the autopsy photos.Try again.
JohnM
(1) Next time research your source. (Embarrassing)
(2) Running away from the Bullet Hole in JFK's Jacket aligning with the Bullet Hole in JFK's Dress Shirt & the Bullet Hole in JFK's back = Further Embarrassment
-
(1) Next time research your source. (Embarrassing)
(2) Running away from the Bullet Hole in JFK's Jacket aligning with the Bullet Hole in JFK's Dress Shirt & the Bullet Hole in JFK's back = Further Embarrassment
(1) Next time research your source. (Embarrassing)
Again you fail.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22280-lance-payette/
https://www.lawyers.com/prescott/arizona/lance-b-payette-168127020-a/
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/86302-az-lance-payette-404013.html
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1805149_1
(2) Running away from the Bullet Hole in JFK's Jacket aligning with the Bullet Hole in JFK's Dress Shirt & the Bullet Hole in JFK's back = Further Embarrassment
Yawn! The jacket was bunched! Case Closed!
(https://s17.postimg.org/jbanttk6n/spectorsbf.gif)
Btw what happened to your ridiculously pretentious post formatting, why the change? Hehehe!
JohnM
-
Again you fail.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22280-lance-payette/
https://www.lawyers.com/prescott/arizona/lance-b-payette-168127020-a/
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/86302-az-lance-payette-404013.html
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1805149_1
H
Yawn! The jacket was bunched! Case Closed!
(https://s17.postimg.org/jbanttk6n/spectorsbf.gif)
Btw what happened to your ridiculously pretentious post formatting, why the change? Hehehe!
JohnM
Duncan slapped his wrist about forum formatting a day or two ago
-
Duncan slapped his wrist about forum formatting a day or two ago
Excellent, like so many other Conspiracy Kooks he's just another sad sack who desperately wants to stand out and be noticed because for all these poor old sods who never did or accomplished anything meaningful throughout their life, this is their last chance.
JohnM
-
(quoting Lance Payette)
But the point is, the folks in 1963 had the Klein's order coupon in LHO's handwriting, the original postal money order in LHO's handwriting, the post office box application in LHO's handwriting, and solid evidence that LHO had been seen with, practiced with and otherwise handled the rifle that was found at the scene of the crime and determined to have fired the bullets responsible for the wounds. The Dallas post office clerks did not report the delivery of the rifle - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant. Holmes did not bring the record stub with him when he testified - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant.
And when you don't have the facts, make up some stuff that isn't true and call it a fact.
There's no evidence, solid or otherwise that "LHO had been seen with, practiced with and otherwise handled the rifle that was found at the scene of the crime", and there's no evidence that the rifle found at the scene of the crime (actually a building near the scene of the crime) was ever "determined to have fired the bullets responsible for the wounds". Those are just flat out fabrications. Not only that, but Holmes was monitoring Oswald's mail because he told the FBI about Oswald's letters to the FPCC. So the bit about the clerks not reporting the delivery is a red herring. Who claimed that they should have? Reported to whom?
As for Mytton's little "top of his head" list, every single thing on there is either false, unproven speculation, or irrelevant to the crime being discussed. Which is why this list, like Bugliosi's list, is just lawyer rhetoric. The idea is to do a data dump and try to overwhelm people with a whole bunch of claims and hope that they won't bother to refute them all individually. Then declare victory. It's also called the Gish Gallop, named for creationist Duane Gish who frequently uses the technique. When any single point is refuted, the galloper either ignores the response, just repeats the claim again, and/or makes a whole bunch of other claims without any justification. Anytime any particular claim in such a Mytton "mountain" is examined in any detail it quickly falls apart like the house of cards that it is. But then he'll whine that none of that matters because Oswald did it. So, what's really going on is that he's being a desperate prosecuting attorney, hoping to dazzle his imaginary jury with bullsh*t and hope they can't tell the difference.
-
Excellent, like so many other Conspiracy Kooks he's just another sad sack who desperately wants to stand out and be noticed because for all these poor old sods who never did or accomplished anything meaningful throughout their life, this is their last chance.
JohnM
If Duncan wants a certain look to forum formatting he can control to HTML tools more tightly, like Morley's forum. Frankly, Royell seems a little quirky (good for him) and probably can't stand convention.
-
If Duncan wants a certain look to forum formatting he can control to HTML tools more tightly, like Morley's forum. Frankly, Royell seems a little quirky (good for him) and probably can't stand convention.
If Duncan wants a certain look to forum formatting he can control to HTML tools more tightly, like Morley's forum.
Storing didn't use any formatting tools, he just repeatedly pressed the spacebar and that you cannot combat.
Frankly, Royell seems a little quirky (good for him) and probably can't stand convention.
They all have their quirks and methodology.
Caprio's "you have no evidence"
Weidmann's aggression
Capasse's BS images.
Ray's inability to understand anything image related.
Iacoletti all of the above. LOL
Storing's bizarre formatting AND ODD capitalization.
Ernie's BOLDING
Fratini and Crow ganging up on you.
JohnM
-
If Duncan wants a certain look to forum formatting he can control to HTML tools more tightly, like Morley's forum. Frankly, Royell seems a little quirky (good for him) and probably can't stand convention.
"More tightly"? In my experience you are comparing apples to oranges.
I have used this forum's software on several of my own websites, in several editions, just as Duncan has.
I hope we can agree that he prefers it, as an off the shelf solution, for at least 8 years on this (jfkassassinationforum.com) site.:
https://download.simplemachines.org/
I have spent time, behind the curtain, on Morley's website. It is a lightly customized version of this.:
https://wordpress.org/download/
From my own hands on experience with both of those comments platforms, Morley's jfkfacts.org is not limited in
the constraint he prefers of comments features and options, but by the secondary nature of the comments module in the
design of the package. It is a blog format. Those with privileged access to create articles have even richer features
than anyone participating here have.
The comments module is bare bones and cannot be enhanced, except as I did with edit privileged access, when I was
comments editor, there.
Example: http://jfkfacts.org/who-was-the-only-man-to-ever-face-legal-charges-in-jfks-assassination/#comment-856847
No admin would grant that level to commenters, and that level is still bare bones, compared to the
forum software we enjoy here.:
-
But when you get into the level of work that the FBI and Warren Commission did (some of which is truly mind-boggling), and then the review by the HSCA, you realize that the assassination DID receive a close look. It may be the accepted conspiracy gospel that the Warren Report was a slipshod effort, but that is simply not true, I have no problem if someone wants to keep looking, so long as it remains within the bounds of sanity.
Nothing related to the Klein's paperwork presented by the Commission was investigated.
This guy is an ignorant nut job.
This guy ( Lance Payette )is an ignorant nut job.
-
Storing didn't use any formatting tools, he just repeatedly pressed the spacebar and that you cannot combat.
They all have their quirks and methodology.
Caprio's "you have no evidence"
Weidmann's aggression
Capasse's BS images.
Ray's inability to understand anything image related.
Iacoletti all of the above. LOL
Storing's bizarre formatting AND ODD capitalization.
Ernie's BOLDING
Fratini and Crow ganging up on you.
JohnM
Each time I arrive on the forum main page, usually CTers are hogging all but one or two front page slots. And you'll notice that these characters are always slapping each other on the back. This, and the demand that we answer all their posts, and immediately... then claim we cannot when they get no response. That is confirmation neediness gone wild.
-
Storing didn't use any formatting tools, he just repeatedly pressed the spacebar and that you cannot combat.
They all have their quirks and methodology.
Caprio's "you have no evidence"
Weidmann's aggression
Capasse's BS images.
Ray's inability to understand anything image related.
Iacoletti all of the above. LOL
Storing's bizarre formatting AND ODD capitalization.
Ernie's BOLDING
Fratini and Crow ganging up on you.
JohnM
It's unfortunate for you, that I'm here to show your disinformation, John. Carry on giving us a laugh.
-
They all have their quirks and methodology.
Caprio's "you have no evidence"
Weidmann's aggression
Capasse's BS images.
Ray's inability to understand anything image related.
Iacoletti all of the above. LOL
Storing's bizarre formatting AND ODD capitalization.
Ernie's BOLDING
Fratini and Crow ganging up on you.
JohnM
Colin if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
JohnM
-
And when you don't have the facts, make up some stuff that isn't true and call it a fact.
Says the guy who claims that the shooter was crouched down behind boxes in the window so as to imply that Brennan couldn't possibly have seen the belt. Then ignores the fact that Brennan said he observed the same man prior to the arrival of the motorcade standing near the window and saw him from the hips/belt up.
And by the way, why would the shooter have to be 'crouched behind boxes' when all that was visible from the street was just the tip of one box.
Your need to sensationalize every little detail speaks volumes.
-
Says the guy who claims that the shooter was crouched down behind boxes in the window so as to imply that Brennan couldn't possibly have seen the belt. Then ignores the fact that Brennan said he observed the same man prior to the arrival of the motorcade standing near the window and saw him from the hips/belt up.
And by the way, why would the shooter have to be 'crouched behind boxes' when all that was visible from the street was just the tip of one box.
Your need to sensationalize every little detail speaks volumes.
Brennan said he observed the same man prior to the arrival of the motorcade standing near the window and saw him from the hips/belt up.
Here are Brennan's words from his affidavit on 11/22/63.
Quote:..."Then the 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"...unquote.
Brennan said that he saw the man standing and aiming a HUNTING rifle ( possibly a 30-30 Winchester) out of a sixth floor window and he could see this man from about his belt up.
This was NOT before the motorcade arrived.....
-
Says the guy who claims that the shooter was crouched down behind boxes in the window so as to imply that Brennan couldn't possibly have seen the belt. Then ignores the fact that Brennan said he observed the same man prior to the arrival of the motorcade standing near the window and saw him from the hips/belt up.
Try again, Bill. He said he could see him from the belt up at the time of the head shot.
And by the way, why would the shooter have to be 'crouched behind boxes' when all that was visible from the street was just the tip of one box.
How do you think the gunman was positioned for the head shot?
Your need to sensationalize every little detail speaks volumes.
I think you're talking about Brennan. He wrote a 128 page book about a 6 second experience.
-
Try again, Bill. He said he could see him from the belt up at the time of the head shot.
How do you think the gunman was positioned for the head shot?
I think you're talking about Brennan. He wrote a 128 page book about a 6 second experience.
Hold on, not so fast. He testified 'a possibilty' from the 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.
-
Hold on, not so fast. He testified 'a possibilty' from the 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.
But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
Yes ...and using common sense in conjunction with what he wrote in his affidavit an intelligent person would conclude that Brennan was merely saying that he could have been off a couple of inches above the belt because he may not have actually seen a belt..... Without doubt Brennan saw the man standing and aiming the rifle from a window.....That window had to have been wide open because Brennan saw him steadying the hunting rifle against the side of the open window and he could see all of the barrel of the rifle.
-
Setting aside Walt's fabrication that Brennan's gunman was standing up in the west end window, how does Brennan see any part of a gunman in the SE corner window taking aim for the head shot, other than possibly part of a face and an arm?
[credit Colin Crow]
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/colin-crow-brennan-view1.jpg)
-
Setting aside Walt's fabrication that Brennan's gunman was standing up in the west end window, how does Brennan see any part of a gunman in the SE corner window taking aim for the head shot, other than possibly part of a face and an arm?
[credit Colin Crow]
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/colin-crow-brennan-view1.jpg)
So you recognize that Howard Brennan could NOT have been referring to the partially open window at the SE corner of the sixth floor ......but refuse to believe Brennan's affidavit in which he clearly describes a window that had to have been wide open....
-
So you recognize that Howard Brennan could NOT have been referring to the partially open window at the SE corner of the sixth floor ......but refuse to believe Brennan's affidavit in which he clearly describes a window that had to have been wide open....
Brennan has no credibility whatsoever.
-
From the DiEugenics guy over on the ED Forum:
Lance:
Just out of curiosity, how long have you been investigating this case?
I say that because your urge to find closure on this issue, with conclusions that to most people would seem jerry built strikes me as being rather odd for any kind of person who is very familiar with this case. Also, your lack of any interviews or documentary research into the provenance of the money order is also puzzling.
I mean lawyers are supposed to be ultra vigilant about the issues of chain of possession. That is, how did a piece of evidence get from one step to another, how did it originate? Because if there are any lacunae in that chain, the court, the jury and judge will look askance at that evidence.
Yet, in your eagerness for finality, you have not asked one question about this issue. Therefore in just a matter of days and sixteen posts, you have done what say Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and the later Ray Gallagher could not do in literally years of research, going back to the nineties.
Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?
;D
-
Brennan has no credibility whatsoever.
LBJ's Special Select Cover Up Committee certainly thought he had credibility, and he was their prime witness who they needed to use to convince the public that Leee Harrrrrvey Osssswald was guilty.
-
From the DiEugenics guy over on the ED Forum:
Lance:
Just out of curiosity, how long have you been investigating this case?
I say that because your urge to find closure on this issue, with conclusions that to most people would seem jerry built strikes me as being rather odd for any kind of person who is very familiar with this case. Also, your lack of any interviews or documentary research into the provenance of the money order is also puzzling.
I mean lawyers are supposed to be ultra vigilant about the issues of chain of possession. That is, how did a piece of evidence get from one step to another, how did it originate? Because if there are any lacunae in that chain, the court, the jury and judge will look askance at that evidence.
Yet, in your eagerness for finality, you have not asked one question about this issue. Therefore in just a matter of days and sixteen posts, you have done what say Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and the later Ray Gallagher could not do in literally years of research, going back to the nineties.
Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?
;D
...........
I think it is reasonable to expect it would have required bus loads of pre-assassination planners and post assassination coordinators and fakery
management to bring the beliefs and conclusions of DiEugenio and Sandy to the realm of possibilities.
Whoops......I almost neglected to lump Caprio in with DiEugenio and Sandy.
-
Brennan has no credibility whatsoever.
Brennan has no credibility whatsoever.
Then why have you used his statements to bolster your position that there was a man who was dressed in light colored khaki clothing aiming a hunting rifle from the SE corner window?
-
Brennan has no credibility whatsoever.
Then why have you used his statements to bolster your position that there was a man who was dressed in light colored khaki clothing aiming a hunting rifle from the SE corner window?
I haven't.