JFK Assassination Forum

To my credit - please, hold your applause - I:

1. Was referring to Niederhut as NiederNut long ago, until I was asked to stop.

2. Called out NiederNut for his antisemitism long ago, when he first began claiming 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Do a search at the Ed Forum for posts by NiederNut and the term "Mossad" - you will be astonished. You will also find one by me stating, "I am AGHAST that this sort of anti-Semitic claptrap would be tolerated by the Administrators of this forum and endorsed by any thinking person. ... If I were a practicing psychiatrist accountable to a state licensing board, I don't believe I would be endorsing views such as this on a public forum.  No wonder this entire site seems to be fading into well-deserved oblivion."

3. Seriously contemplated reporting him to the Colorado Medical Board and asking if they really thought this guy should be providing psychiatric counseling (as opposed to receiving it!) but then decided that opening a can of worms with a loose cannon like NiederNut was probably not in my best interests.

I am beyond flabbergasted that a psychiatrist who has ideas like his floating around in his head is able to maintain a practice. It reminds me of when I first began representating a mental health agency in involuntary commitments of folks with serious mental illnesses who were a danger to themselves or others. A commitment required the testimony of two licensed psychiatrists. The attorney I replaced warned me, "You're quickly going to learn the psychiatrists are nuttier than the patients."

Although I was no longer a member of the Ed Forum, the appointment of NiederNut and Sandy Larsen as moderators was to me the clearest sign this was no longer a serious forum and that something was very, very wrong. Talk about the lunatics running the asylum.

There is more signed Ernest Brandt crap on the internet than there is Haygood crap. It's pathetic. For far less than he's asking, folks can have a signed photo of me in the 43rd row of the 1983 MLB All-Star Game watching Rod Carew's historic pop-up to Ozzie Smith.

This is clearly a result of the Mandela effect due to your shape shifting extraterrestials having traveled thru a portal created in 2015 at the CERN particle accelerator. 😀

There is more signed Ernest Brandt crap on the internet than there is Haygood crap. It's pathetic. For far less than he's asking, folks can have a signed photo of me in the 43rd row of the 1983 MLB All-Star Game watching Rod Carew's historic pop-up to Ozzie Smith.

Jesus, "a dog with a bone," as Mark Urik said about someone not long ago. Apparently you simply cannot admit you are wrong and let it go. I am on the verge of suffering not merely "Sandy Larsen flashbacks" but "Sandy Larsen PTSD."

Look, booby, you cited (1) the Manson case, which was tried as a conspiracy case, and in fact the Tate and LaBianca murders were committed in the same manner by the same people on two successive nights, and (2) the OJ case, where the two murders were committed at the same time and place using the same weapon and obviously by the same perpetrator. Neither is the situation with JFK and Tippit.

Yes, obviously, crimes including murders are often tried together. This is why EVERY STATE has a statute or rule that crimes may be tried together if they are part of the "same criminal episode" (or words to that effect). DUH, YES? Likewise, EVERY STATE has a statute or rule that the crimes may be SEVERED, meaning SEPARATE TRIALS, if the defendant can show a single trial would result in unfair prejudice. DUH, YES? The very existence of these rules refutes the silly arguments you keep making. DUH, YES?

Because you are an "everything is black and white" know-it-all who has no clue how lawyers think - just like Sandy Larsen! - you seemingly can't grasp that every situation is different. What the hell was your career - IRS tax auditor? It can't have been anything requiring nuanced thinking.

Sometimes the prosecution would want separate trials, sometimes the defense would want one. Sometimes the prosecution would want one, the defense two. Often neither side cares one way or the other. It's always a matter of trial strategy. A simple Google search will generate multiple appellate cases where severance was an issue, with a defendant typically arguing that severance should have been granted and he was prejudiced because it was not.

For the last time: The JFK and Tippit murders are not inevitably connected, except in the mind of an LN zealot. The evidence and witnesses would be entirely different. There would be HUGE risk that a jury would connect the two and decide that Oswald "must have" killed Tippit if he killed JFK or "must have" killed JFK if he killed Tippit. This is the potential prejudice of trying both murders together, and it is precisely the invalid connection that Bugliosi made in the mock trial (where there obviously was not going to be a motion for severance because it was just a TV show).

I can GUARANTEE you that in a trial of Oswald the defense would be arguing both that (1) two trials were required because the murders were not part of the same episode, and (2) even if they were, severance should be granted because of the potential prejudice of trying them together. If the motion were denied, the defense would pursue what is called an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the trial even begins. If the interlocutory appeal were denied, the defense would preserve the severance issue as a major one on post-trial appeal. The correctness of the defense's position would be so clear in this case that I strongly doubt the prosecution would even oppose severance.

Apparently every forum has its Pretend Lawyers. At the Ed Forum, I not only had goofy Sandy, who was some sort of civil engineer, but even Jim DiEugenio lecturing me as to how I didn't understand the rules of evidence. Yeeesh ...

For a laugh, I looked at the Education Forum after reading Benjamin Cole's post and just wow... I urge folks to read the current lead post there from the moderator W. Niederhut where he lists all the things he believes are true, and as such forbidden from further debate.. including that the World Trade Center buildings were taken down by "controlled demolition." This would be funny if it weren't so sad!

I've always wondered how a controlled demolition brought down the towers from the top down. Every controlled demolition I've ever seen blows up the foundation floor and the rest of the building collapses on top of it. The top floor is the last one to disappear into the rubble.