JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Len Colby]

I repeat my objection of the continuing violation of forum rules by moderator Tom Skully and the continuing refusal of the other moderators to apply them to him. If a mod. ignores the rules and other mods./admis. refuse to enforce them when violated by him, why should any member obey them?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I repeat my objection of the continuing violation of forum rules by moderator Tom Skully and the continuing refusal of the other moderators to apply them to him. If a mod. ignores the rules and other mods./admis. refuse to enforce them when violated by him, why should any member obey them?

I have not followed this thread

so I do not know what Len's beef is

with Mr. Scully

BUT I have my own beef with Mr. Scully

who is a disgrace to this forum, IMHO.

Mr. Scully takes the position as MODERATOR, if you please,

that an argument in favor of Lee Oswald's complete innocence

is off-topic on the JFK Forum.

John McAdams does not think so

and neither does Debra Conway

and neither does any RATIONAL person

Would someone please take this guy to the woodshed

and while you are at it,

make him remove his obnoxious ranting against the innocent kids

who were murdered by a Norwegian madman.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Len and Ray, I want to confirm that you, Len, have posted in protest here because an opening post built around these points is receiving special treatment because it is definitely not relevant to JFK debate.:

......

http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/09/30/extrajudicial-execution-of-samir-khan-arguably-more-significant-than-awlaki/#comment-323061

Jeff Kaye on September 30, 2011 at 6:01 pm said:

@William Ockham:

This is the official confirmation of what we here have known, but so many people claimed

wasn’t true. Our entire political establishment has accepted the idea that if an

American citizen steps foot outside of the United States, the government can kill

him or her on the President’s orders and nothing else. Whether or not he can kill

us on a whim inside the borders of the U.S. is an open question.

That is true, but on such a solemn occasion, why not say what we also know is true: if they powers that be deem it important enough, they will assassinate an American citizen on U.S. soil, too, be it someone with little power, like a Fred Hampton, a disgruntled insider, like Frank Olson, or someone with seemingly a great deal of power, like a John Kennedy. Perhaps it is time to dust off the faux-conspiracy phobia and just say what is. The U.S. government murders. They have a taste for murder. And the only thing that keeps them from going the whole hog is that they mostly find it, for the time being, an inefficient and socially provocative way to enlarge their political supremacy. (Also, there is that pesky tradition from the Enlightenment and much of U.S. history about fighting for rule of law, and distrusting the power of government, particularly the Executive… ah! how quaint)

But the message of these killings is… seems they don’t find it so inexpedient anymore.

....

...and you, Ray, are posting here in protest...BTW, these are entire quotes of the opening posts of the most recent two threads you've authored on JFK Debate.:

This is a great week because it heralds the beginning of SPRING.

It is especially great, because we celebrate THE GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED, THE BOLD SAINT PATRICK, who abolished slavery a thousand years before Lincoln.

Hope y'all enjoy this song by Nanci Griffith, a great Texan.

John Raley is the greatest trial lawyer

I have ever seen in action

besides being an all-round GREAT GUY.

Below is an email from John about his most important case ever

and I urge everyone to watch 60 Minutes this coming Sunday.

Friends,

I wanted to let you know that 60 Minutes has confirmed that they will run the Michael Morton exoneration story this Sunday night the 25th.

Michael’s wife was brutally murdered at home 26 years ago while Michael was at work. He was charged with the crime and wrongfully convicted. Evidence of his innocence was concealed. After a 7 year fight to obtain DNA testing, Michael has this year been declared Actually Innocent by the State of Texas and released after 25 years in prison. The DNA testing also lead to a hit on a known felon with a lengthy record in 3 states, who has been indicted for the murder.

Many of you have supported Michael’s cause with your prayers and good wishes. He appreciates both very much. Sunday, if you have a chance to tune in, Michael will tell his story. I am interviewed briefly as well, as is Barry Scheck of my co-counsel The Innocence Project.

Take care,

John Raley

Are you posting in protest because your thread quoted above, about Michael Morton, has been moved to the political conspiracy section after you posted that the criminal conviction of Morton was the result of a conspiracy?

Have I accurately summarized where the two of you are coming from? If so, can you see that your protests have little to do with me and much to do with defining what is or isn't relevant content for JFK Debate? Why not form a committee of two and attempt to reach a consensus on this issue? Post away, right here, right now. Wouldn,t doing that be much more constructive than the pointless scapegoating of one or more moderators?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Are you posting in protest because your thread quoted above, about Michael Morton, has been moved to the political conspiracy section after you posted that the criminal conviction of Morton was the result of a conspiracy?

As far a I know, Tom Scully is the only person who has suggested

that the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton was the result of a conspiracy.

I have never said or suggested such a thing

and neither has John Raley or anyone on Morton's legal team.

Tom Scully Simply invented this himself which is why I am protesting his completely arbitrary behaviour.

As members here know, I believe Lee Oswald was completely innocent of killing JFK,

and had nothing whatsoever to do with any crime.

The subject of wrongful conviction is therefore highly relevant for the case of Lee OSwald

AND THEREORE to the JFK INQUIRY..

My view may be a minority view at present,

and I understand that Mr. Scully disagrees with me

But surely that does not give him the right to act the bully.

I would appreciate it if other moderators would weigh in

on this piece of motivated CENSORSHIP.

As anyone who watched 6o Minutes tonight knows,

Morton's legal team alleges that one Mr. Anderson, now a judge

withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.

and as EVERYONE knows

one man doe not a conspiracy make.

Edited March 26, 2012 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Guest Tom Scully]

Ray, when I read this from you, I assumed you had a grasp of the basic details of the controversy, especially since you had started a thread on the topic, and that you were coherent. I admit now I was mistaken in both of those assumptions.

Again, hash all this out with Len, stop scapegoating moderators, and take stock of your frequent tendency to convey an impression in your posts that you are struggling with challenges manifesting themselves in your posts as remarkably similar to what would be unsurprising to read if it was authored by someone of diminished capacity.

....John Raley is determined to prove, and time will tell if he is right

that the investigation of the Morton murder wan't botched, as you claim

but that Morton was deliberately framed

by the prosecutor who concealed proof of Morton's innocence.....

http://wilcosun.com/pages/morton%2011-09.php

Testimony sheds new light on Morton case

By ANDREW McLEMORE

.....Depositions revealed

Despite legal challenges from both Mr. Davis and Judge Anderson, attorneys for Mr. Morton were able to depose both men over the last two weeks.

The attorneys are investigating whether the prosecutors deliberately withheld evidence that could have proved Mr. Morton was innocent before he spent a quarter-century in prison.

The State Bar of Texas is also investigating possible wrongdoing by the two prosecutors. A representative from the bar was present during the deposition of Mr. Davis, and likely the deposition of Judge Anderson as well.

Transcripts of the testimony gathered by the attorneys were filed over the last week, and the nine-hour deposition of Judge Anderson could be available as early as Thursday. Judge Anderson has declined requests for comment, but upon leaving the deposition October 31, he told a YNN reporter he’d done nothing wrong.

So far, the interviews with Mr. Davis and the case’s investigator Don Wood suggest that two people will bear the brunt of responsibility for why crucial pieces of evidence weren’t given to defense attorneys: Sheriff Jim Boutwell and Judge Anderson.The former sheriff died almost 20 years ago, but ended up testifying at trial instead of Sgt. Wood, who had handled most of the murder investigation. Sgt. Wood collected most of the evidence that would remain hidden from Morton’s attorneys for two decades.

That evidence includes:

• Sgt. Wood’s interview of Rita Kirkpatrick, Mr. Morton’s mother-in-law.

• A message to Sgt. Wood that Christine Morton’s missing credit card was used in San Antonio two days after her murder by a woman previously convicted of fraud.

• Another message to Sgt. Wood that a check made out to Christine Morton was cashed nine days after her murder with a forged signature on the back.

• A report by another WilCo deputy that a neighbor had repeatedly seen a man park a green van behind the Morton home and walk into the wooded area behind the house.

Both the check and credit card would have been in Christine Morton’s purse, which was missing from the crime scene and never recovered.

Though the former sheriff’s office investigator said he no longer remembers gathering that evidence, he would have provided all those leads to Sheriff Boutwell.

Sgt. Wood and Mr. Davis told attorneys they don’t know if that evidence was turned over.

But Sgt. Wood said those sound like leads he would have pursued, and Mr. Davis said all of it should have been provided to Mr. Morton’s attorneys.

John Raley, a Houston lawyer who also represents Mr. Morton, interviewed Sgt. Wood.

RALEY: So you wouldn’t, you would never ever conceal a document for information from the District Attorney.

WOOD: Let me tell you something. I’m not a xxxx.

RALEY: Good.

WOOD: And if they asked me for something, I furnished it if I could. If I couldn’t, I’d tell them I didn’t have it.

Mike Davis

As district attorney, Ken Anderson paid attention to detail. He was always hands-on and in control, Mr. Davis said.

He had a close relationship with Sheriff Boutwell, and the two men met frequently to discuss criminal investigations.

Mr. Davis said he was surprised, when reading transcripts from the 1987 trial, to learn that Judge Anderson fought to prevent so many pieces of evidence from being turned over to defense attorneys....

[J. Raymond Carroll]

take stock of your frequent tendency to convey an impression in your posts that you are struggling with challenges manifesting themselves in your posts as remarkably similar to what would be unsurprising to read if it was authored by someone of diminished capacity.

W ell it is a long time Since I read such a tortured piece of prose.

Lee Oswald went to his grave protesting his innocence

jut as Michael Morton would have done

had it not been for The Innocence project.

It seems you and most members here don't believe Lee Oswald

and you are abusing your position to censor discussion relevant to the question of Lee Oswald's innocence.

Once again I would like to know if other moderators support this form of CENORHIP.

I am not interested in hearing any more of Scully's gobbledygook

Edited March 26, 2012 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Guest Tom Scully]

Uhhhh, Ray? Reality check, are these not accurate quotes of the entire first two posts in the thread you titled, "ANOTHER TEXAS EXONERATIION" ? How did it start with this and then descend to you muttering over and over about my opinion about Oswald and about me as a person and as a moderator? How did the Michael Morton investigation narrow to an investigation of a sole prosecutor? I've remained civil to you in these exchanges. Please review my posts and yours, Ray. Consider what you've posted and what your trying to accomplish and how you've been going about it.

Post #1 in the thread you authored:

John Raley is the greatest trial lawyer

I have ever seen in action

besides being an all-round GREAT GUY.

Below is an email from John about his most important case ever

and I urge everyone to watch 60 Minutes this coming Sunday.

Friends,

I wanted to let you know that 60 Minutes has confirmed that they will run the Michael Morton exoneration story this Sunday night the 25th.

Michael’s wife was brutally murdered at home 26 years ago while Michael was at work. He was charged with the crime and wrongfully convicted. Evidence of his innocence was concealed. After a 7 year fight to obtain DNA testing, Michael has this year been declared Actually Innocent by the State of Texas and released after 25 years in prison. The DNA testing also lead to a hit on a known felon with a lengthy record in 3 states, who has been indicted for the murder.

Many of you have supported Michael’s cause with your prayers and good wishes. He appreciates both very much. Sunday, if you have a chance to tune in, Michael will tell his story. I am interviewed briefly as well, as is Barry Scheck of my co-counsel The Innocence Project.

Take care,

John Raley

Post #2 in the same thread, and note there is no mention of any Oswald in either post, but there does seem that routine questions were asked of you in a respectful manner.:

Ray, I'm inclined to move this thread out of JFK Debate but I, and I'm sure other moderators want to give you the benefit of the doubt as to the issue of relevance.

My reasoning is that the only relevance is that the investigating of this crime was botched and it happened in the state of Texas and JFK was assassinated in Texas.

Texas is a big state. There is a map at this link illustrating the location of the county where this crime occurred.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_County,_Texas

Here is a brief discription.:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-morton-free-25-years-prison-exonerated-wifes/story?id=14663445#.T20LmBAprAs

By CHRISTINA CARON

Oct. 4, 2011

After serving nearly 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife, Michael Morton was freed this afternoon in Texas, exonerated by DNA evidence that connected another man to his wife's bludgeoning.

The former grocery store employee, who is now 57, was released Tuesday afternoon when he appeared before the 26th Judicial Court of Williamston County Texas. ...

....A sergeant at the Williamson County Sheriff's Office interviewed Morton's mother-in-law and his son Eric, who was 3 years old at the time. ....

I can recognize relevance when reporting on a current event related to a botched investigation involves an old case handled by the Dallas P.D., or a former Dallas D.A. and the relationship of the case to a decision or a policy of a more recent Dallas D.A., or even involvement of the FBI crime lab where a relevant link to the investigation in Dallas in November, 1963.

So far, I just don't see why this belongs here. Why is it here and where would be your second preference for this thread to be on the Education Forum?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I've remained civil to you in these exchanges.

Yes Tom, you have remained civil

if calling me 'a person of diminished capacity'

meets your definition of civil

and if bullying me by arbitralily moving my posts to another forum

can be called civil.

By your definition, no doubt,

you have been very civil indeed.

Please review my posts and yours, Ray. Consider what you've posted and what your trying to accomplish and how you've been going about it.

I have reviewed both our posts as you suggested.

For your information

what I am trying to accomplish is to post about a case

that IMO has parallels to the case of Lee Oswald,

but apparently if I want to discuss Lee Oswald's innocence I m not allowed to do so

on the JFK forum.

P.S When I checked this thread a few hours ago

I saw a lengthy post from you

threatening me with all kinds of retribution,

but I see that post is not there now.

Does that mean you have withdrawn those threats

or have you just moved them to another forum.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Ray, despite repeated, patient efforts to persuade you to observe the rules of the forum and to be respectful at all times to other members and moderators, you just won't let up.

The warning I communicated to you is displayed in the last post in the thread below this one. You've been extended every courtesy, despite your extreme reaction to routine moderation.

I am replying to your most recent post, since this is not a thread intended for lengthy, obnoxious protest, in the thread in question. Kindly stop posting in protest on this thread. Commence, at long last to observe the rules and simply contact another moderator or administrator if you disagree with moderating decisions I've made.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Tom Scully

[John Dolva]

under ''other points''

a couple of ''dis-likes'' :

I want to go straight to the post. Its link is least obvious (on my browser at least) aand to get there all these lingering popups appear. Shouldn't the link to the last post be above and bolded wwith a caption like latest post? ,

I got a popup for a PM but choose to follow another link before looking at the message bin and there was no message. Is ''not clicking on the popup'' a reject? Anyway to whoever PM'd me, I didn't get it.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Len Colby, I am announcing this here so as not to eclipse the announcement by Evan Burton. I made your recent thread invisible because it was OT and now seems to have become an unnecessary topic of discussion.

[Len Colby]

Len Colby, I am announcing this here so as not to eclipse the announcement by Evan Burton. I made your recent thread invisible because it was OT and now seems to have become an unnecessary topic of discussion.

Ironic that you see fit to enforce a rule you don't follow. Explain how a thread about the JFK assassination "off topic" on a forum about the JFK assassination?

The Cinque circus are among the most disruptive and oxygen consuming threads this forum has ever seen. I would like to see things get back to normal, what's so bad about that?

I request that you consult with other mods/admins about this.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Len, I made your thread visible. Please don't make me regret restoring it. I understand, from your objection to it going away, that you want to discuss the "man in the doorway" thread's negative impact on this forum and on the reputation of the research community.....

[John Dolva]

under ''other points''

a couple of ''dis-likes'' :

I want to go straight to the post. Its link is least obvious (on my browser at least) aand to get there all these lingering popups appear. Shouldn't the link to the last post be above and bolded wwith a caption like latest post? ,

I got a popup for a PM but choose to follow another link before looking at the message bin and there was no message. Is ''not clicking on the popup'' a reject? Anyway to whoever PM'd me, I didn't get it.

My mistake. I pretty sure I misread the message re new post when posting.

[Greg Parker]

I can only add to that that it is against all applications of "fair play" to hurl accusations and then lock a thread so that the accusations cannot be responded to. It is not the first time Tom has done this.

I believe moderator Tom Scully has left a distinct impression, whether intentional or unintentional, that I have done something abusive to him in my posts.

I would like it on record that this post by Tom Scully;

"Mr. Parker, Mr. Farley, and Mr. Cinque, the man posted that this thread must be "free from abuse," if it was to stay open.

When I made one last attempt to keep it within that spirit, your responses were to abuse me, and or to blame others for the way

you chose to post.

Evan Burton, on 06 June 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I considered closing the thread but feel that there are lots of issues that members still wish to discuss... free from abuse. I'm therefore leaving it open. If, however, it degenerates into invective then I will close it immediately.

Please do not start a new thread to "discuss" this topic. I will close it."

Is actually in response to this message I wrote today;

"Yeah, I think you are missing something.

Shall I tell you how I "take your statements" seeing as how we are now dishing our opinions out? I take your statements as someone who is still smarting over receiving feedback that you didn't like.

I "take your statements" like I have recently taken all of your others; with a pinch of salt mainly due to the fact they come from someone who seems to have derived an unhealthy sense of identity from your role as a moderator.

A moderator; someone who is asked to ensure that the forum rules are followed and to help diffuse emotional reactions between members.

Instead of simply applying the rules you feel it necessary to bait members who you have taken exception to. You, Sir, are as bad as any other member here in trying to stir things up. "Who do you think you are?", you write. Are you using this phrase because in a recent post I informed you that it was a sure fire way to receive an emotional response from a fellow human being? It would be best if you kept your opinions to yourself regarding me from now on because not only am I not interested in them, I'm sure the rest of members are not that interested either. Just do your job and "free speech" any offending passages from my post (but as I'm sure you aware there aren't any). Alternatively you can "disappear" them should you feel necessary as I see you now have Pat on board in utilising your "free speech framework."

You even felt it necessary a few weeks ago to question the motives of Jerry Dealey. A man who let Ralph Cinque have five months of "free speech" over at JFK Lancer. A full four months, three weeks and one day longer than you have let him have here. I guess their "free speech within a framework of rules" is more free than the one you have defined for yourself and try to push on others?

I would request that you now go back and remove the offending comments from your post, especially the quotes you attribute to me in your final paragraph that are not mine.

I would also reiterate Greg's post and ask for evidence of your allegation against me please? Your overall post does not require me to apply "meaning" to you questioning my motives and the motives of my posts. Are you familiar with the rule that you are quick to highlight of others? Or is your "free speech framework of rules" different to ours?

Thanks"

Which was in response to this that Scully posted;

"Lee Farley, on 07 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

.....About a month ago I was "debating" with Ralph Cinque over on Lancer. Not so much concerning his opinions and conclusions (many of which are so ill-conceived and bizzare that it's somewhat demeaning to reply to many of them), but more about his approach in dipping his toe into the forums that have people as members who have hundreds of years worth of collective research experience and knowledge about the case. I told him if he didn't change direction he would be crushed under the weight of a tornado of criticism. I was right. Ralph was, yet again, wrong.

.........

Well Ralph being Ralph simply dropped it. It appears that he is only interested in pursuing things that will bring him negative attention rather than things that might open up new avenues of investigation.

.........

We call it beating a dead horse. As Evan recently posted in another thread....:

Quote

http://educationforu...74

(Insert name of member with riding crop in hand) - you are better than this; show it by not retaliating to jibes, nor taking advantage of someone's situation. ....

Unless I'm missing something in your meaning, I take your statements as chest pounding over the result achieved from the effort you and others put in to make your predictions come true. You had the choice to ignore that which you disagreed with. You made a different choice. You launch your "I told you so!" Your "It is all that other guy's fault, I warned him, but he didn't listen, and now look at him!"

Just who do you think you are? You ought to consider how you come off, to those of us watching from the cheap seats."

I suppose being baited, as I have explained to Moderator Scully before, with emotive questions such as "Who do you think you are?" and having quotes invented and attributed to me, I simply have to sit and take? If I ask for an apology and respond with some of my own opinions concerning his style of moderating then is it then acceptable that I am then accused of abusing him? There is no abuse in anything I have written to him today and would ask the more level headed moderators, the ones who don't close threads as some sort of punishment to the whole membership, to look at my post to Mr. Scully and identify for me the abuse. If I don't believe there is any abuse in the post and Scully thinks there is then I would like some independent advice for future posts. I obviously don't know what I don't know.

Is Mr. Scully allowed to question my motives? Is he allowed to invent quotes and attribute them to me? If I question this behaviour and provide feedback regarding his inability to diffuse situations - is this then defined as me abusing him? Is he allowed to claim I (a.omg with others) achieved "results" through efforts I made in what happened to Ralph? What the hell?

It looks like it is me that is now "missing something." I find Scully's moderating behaviour to get more and more bizarre by the week. I'm obviously not the only one thinking this. I would like to say thanks to Pat, Kathy, Don, David and Evan in the way you have, in a quite level-headed manner, moderated and managed some incredibly difficult situations over the last few weeks. You have not stirred it up, avoided applying your personal opinions to heated conversations, and simply and quietly applied the rules and moved on. It would appear that Mr. Scully instead holds grudges against individual members. I don't know what "abuse" Ralph Cinque has been posting because he's being moderated but there is no "abuse" in either Greg's or my own posts in reply to Scully's posts today. There may be things Tom Scully doesn't like written in them, but that's a different matter. He didn't like me saying his I didn't read his posts because of the way in which he presents them - well, he only went and took that as a personal attack as well as is documented on the forum.

If these are desirable behaviours of a moderator then God help us. Can he not see what is written in his own posts, and the way that they read to someone other than the person who wrote them? Can he not see that what he accuses other of, he is guilty of himself?

I think he needs to get a grip and reread some of his recent non-brain dump posts. Or ask someone he knows to read them. As far as I can see, he currently represents a microcosm of the things he purports to be against. He's like a moderating tyrant, IMO.