Martin Hay on Ayton and Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

One of Davey's constant refrains on the JFK case is this:

If you don't believe the WC then you must think everything is fake right?

Well not really. I mean even if you think its altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy is it not?

The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?

The fact that its the wrong rifle is pretty good also. That is why its not in the WR.

The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?

etc etc

But please read the following:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Martin Hay critiques Beyond Reasonable Doubt without pleading everything is fake. He especially smashes Brennan.

So what did Davey say: Well we don' t need Brennan in our case.

Well, why did you use him then? And without Brennan, who puts Oswald in that window at the right time?

(Sound of ants crawling up a drain pipe.)

But this is typically Davey. Shifting gears to avoid a pointed fact that works against him.

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Kenneth Drew]

One of Davey's constant refrains on the JFK case is this:

If you don't believe the WC then you must think everything is fake right?

Well not really. I mean even if you think its altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy is it not?

The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?

The fact that its the wrong rifle is pretty good also. That is why its not in the WR.

The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?

etc etc

But please read the following:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Martin Hay critiques Beyond Reasonable Doubt without pleading everything is fake. He especially smashes Brennan.

So what did Davey say: Well we don' t need Brennan in our case.

Well, why did you use him then? And without Brennan, who puts Oswald in that window at the right time?

(Sound of ants crawling up a drain pipe.)

But this is typically Davey. Shifting gears to avoid a pointed fact that works against him.

I've only read part of the review by Martin Hay, but it is excellent. I recently read the sample of the book from Kindle, which only includes a couple of chapters, but samples serve a purpose, If an author can't catch you in a couple of chapters, then you're not that interested. The review of the first couple of chapters sounds very much like I'd like to think that my review of the same material would read. I have pointed out, more than once, that the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', not 'a preponderance of the evidence'.

I think their defense of the Warren Commission is pathetic. It is amazing to realize that the commissioners never saw an autopsy photo, that no photos appear in the Warren commission report. How did that happen? What other 'evidence' did they never see? Just what did they base their opinions on? More later:

[James DiEugenio]

Two points Ken:

1.) I am glad you noted how slippery the authors are. See the legal standard in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt. Not, by the preponderance of evidence. Did they really think nobody would notice that?

2.) The Commission did have the autopsy materials. But that fact appears to have been kept from the staffers. In one of the declassfiied executive session hearings McCloy asks Rankin about this and Rankin said they did have them in a special room.

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

I mean even if you think it's altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy is it not?

No, not at all. Not even close.

You surely aren't still arguing the worn-out "back and to the left" garbage, are you Jim?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html

The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?

Not at all. Not even close.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

The fact that it's the wrong rifle is pretty good also.

Your bullet points for conspiracy are getting weaker by the minute. The "wrong rifle" crap is just another example of James DiEugenio not having the slightest idea (or desire) how to properly evaluate the JFK evidence.

Jim knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer is for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle discrepancy, but he just refuses to look at this issue fairly and rationally. Here's the logical answer DiEugenio refuses to accept:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?

FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399. But to the CTers like DiEugenio, these words written by Todd on November 22 (see the date in the lower left corner of Todd's FD-302 report) are just more lies---right, Jim?....

"At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7 (page 288)

Better start another "This Means Conspiracy" list, Jim. Because that last list of yours really sucks.

Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

One of Davey's constant refrains on the JFK case is this:

If you don't believe the WC then you must think everything is fake right?

Well not really. I mean even if you think its altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy is it not?

The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?

The fact that its the wrong rifle is pretty good also. That is why its not in the WR.

The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?

etc etc

But please read the following:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Martin Hay critiques Beyond Reasonable Doubt without pleading everything is fake. He especially smashes Brennan.

So what did Davey say: Well we don' t need Brennan in our case.

Well, why did you use him then? And without Brennan, who puts Oswald in that window at the right time?

(Sound of ants crawling up a drain pipe.)

But this is typically Davey. Shifting gears to avoid a pointed fact that works against him.

right - this logic is an exercise in ridiculous. "if you don't trust the WC you must think everything's fake." ??? how does someone reach such a conclusion from one point to another?

If i don't believe every word of the Koran, then I must think all written forms of spirituality are false.

If I don't believe the textbook stories of George Washington and the cherry tree (don't tell anyone, but i don't) then I must distrust everything i've learned from textbooks.

this same person sells the idea that the entire report is proven reliable and accurate because of the portions of it that are, and then accuses skeptics of distrusting the whole document, and therefore all documents of the same theory, when even the strictest skeptics openly discuss the portions of the WR that are valuable. (the Warren Report contains many documents which are obviously quite reliable and honest, accurate, and which played no role whatsoever in the Commission's findings.)

i don't understand how a sane person can get one thing from another. there is no connection. such a person would be a waste of time and energy, and i wouldn't spend very much of either with him.

[James DiEugenio]

Very nice post Glenn.

Pointed and logical.

[Glenn Nall]

I mean even if you think it's altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy is it not?

No, not at all. Not even close.

You surely aren't still arguing the worn-out "back and to the left" garbage, are you Jim?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html

The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?

Not at all. Not even close.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

The fact that it's the wrong rifle is pretty good also.

Your bullet points for conspiracy are getting weaker by the minute. The "wrong rifle" crap is just another example of James DiEugenio not having the slightest idea (or desire) how to properly evaluate the JFK evidence.

Jim knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer is for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle discrepancy, but he just refuses to look at this issue fairly and rationally. Here's the logical answer DiEugenio refuses to accept:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?

FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399. But to the CTers like DiEugenio, these words written by Todd on November 22 (see the date in the lower left corner of Todd's FD-302 report) are just more lies---right, Jim?....

"At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7 (page 288)

Better start another "This Means Conspiracy" list, Jim. Because that last list of yours really sucks.

"So what did Davey say: Well we don' t need Brennan in our case." (did he really say that?)

And yet he cites Brennan regularly.

[edit] and constantly cites his own website as supporting evidence.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[James DiEugenio]

Yep he did Glenn, this was at Amazon.

BTW.

I can only slap my knee and giggle at DVP's post above.

Wrong bullet: no problem.

Wrong rifle: no problem.

I failed to add Stringer on the brain, but I know what he would say: no problem.

BTW, his reply to Stringer's ARRB deposition was priceless Von Pein.

When I posted parts of his depo, which said that he did not take those photos because he never used that film or technical process, you know what "What me worry?" Davey said?

Stringer had a bad memory. Yep.

This would be like asking me what book I taught out of for something like 29 years in my American History class. And me not being able to recognize it when you showed it to me.

Keep it up Davey. No one leads with his chin like you do.

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Yes, Glenn, of course I cite Brennan. Should I just PRETEND he didn't positively identify Oswald as the assassin (albeit belatedly)?

Like it or not, Howard Brennan's testimony is part of the record of this case. If you don't think he is credible, fine. But I see no really good reason for tossing Mr. Brennan under the White House press bus.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

And this is Davey's fatal problem as a writer. HIs acceptance of the official record as sacred.

In Ian Griggs' book, No Case to Answer, which I wager Davey has never heard of let alone read, he goes after Brennan in a very original way.

Griggs was a former British detective, and he studied the line ups meticulously. In fact I have never seen anyone do as thorough a job on these line ups as Ian did. (See pages 85-90)

Now, the WC says Brennan was at a line up. Yet he could not even recall how many men were in the one he watched! I kid you not. He said there were 6 or 7. Not true. There were four.

He was then asked if there were any black men in the line up. He said he did not remember if there were any. Now, recall, this is Texas in 1963. And Kennedy has made a big move in civil rights and riots etc all over the TV box at night.

Griggs now goes through all the sources where Brennan should be named as watching a line up:

CE 2003 details the line ups and the witnesses, no mention of Brennan

Raw notes of DPD on the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Affidavits of police officers who supervised the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Testimony of witnesses to line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Some witness eh? The invisible man.

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

in my attempts to keep it simple with D., i'm centering on the contradiction w/

"Well we don' t need Brennan in our case."

and

"Yes, Glenn, of course I cite Brennan. Should I just PRETEND he didn't positively identify Oswald as the assassin...?"

in my tendency to do myself the usual disservice, I have this inner fantasy that he will be able to somehow reconcile these. Alas, I'll never learn...

But I'm proud of myself in not addressing him directly. Very often. Hey, it's progress, not perfection...

[Glenn Nall]

And this is Davey's fatal problem as a writer. HIs acceptance of the official record as sacred.

In Ian Griggs' book, No Case to Answer, which I wager Davey has never heard of let alone read, he goes after Brennan in a very original way.

Griggs was a former British detective, and he studied the line ups meticulously. In fact I have never seen anyone do as thorough a job on these line ups as Ian did. (See pages 85-90)

Now, the WC says Brennan was at a line up. Yet he could not even recall how many men were in the one he watched! I kid you not. He said there were 6 or 7. Not true. There were four.

He was then asked if there were any black men in the line up. He said he did not remember if there were any. Now, recall, this is Texas in 1963. And Kennedy has made a big move in civil rights and riots etc all over the TV box at night.

Griggs now goes through all the sources where Brennan should be named as watching a line up:

CE 2003 details the line ups and the witness, no mention of Brennan

Raw notes of DPD on the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Affidavits of police officers who supervised the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Testimony of witnesses to line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Some witness eh? The invisible man.

he's a writer? of what? (and do NOT say "websites")

[Cliff Varnell]

David Von Pein,

It's over.

There is no reason to continue fake debate with you.

You have repeatedly stipulated to the fact that the Croft 3 photo on Elm St only shows a "little bit" (your words) of jacket bunch due to the

highly visible shirt collar.

The visible shirt collar meant the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck.

You can't bunch up multiple inches of clothing above a wound at the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

You've acknowledged this physical reality, David, as uncomfortable as that is to you.

The interesting thing here is that you MUST pretend the physical evidence in this case is meaningless, and you have a lot of CT company there.

You cite the same talking points for a high back wound that Martin Hay does. Ditto Pat Speer, Cyril Wecht, Stu Wexler, David Mantik, Tink Thompson.

All of you guys pretend the clothing evidence is trumped by an improperly produced "autopsy photo" which has no value as scientific evidence, no chain of possession, and a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar indicating a shot from below.

Jim DiEugenio: D. Von Pein isn't the guy you need to be straightening out.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

Yes, Glenn, of course I cite Brennan. Should I just PRETEND he didn't positively identify Oswald as the assassin (albeit belatedly)?

Like it or not, Howard Brennan's testimony is part of the record of this case. If you don't think he is credible, fine. But I see no really good reason for tossing Mr. Brennan under the White House press bus.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

You see Dave, the real problem here is not whether Brennen is credible... it's that he claims to see what he says he saw and provides a description of the man which is impossible given the circumstances.

So if we are going to take him at his word at the earliest possible time, his affidavit describes:

early 30's

165-175 lbs

light colored clothing

could not confirm a scope even though he sees over 70% of the rifle

see him take aim and fire yet changes this story in testimony

You see Dave... the problem remains that regardless of the lack of corroboration and his failure to ID the man, Brennen is THE BEST WITNESS and the source for Oswald's description at 12:45 even though it is about as far off a description of Oswald as can be... we can forgive Brennen since he supposedly said what he saw, the problem is not Brennen per se, but what is done with his information by the WC lawyers and how he isrepresented in the Report.

WCR Summary/Conclusions p5.

Several eyewitnesses in front of the building reported that they saw

a rifle being fired from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor

of the Texas School Book Depository. One eyewitness, Howard L.

Brennan, had been watching the parade from a point on Elm Street

directly opposite and facing the building. He promptly told a

policeman that he had seen a slender man, about 5 feet 10 inches, in his

early thirties, take deliberate aim from the sixth-floor corner window

and fire a rifle in the direction of the President’s car. Brennan thought

he might be able to identify the man since he had noticed him in the

window a few minutes before the motorcade made the turn onto Elm

Street. At 12 :34 p.m., the Dallas police radio mentioned the Depository

Building as a possible source of the shots, and at 12:45 p.m., the

police radio broadcast a description of the suspected assassin based

primarily on Brennan’s observations.

12:45 Dispatcher Attention all squads, the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle, - repeat, unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build. No further description at this time or information, 12:45 p.m.

Oswald was 24, 130 lbs, wore dark clothing and supposedly fired an obviously scoped rifle...

And yet can claim that his FAILURE TO ID was because he was afraid or that the ID was already made?

Note: I have to disagree with my friends here about David's quote:

"If you don't believe the WC then you must think everything is fake right?"

It's a poor sentence at best and by its nature tautological... when we unravel it it SHOULD state:

"If you can't authenticate everything incriminating Oswald, you can't believe the WC or its report's conclusions"

As David so enjoys to forget, we are Innocent until PROVEN guilty... when the evidence used to prove guilt cannot be authenticated as real evidence, it does not prove guilt and in fact, supports the original assumption of innocence.

When a prime witness to the man shooting a rifle in the window contradicts his own signed statements - that evidence is no longer authenticated... it can be entered into evidence but with caveats. It cannot be built upon since the foundation is dry rot.

So you see David, you cite the WCR yet you don't take the next step and provide authentication, it's okay since neither did the WC... but you calling C2766 "Oswald's rifle" when you can't authenticate any of the steps involved in getting the rifle from point A to point B... the rifle ceases to be evidence of his guilt but only Evidence of the Conspiracy to incriminate.

If an early 30's 170lb man in light clothing was shooting at JFK from that window, it most certainly could not have been our little 130 lb Oswald wearing dark clothing.... and since neither you nor the WC could offer authenticated criminal evidence of his guilt, you play this game.

The time is coming... it's one thing to index and describe the conclusional conflicts of the report - I am going to illustrate topic by topic how the Evidence IS the Conspiracy in each and every aspect of the case...

----------------

Oswald was wearing a dark brownish red over shirt, button down collar, which from the side, while holding a rifle to shoot would not show too much white T-shirt.

The Nov affidavit states he was looking at the man in the window when the last shot was fired... yet in his testimony... not so much.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?

Mr. BRENNAN. No.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?

Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?

Mr. BRENNAN. No.

Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.

Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir.

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn:

Ian Griggs wrote No Case to Answer.

Which is a little known but valuable book. There are parts of it that are very good and original. Like his essay on Brennan.

He also has written several articles for a British publication on the JFK case.

Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio