Jump to content
The Education Forum
Bruce Fernandez

Who supports/promotes the shills?

Recommended Posts

David, could you explain your opinion of why the Secret Service "stole" the President's coffin at gun point, when the law should have been upheld and the autopsy held in Dallas?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

he has deferred to the preordained defense which he himself has bored of repeating.

I have no idea what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re howard brennan - wrong. for every ONE brennan there are THREE people who place LHO elsewhere. His testimony in court would be useless. and that's not considered direct evidence. eye-witness testimony is eye-witness testimony, it's not direct evidence (like a fingerprint that's proven not to have been present the day before). AND it is the most UNreliable evidence, really. for reasons just such as this. too vague, too reliant on memory, excitement, possible faulty vision - too many variables. this is why most wrongly convicted people are found that way on bad eye-witness testimony (followed by errant prosecutorial conduct, or something to that effect, I believe).

even Judaistic Law requires the testimony of TWO eye-witnesses to an incident. One is unacceptable.

when circumstantial evidence proves a case, the case is PROVEN. If Texas v. LHO had gone to trial in 1964, he would never have been found guilty. If our Common Law were opposite and the defendant was forced to prove his innocence, it'd be cut and dry on circumstance alone. WHY?

Because there is NOTHING that can prove he was on 6 AT 12.30. Brennan is destroyed by three (or more) other witnesses who would testify differently.

again. it's odd, I know, but we're looking. for. Proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, could you explain your opinion of why the Secret Service "stole" the President's coffin at gun point, when the law should have been upheld and the autopsy held in Dallas?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

he has deferred to the preordained defense which he himself has bored of repeating.

I have no idea what that means.

right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

It's the SUM TOTAL of stuff that puts Oswald in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30. Including the Tippit murder and Oswald's non-stop lies that he told while in custody. But you apparently have no desire to piece together Oswald's obvious guilt via that tapestry known as the "Totality Of Evidence", do you? You'd rather keep everything separate. Good idea, though. Because if you start tying one piece of evidence to the next...and then the next...pretty soon you're going to have a very guilty man named Oswald. And no CTer on the Internet seems to like that idea at all.

Also -- Do you think if LHO was being framed, the plotters would have allowed Oswald to wander around the lunchroom at 12:30, when they needed their "patsy" up on Floor #6 in order to properly frame him?

From your POV of LHO being on a lower floor of the TSBD at 12:30, were the patsy-framers just unlucky....or total morons? Choose one.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Glenn, there is not one single witness who claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald at exactly 12:30 PM CST on 11/22. Not one. And if you claim there is such a witness, you couldn't be more incorrect.

And, no, Carolyn Arnold is not your saving grace in exonerating Oswald. Arnold does NOT give LHO an alibi for exactly 12:30. (And there are many other problems with her changing story anyway.)

And you surely aren't going to bring up Robert Groden's "bombshell" witness, Mrs. Reid. Are you? That story is beyond hilarious.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the SUM TOTAL of stuff that puts Oswald in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30.

No. It's not. i'm not sure how else it can be stated. Those points do NOT do ANYTHING to prove him being there. NOTHING.

You've tried to change the subject, and you've avoided the question.

please go look up the definitions of direct evidence, understand what is being asked, and then try to provide some. OTHER THAN THAT attempt to continue this discussion, I'm done.

key words. "direct evidence" (remember, the CT's don't claim direct evidence - we don't need it. it's the "prosecution" - the LNers - whose obligation it is to prove perpetration beyond a reasonable doubt, and in most prosecutorial events, direct evidence is the only thing that will work. And you've yet to provide any.

ANY.

"direct evidence" - Google is your friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, Glenn. You refuse to piece together the huge pile of circumstantial evidence that all points to Oswald. Instead, you'll accept nothing but "direct evidence". That's an odd way to get to the truth....don't you think?

But, of course, as I said in an earlier post, if a CTer were to ever appropriately evaluate that Sum Total of evidence in the JFK/Tippit cases, they'd have no choice but to label Mr. Oswald a double killer. So the CTers will forever isolate all the evidence and refuse to admit that the pattern of evidence throughout the whole case proves Oswald guilty of 2 murders.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong (of course). But you're free to believe that if you so desire. I'm accustomed to the slings and arrows by now.

But just exactly HOW would you recommend an "LNer" like myself go about the task of presenting my "LN" side of things at an almost "All CT" forum without "arguing" or "stirring things up"? I'd like to know how that can be done. Or if it's even something that's DESIRABLE at a forum that's entitled "JFK Assassination Debate".

Definition...

DEBATE --- "To engage in argument by discussing opposing points."

So the very definition of "debate" is "argument". So what's the problem with "arguing" at a debate forum? ~shrug~

I'm ignoring most of your challenges BECAUSE i'm not here to argue.

And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd.

Do you have something unique and different that I've not likely heard before regarding the Single Assassin possibility?

Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of OSWALD"S OWN ACTIONS on both Nov. 21 and 22, 1963?

Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?)

By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like....

1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.

2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)

3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.

4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).

5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.

6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.

7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)

8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

Things like that.

Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963? I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree?

a) you overlooked the "concrete forensic or other direct evidence" part...

B) you overlooked the "unique and different that I've not likely heard" part...

c) you expectedly are not well attuned to probative values and the rules of evidence in legal settings. not a single one of those 'points' gets anywhere near proof of his being on the 6th floor firing that rifle, which is the accusation in question. The accusation is NOT that Oswald acted mysteriously, or that he lied, or that he left work early, or even that he shot Tippit (this is secondary to the charge of murdering JFK, which he was never officially charged with anyway).

The charge, by you and your rightful attempts to prove it, is that Oswald fired a rifle from the 6th floor at 12.30 that day of his own accord and planning. Right?

1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.

not probative whatsoever. Any lawyer and any juror will say "So what?" - irrelevant to the charge

2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)

irrelevant to the charge

3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.

irrelevant to the charge

4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).

not even proven [edit - maybe i'm wrong here - terrifically irrelevant either way]

5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.

irrelevant - a DOUBLE so what

6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.

irrelevant - a TRIPLE so what - more like a "WHAT?"

7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)

irrelevant

8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.

irrelevant

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

NOT proven, AND irrelevant

10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

shows consciousness of guilt. but of WHAT?

you said something earlier about his guilt of something - by saying that you've defeated your own argument (charge). not ONE of those items goes to the charge in question. and you know that. half of that stuff wouldn't even be admissable. the other would be humorous.

i was looking for direct evidence of his guilt, and something unique. you failed fabulously on both counts. sorry.

For DVP, if you are going to make a big point of LHO 'not carrying a lunch" that day, will you tell us who left the remnants of a lunch, chicken bones, etc, in the snipers nest that day? If not LHO, then 'someone else'? Does 'someone else' equal a 'conspiracy'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Glenn, there is not one single witness who claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald at exactly 12:30 PM CST on 11/22. Not one. And if you claim there is such a witness, you couldn't be more incorrect.

And, no, Carolyn Arnold is not your saving grace in exonerating Oswald. Arnold does NOT give LHO an alibi for exactly 12:30. (And there are many other problems with her changing story anyway.)

And you surely aren't going to bring up Robert Groden's "bombshell" witness, Mrs. Reid. Are you? That story is beyond hilarious.

"BTW, Glenn, there is not one single witness who claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald at exactly 12:30 PM CST on 11/22." And that includes Brennan, right?

You forgot to tell us what it is that constrains your freedom to believe what you would like to believe. What is compelling you to stay with the lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't counting Brennan in that quote, Kenneth (quite obviously). I was talking about the TSBD workers who knew LHO on sight. Such as Carolyn Arnold, Bill Shelley, Wesley Frazier, Billy Lovelady, etc. None of those TSBD workers said they saw Oswald at precisely 12:30. So Oswald does not have an "alibi witness" for the moment when JFK was shot.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be linking anyone to your lies there. So all those years that there were chicken bones and a soft drink, turns out they were not really in the sniper's nest, they were on a different floor. DVP, you don't think well on your feet, maybe you should lie down and continue dreaming. And quit talking about fingerprints. There were NEVER any fingerprints of LHO found anywhere, none. Only his palmprint which was planted on the rifle while he was in the morgue. And tell us again, why you're not free to believe the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had your total freedom, Ken. You can just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an "open mind". No need to stick with the physical evidence. Just pretend it was all faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. Ahhhh, what a life!

And why don't you have 'total freedom'? Who or what constrains you from having the freedom to see the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you're so predictable (and funny). i KNEW you'd run straight to the mock trial (staged in LONDON for a reason, in 1980! i think...?), while some of us are trying to stick with reality.

Carolyn Arnold, Bill Shelley, Wesley Frazier, Billy Lovelady, etc

where do they say they saw him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...