Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
David Von Pein

If Oswald Was Innocent....?

Recommended Posts

I love it when Jimbo gets going on one of his "Everybody Lied" tangents. I wish he'd do it more often, in fact. Because it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" side. And that's because when you're forced to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to make your case for conspiracy or cover up by pretending that a whole bunch of people (from different walks of life) were outright liars, as Jim DiEugenio constantly does when discussing the JFK and Tippit murders, all reasonable people can easily see how desperate (and unreasonable) an argument that truly is.

Just because there aren't very many police officers who heard Oswald make his "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" statements, Jimmy D. is ready to declare Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald a member of Jim's Liars Club. It's just silly.

McDonald was the officer who was the closest to Oswald (and to Oswald's MOUTH) when Oswald made his statement (or statements, if he did, in fact, make both of the statements, which is not 100% clear; but LHO certainly made at least ONE statement, per Officer McDonald, that indicates a guilty state of mind, that's for sure).

And WHY would McDonald feel the need to lie about ANY statement that came out of Oswald's mouth? Just....why?

Yes, I myself have said that either of those two statements attributed to Oswald "reeks with guilt", that's true enough. But even WITHOUT such verbal statements coming from Oswald's lips, the facts are pretty clear that Oswald fought wildly with the police after pulling a gun on Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater. And that gun Oswald was waving around (which was seen during the struggle by civilian eyewitness Johnny C. Brewer as well) was proven to be the exact same gun that ended the life of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And, try as he might, there's nothing Jimmy DiEugenio can do to change those basic facts.

So keep piling on those liars, Jim. Every time you do, you look much sillier than the day before.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for walking into another one Davey.

From Joseph McBride's Into the Nightmare p.202:

"Did Oswald pull his gun only after McDonald drew his? A claim McDonald made in an article he wrote for the November 24th Dallas Morning News but omitted from his later accounts!" (Geez Davey, how did you miss that one? Which one was the lie then?)

Syliva Meagher finds it hard to believe McDonald's written account of his behavior as he approached Oswald, "I was crouching low and holding my gun in case any trouble came."

McDonald goes on write that Oswald punched him, drew his gun and tried to fire it.

Meagher notes, "Here is a truly sensational admission, one which undermines the whole official version of the arrest--for no one of sound mind can possibly believe that Oswald punched McDonald, or tried to draw his own gun, while the policeman's gun was already pointing at him"

McDonald's written claim that although he heard the hammer of Oswald's pistol click, "The primer was dented and it didn't fire." was disproven by an FBI firearms expert, Courtlandt Cunningham, who testified that "we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges."

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words I am not calling McDonald a xxxx, the evidence is doing it.

You never answered my question did you?

Why did you not check the evidentiary record before submitting another of your tall tales?

Further, you have absolutely no respect for:

1.) The works of the critical community which have demolished every aspect of the Warren Report many times over,

2.) The legal process. As I said, in a court of law, McDonald would have been, to put it kindly, impeached nine ways to Sunday. But somehow, you cannot countenance that fact. Can you? So you leave out all the facts that would detonate his story--including the other cops and the FBI!

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has "detonated" Officer M.N. McDonald's story. And you're living in Fantasy Land if you think they have.

Apart from a few minor inconsistencies, McDonald's account of what happened in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 is solid as a rock -- i.e., as McDonald approached the suspect in the theater, Oswald punched McDonald in the face and pulled a revolver from his waist and tried to shoot some policemen with that gun. During the struggle that ensued in an effort to disarm Oswald, Officer McDonald suffered this scratch on the left side of his face....

Nick+McDonald.jpg

Do you think Nick McDonald himself caused that scratch on his face? Did he cut his own face just to make the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot look a little more genuine and authentic?

I think James DiEugenio knows, deep down, that M.N. McDonald was telling the truth about the theater scuffle. But Jim just can't pass up yet another opportunity to label another person a xxxx (that's the L word, of course, but the forum software won't allow that awful word to be printed here anymore).

Right, Jimmy?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really Davey?

Then why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.

Even the Warren Commission worried about what happened to this list.

John H Ely: "Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of every body in the theater, and you also stated you did not have this list. Do you know who has it?"

Westbrook: "No."

The Warren Commission then told the FBI to try and find the list. They could not.

Hmm. Wonder why? Maybe the incorruptible DPD just made a mistake and misplaced it right?

Now, would an attorney have made a big deal of this in court? Yep. Does Davey: Not a peep.

PS: Davey, doesn't Oswald have a bruise on his face also? What, did they do? Duke it out one handed with guns drawn? :help

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Jim, is it your contention that Oswald never even pulled a gun (ANY gun) out of his pants in the Texas Theater? Is that what you think?

Or do McDonald's lies extend only as far as Oswald's alleged utterances inside the theater and the pinched hand that McDonald said kept LHO's revolver from firing?

Are you ready to state right here on this forum that it is your belief that Lee Harvey Oswald never brandished a firearm while inside the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963?

But, remember, if you do admit such a belief, you've got to add Johnny Brewer to your Liars List. Are you prepared to do that? (Silly question, I know. Jim's always got room for one more on that list. But I think Jim has already got Brewer on his Liars List anyway.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

Maybe you have a bad attention span, or maybe you have problems with reading comprehension.

I am just quoting the record, a record that you constantly leave out.

Now, my implication is that the problem you have in adducing that complete record is the same one the WC did. They knew that what they left out impeached what they put in the WR.

Its not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team. What I do is show that what you are trying to portray as what the real story is, that is simply not credible. And the stuff that makes it so incredible is right in the record you avoid.

So the question is: Do you do this on purpose? Or are you just not a very good researcher?

(There is a third alternative of course: through some genetic background, you have the same DNA strain, as say, David Belin.)

As per people not giving credible testimony, I mean please, leave that one alone. Everyone knew that the WC was a runaway prosecution. They were never going to indict anyone for perjury. Its only if you did not rack up the official story that they got on your case. Then, they would not leave you alone. You got phone calls in the middle of the night, you were harassed at work, in some cases you lost your job. (See RP, p. 202)

I mean you did know this did you not? If not, then again, you are a poor researcher. Its right there in the record.

Therefore, people understood what was needed from them. As Stringer said to the ARRB, under those conditions, most people go along.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling Mcdonald a l-i-a-r when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team.

Those two sentences speak volumes.

IOW, to hell with common sense and to hell with reasonable interpretation of some minor inconsistencies in the record concerning Patrolman M.N. McDonald's account (and the accounts of other officers) of what happened in the theater during Oswald's arrest.

"I am part of the defense team" -- which means it is merely my job and my obligation to get Oswald off the hook if I can do so -- regardless of how many people I have to call liars.

Is that last sentence a fair assessment of what you've been doing to the John F. Kennedy murder case for the last 20+ years, Jim? I think it is. I'm just glad you admitted it with this bold statement (which indicates--to me anyway--that you're more interested in Oswald's DEFENSE than you really are in getting at the TRUTH)....

"I am part of the defense team." -- James DiEugenio; 7/26/15

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling Mcdonald a l-i-a-r when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?

No officer "lied", Mark. (Oh, sorry, I mean "Knight". You don't want to use first names, remember.)

Some of the stories just didn't perfectly match other officers' accounts. Simple as that. No lies. Just slight inconsistencies about a chaotic event that nobody was tape recording. Does everybody's memory of a hectic event HAVE to match perfectly in order for one party or the other to NOT be considered liars? That's crazy talk.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling Mcdonald a l-i-a-r when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?

Thanks Mark.

Davey does not get that.

And he just discovered that I don't think Oswald killed Kennedy or TIppit. " What I do is show that what you are trying to portray as what the real story is, that is simply not credible." He somehow missed what I was doing for all those years.

Maybe next he will discover that he is part of the prosecution? Will wonders never cease?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling Mcdonald a l-i-a-r when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?

No officer "lied", Mark. (Oh, sorry, I mean "Knight". No first names, remember.)

Some of the stories just didn't perfectly match other officers' accounts. Simple as that. No lies. Just slight inconsistencies about a chaotic event that nobody was tape recording. Does everybody's memory of a hectic event HAVE to match perfectly in order for one party or the other to NOT be considered liars? That's crazy talk.

Yet you insist that in any story that conflicts with the "official" story, someone must be "LYING."

You can't have it both ways. It simply cannot be that the police officers "misremembered," or were "mistaken"...while everyone else was engaged in perverse periods of prevarication. But it certainly seems to be that way in your world. And then you have the audacity to tell anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you that they "must" think that everyone else lied. You apparently think it's all right for you to believe that the witnessed who don't support your conclusion lied, but it's not all right for anyone who arrives at a different conclusion to hold a similar opinion about people being less than truthful.

Nice double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you insist that in any story that conflicts with the "official" story, someone must be "LYING."

When have I ever "insisted" anything of the kind, Knight? Please cite.

Or do you think "WRONG" and "LYING" have the exact same meaning?

In actuality, I have called very few people "liars" when it comes to the JFK case. Very few. Far fewer than Jim DiEugenio, that's for certain.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

I once put together a list of fifty witnesses who all contradicted the official story in a serious way.

Davey accepted them by saying they were not lying.

That is the kind of case he defends. What? Fifty people?

Is that all you could come up with?

And the band played on. With Davey as the drum majorette.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

I once put tighter a list of fifty witnesses who all contradicted the official story in a serious way.

Davey accepted them by saying they were not lying.

That is the kind of case he defends. What? Fifty people?

Sure. Why not? Talk to 50 people about the very same event and you're likely to get dozens of different versions of that event.

You just confirmed that Mark Knight was dead wrong when he said I think a whole bunch of people connected with the JFK case were liars. I never have said anything of the kind, of course. The only provable liars in the case that I can think of offhand are Roger Craig and Jean Hill.

But how about answering my previous question, Jim.....

Do you think Oswald drew a gun in the Texas Theater?

Edited by David Von Pein

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...