Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

MARK LANE HAS PASSED AWAY

Recommended Posts

Jim,

seeing Myers and Mack debate each other on stage over that evidence would have really been something.

It actually crossed my mind a few times that Gary might come back when he left that place because of the way he still felt about this area but that could be just me, other's, I know, feel he went too far/long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Dave, Lane was right! Oswald may have been standing in the doorway. He said so himself in his interrogation.

You think Oswald himself told the police he was standing in the doorway during the shooting? Where on Earth did you get that idea? He never said any such thing. He said just the opposite, in fact. He admitted to the press that he was INSIDE the building at the time of the shooting, which is one of the biggest reasons of all for throwing out the "Prayer Man" theory....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_TjlCazd2ZmN0Wmc/view

Sandy,

If you're referring to Fritz' "out with Bill Shelley in front" note, that note is referring to a point in time AFTER the shooting. That fact is corroborated by James Bookhout's report. More here....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey,

You better look at what Ed LeDoux just posted in the Lunch Encounter thread Before Xmas.

That is your buddy, Roy Truly.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

You expect way too much spot-on accuracy from the early reports. Nothing in those newspaper articles debunks the second-floor encounter. Your utter desperation to make Oswald blameless is blatantly obvious.

OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor. Oswald told Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600).

Was Oswald lying too? Or do you want to pretend Fritz was the person doing the lying on page 600 of the WCR?

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

"Now, granted, Mr. Oswald was one heck of a [L-word]. No doubt about that. He practically turned into a lying machine after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on November 22nd. But in this instance we're discussing here, when he was answering Captain Fritz' question about where he was located when the policeman encountered him within the Depository building, he was not lying. And we can know for an absolute fact he was not lying in this instance due to the fact that his "second floor" version of the event is corroborated by TWO other people---Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. It's kind of a funny switch here, isn't it? The LNer (DVP) is supporting and believing something uttered by Oswald; and the CTer (DiEugenio) has no choice but to think Oswald was lying about this incident [or that Fritz was lying--in both his notes and his typewritten report]." -- DVP; July 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~

In addition, Jim....

What do you do with Mrs. Robert Reid's testimony? She said she saw Oswald, holding a Coke, walking through the offices on the second floor within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

Reid's testimony is perfectly consistent with the Baker-Truly-LHO encounter occurring on the second floor, having occurred just seconds before Reid saw Oswald in the second-floor office area. It fits to a tee.

Was Mrs. Reid lying to frame Oswald too, Jim?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Dave, Lane was right! Oswald may have been standing in the doorway. He said so himself in his interrogation.

You think Oswald himself told the police he was standing in the doorway during the shooting? Where on Earth did you get that idea?

I didn't say that Oswald claimed to have been in the doorway during the shooting. I said that he claimed to have been standing in the doorway. Or, according to Bill Fritz's notes, "out with Bill Shelley out front." Was he there during the shooting? I don't know. But we see Bill Shelley out front in Altgens 6 (during the shooting), but not in the films after the shooting. (Shelley himself testified that he left the steps right after the shooting.) This suggests that Oswald was either there during the shooting or very shortly afterward. So Mark Lane was right to suggest that Oswald may have been in the hallway during the shooting. (You did see that I used the word "may," didn't you?)

He never said any such thing. He said just the opposite, in fact. He admitted to the press that he was INSIDE the building at the time of the shooting, which is one of the biggest reasons of all for throwing out the "Prayer Man" theory....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_TjlCazd2ZmN0Wmc/view

Oswald isn't saying he was inside the building during the shooting. He is saying that "naturally" he was in there because that's where he works. You're taking the exchange of words too literally.

Sandy,

If you're referring to Fritz' "out with Bill Shelley in front" note, that note is referring to a point in time AFTER the shooting. That fact is corroborated by James Bookhout's report. More here....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html

This isn't really off topic, because I am defending Mark Lane's honor.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald isn't saying he was inside the building during the shooting.

Yes, he is. Or maybe you think Lee didn't hear these words within the reporter's question....

"...at the time..."

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

That is not what Oswald is saying there.

There was no question: where were you at the time of the shooting.

Its too general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Jim, let's just have another look.

Now, if Oswald had REALLY been Mr. "Prayer Man" on the steps of the TSBD at the moment JFK was being shot, don't you think he would have offered up that ironclad alibi to the reporter who asked him the question "DID YOU SHOOT THE PRESIDENT?"?

But, instead of saying "Hey, you guys! I couldn't have shot anybody! I was standing in front of the building doing a little praying! Just ask Wesley Frazier! He was standing right next to me!", Oswald's pathetic answer to the question "Did you shoot the President?" was "I work in that building."

Great response there if he's an innocent "patsy", eh?

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

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."

REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."


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

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/oswalds-patsy-lie.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald was involved, he was just not the shooter.....

"Out with Bill Shelley, in front!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

He did not even know he had been charged with that crime.

And he says that here.

So you expect him to instantly work out a defense in detail amid this chaos?

When he does not even have a counsel?

C'mon, geez.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please just post the full transcript - everything - that's said in that short video? I just want to know what's said from start to finish.

I'm deaf and can't hear it at all. Thank you in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

He did not even know he had been charged with that crime.

So what? You think the fact he hadn't yet been charged would prohibit him from just simply saying "No, I didn't shoot the President, because I was standing on the front steps"?

You think Oswald's mindset was: Until I'm officially charged with a crime, I just won't say a thing about my foolproof alibi -- even when I'm directly asked if I'm guilty?

That doesn't make sense to me, Jim.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

Please read the following words and try and understand them.

IN ALL LIKELIHOOD there does not exist a single American community where reside 12 men or women, good and true, who presume that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. No more savage comment can be made in reference to the breakdown of the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence. At the very foundation of our judicial operation lies a cornerstone which shelters the innocent and guilty alike against group hysteria, manufactured evidence, overzealous law enforcement officials, in short, against those factors which militate for an automated, prejudged, neatly packaged verdict of guilty. It is the sacred right of every citizen accused of committing a crime to the presumption of innocence.


This presumption, it has been written, is a cloak donned by the accused when the initial charge is made, and worn by him continuously. It is worn throughout the entire case presented against him, and not taken from the defendant until after he has had an opportunity to cross-examine hostile witnesses, present his own witnesses and to testify himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above words were written by a very skilled lawyer in the middle of December of 1964. A man you have been trying to trash on this site for days on end.

When all the media in America was burying Oswald, both literally and figuratively, after he had been murdered live on national TV while literally in the arms of the Dallas Police with upwards of 70 officers on hand, more than half of whom knew Ruby, Mark Lane was alone standing up for the rights of the accused dead man.

Now, note the second paragraph:

1. Did Oswald or his representatives have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses?

2. Did Oswald or his representatives have the opportunity to present his own witnesses?

3. Did Oswald have the opportunity to testify himself?

As everyone knows, Oswald did not have any of those rights. Or any rights at all. And then when he died, Rankin and the WC refused to honor the right of counsel for a defendant to be tried in abstentia.

At Nuremburg, literally dozens of Nazis were almost all guilty of cooperating in the Final Solution. Yet, they were all granted counsel. And with that help a very few managed to escape the hangman's noose.

In 1957, when Soviet spy Willie Fisher (Alias Rudolf Abel) was indicted and convicted of espionage, which he clearly had done, the local BAR association sponsored a defense team of three men to defend him. James Donovan saved his life and later had him exchanged back to Russia for Gary Powers.

Why was Oswald given less of his rights than these Nazi criminals and Soviet spies? As opposed to those men, Oswald was actually an American.

Edited by James DiEugenio

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...