Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

When did the Coke Appear?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

If statements from the accused were deemed unimportant, then why is every alleged criminal always allowed to give a statement?

A statement (or trial testimony) from the accused can be very important, yes. I don't deny that. In many cases, it can exonerate the accused person (if the statement can be corroborated via other evidence).

But in many cases, of course, a statement from a defendant can hang him. And I think Oswald's statements (aka: his lies) in THIS (JFK) case help to do just that—hang him.

That's mainly what I meant when I said earlier — "And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding!" — i.e., given the evidence that built up against Oswald IN THIS CASE, and given the number of times Oswald PROVABLY LIED to the police about substantive issues connected to the investigation, there's no way a jury is going to suddenly start BELIEVING Oswald if he were to have denied that he came down the stairs from the sixth floor—even via the make-believe scenario I talked about earlier, which had Baker and Truly just inventing a "better" story, with each of them saying they saw LHO on the stairs near the sixth floor.

Even in that kind of "pretend" situation, given all of Oswald's other lies, I kind of doubt a juror would be saying this to himself — Hmmm, maybe I should believe Oswald about THIS particular part of his statement, even though it was proven by various other witnesses and evidence that he lied his butt off many other times during this trial.
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP will do anything except admit that Oswald's story--told when he was alive-- as submitted by Greg, aligns with Baker's first day story.

It was after that first day that the stories began to evolve into this lunchroom encounter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DVP will do anything except admit that Oswald's story--told when he was alive-- as submitted by Greg, aligns with Baker's first day story.

It was after that first day that the stories began to evolve into this lunchroom encounter.

 

That is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

DVP will do anything except admit that Oswald's story--told when he was alive--...aligns with Baker's first day story.

Oh, so you think Oswald told somebody that he was on the "THIRD OR FOURTH FLOOR" when Officer Baker stopped him, eh? Please point me to THAT interesting statement made by Oswald.

No such statement by LHO exists, of course, since we all know---via Page 600 of the Warren Report---that Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was on the "second floor" when the officer came into the room. But you think Fritz just MADE UP the "second floor" part, don't you?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to Fritz, Oswald said he was having lunch on the first floor when the president was shot.

Then he went upstairs and got a coke.

So if you want to believe everything that Fritz said was true then Oswald couldn't have been on the sixth floor when the President was shot. 

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

So according to Fritz, Oswald said he was having lunch on the first floor when the president was shot.

Then he went upstairs and got a coke.

So if you want to believe everything that Fritz said was true then Oswald couldn't have been on the sixth floor when the President was shot. 

Only if I choose to believe the word of the alleged assassin. (Duh!)

And given Lee's track record for telling lies (and lots of them), why in the world would anyone believe most of the things Oswald told Fritz?

But in one of the rare instances when he actually told the truth, we CAN believe him when he told Fritz that the encounter with Baker happened on the SECOND FLOOR. We KNOW that part of Oswald's statement to Fritz was true because we've got Baker AND Truly to corroborate it.

Many CTers here, however, seem to feel that FRITZ was the l-i-a-r when he said LHO said it was the second floor. Some CTers are desperate to keep that encounter from occurring on the second floor, which is kind of funny and ironic, because I can recall arguing with some conspiracy theorists not that long ago who were using the "Second-Floor Encounter" as absolute PROOF (in their minds) that Oswald was innocent. Because they'd always tell me that there was no way in the world Oswald could have possibly made it down to the lunchroom from the sixth floor in about 90 seconds (despite the fact that a Secret Service agent did it [twice] in less than 80 seconds).

But nowadays, it seems to be in vogue for conspiracists to believe the 2nd-floor encounter never took place AT ALL. Funny, huh? It's similar to the transformation that has occurred with the "paper bag" theory too. In the past, CTers would always say "That bag Oswald took to work is too short to hold the rifle" (and many CTers still do use that argument, of course). But it's now becoming more popular among CTers to just pretend that the bag never existed in the first place. Poof! It's gone! Oswald never had ANY paper bag with him at all on November 22! Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle lied their butts off! That's how silly and fantastic some of the conspiracy theories have become.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, go ahead and believe those statements  which suit your stance, David. 

 

 

p.s Merry Christmas to you and all Forum members. Have a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Yeh, go ahead and believe those statements  which suit your stance, David. 

Everybody does that, Ray. Picking and choosing is human nature and always will be. I've yet to meet a single person who doesn't "pick & choose" to a certain extent. CTers certainly do it too. They love the part about Oswald telling Fritz that he (LHO) was on the "first floor" eating lunch when JFK was shot (WCR, p.600), but many Internet CTers have decided to just ignore the part when Oswald told Fritz he was on the "second floor" when the officer came in.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And given Lee's track record for telling lies (and lots of them), why in the world would anyone believe most of the things Oswald told Fritz?


David,

What makes you believe Oswald told a lot of lies?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But nowadays, it seems to be in vogue for conspiracists to believe the 2nd-floor encounter never took place AT ALL.


David,

Some CTers are angry with me because I claim that the second floor encounter didn't occur. (I guess because the second-floor thing provides an alibi of sorts.) The point is that there is no incentive for trying to make the encounter fake.

The reason I call it fake is because the evidence points in that direction. We have proof that Lovelady lied, and Shelley lied, and we know from Victoria Adams that the WC altered her testimony. The film of Officer Baker crossing the extension show that the TSBD wasn't his intended destination. First day statements changed over time, all related to the second-floor encounter.

I've shown  how adding the fabricated second-floor encounter to Bookhout's account, after-the-fact, caused the chronology to become impossible. Removing only the second floor sentences fixes the chronology problem.

Those are the reasons some of us believe the encounter didn't occur. Baker's statement agrees with us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I think it just goes to show that if someone (such as a conspiracy believer) tries hard enough, they will probably be able to scour the records and statements and find something that they feel verifies the thing they are trying to prove.

Take the "Greer Shot JFK" theory. If you look at a particular frame of the Zapruder Film, the sunlight on Roy Kellerman's head does somewhat resemble a "gun". So, for some CTers, that frame(s) of the Z-Film--alone--is enough for them to advance their ludicrous theory.

And I have no doubt that a good researcher who has access to all the documents and various witness and FBI statements and reports can probably come up with a pretty decent argument for why that researcher believes the second-floor encounter is a fake. There's always SOMETHING that doesn't quite "ADD UP", isn't there? Somebody's statement, for example, will almost always be in conflict with this other person's statement. But I think you, Sandy, said it well in your last post when you said this:

"The point is that there is no incentive for trying to make the encounter fake."

I agree with that sentiment, too.

And I'd like to see your "proof" to back up these three bold declarations (I, of course, don't think any of these things are correct at all):

"We have proof that Lovelady lied, and Shelley lied, and we know from Victoria Adams that the WC altered her testimony." -- S. Larsen

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, come now, Sandy. You must be kidding.

The evidence is telling us that Oswald was a Mega L-i-a-r.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/Oswald's Lies (Part 1)

 

Every one of those things that you claim is a lie sounds like the truth to me.

Your problem is that you assume Oswald was guilty. So whenever he says something that makes him innocent, you conclude he was lying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Every one of those things that you claim is a lie sounds like the truth to me.

So, you think Oswald DIDN'T own a rifle?

You think Oswald bought his revolver in Fort Worth?

You think Oswald was telling the TRUTH when he said he had never used the alias "Hidell" in his life?

You think Oswald was telling the truth when he said he had never said anything at all about "curtain rods" to Wes Frazier?

You think Oswald was being truthful when he said he didn't carry any large-ish bag into the TSBD on Nov. 22?

You think Oswald was being truthful when he said "I didn't shoot anybody" (not even J.D. Tippit)?!

And on and on....

Come now, Sandy, you're wayyyyy too smart to fall for such obvious lies.......aren't you?

The-Lies-Of-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Part-2-Logo.png

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

×
×
  • Create New...