Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A question to David Lifton

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.

 

There was enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States. 

And there was enough evidence to have David Ferrie and Eladio de Valle murdered on the very same day, before they could testify against Clay Shaw.

And there was enough evidence to cause Governors, like Ronald Reagan, to soil there pants and obstruct proper extradition requests.

David Von Pein. This is the stuff you are up against. This is the stuff you have spent your life justifying. How do you live with yourself?

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

There was enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States. 

And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?

Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?

Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.

That evidence, that supported a Grand Jory indictment, that caused David Ferrie and Eledio de Valera to be murdered and Ronald Reagan to refuse extraditions is a matter of public record. If you want to cover-up criminal activities and Capital offenses, then you should appraise yourself of the details, as well as the punishment, for such crimes.

Share this post


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

And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?

Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.

And you have been appraised of the accusations

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add why that is so interesting.  Because, as Bill Davy found out, while prepping his fine book, Let Justice be Done,  the CIA had left a note saying that on some previous occasion they had already destroyed Shaw's "Y # file-33412".

If that is not interesting enough for you, how about the fact that, a few years ago, Joan Mellen discovered that, through the CIA's historical review program,  Shaw had been a highly paid, valuable contract agent for several years.

All of this new information utterly dissipates the  malarkey that Shaw told the public and under oath at his trial. Namely that he had no association with the CIA.  And also the junk that the CIA sold the HSCA that he was only part of their businessman's contact service program.  Because, as CIA analyst Marguerite Stevens wrote, besides those destroyed files, Shaw also had a covert security clearance.  When Bill Davy showed that Stevens document to Victor Marchetti, he told Bill that if you are only a DCS contact, there was not a need for a covert security clearance.  He suspected that this meant that Shaw was involved with the Domestic Operations Division of Clandestine Services.  Which was run by Tracy Barnes and used people like Howard Hunt. (Davy, p. 196)

What makes that so interesting is a letter I discovered many years ago from the late Gordon Novel. He had written to a prominent researcher that  the CIA had sent out an order quite early, that is several months after the assassination, that Shaw's true role inside the agency had to be camouflaged.  Novel wrote that letter in the mid seventies, before any of this newly declassified information had come to light. The declassified record would indicate he was correct.

Now, please add the above into the following new info:

1. The facts of the voluminous declassified record of Shaw being in the Clinton/Jackson area with Ferrie and Oswald in the late summer of 1963, which he lied about. under oath.

2. The overwhelming evidence that Shaw was Bertrand--there are now 14 witnesses on this issue;  and he had called Dean Andrews to defend Oswald, and  Martin Hay found out that Andrews later admitted Bertrand was Shaw. Shaw also lied about this key point under oath.

3. The numerous witnesses that Ferrie knew Shaw to the point he was in his office at the ITM (another issue he lied about).

4. All the discoveries about Permindex/CMC being just as bad as we all suspected--another issue that Shaw lied about.

5. The further eyewitness testimony by Woodrow Hardy that Oswald was seen at Shaw's house with Ferrie. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 216) 

6. Ferrie's two diagrams, one of a plot to kill Castro, one resembling what happened to Kennedy in Dallas, down to the point that Ferrie had written the words "Elm Street" on the diagram. (ibid)

Now, does that brief profile suggest an innocent man to anyone?    It didn't to Garrison and it does not denote innocence to any rational person I think.

People don't perjure themselves, to the point of going to jail for 20 years, nor does the CIA destroy files repeatedly,  if there is nothing to hide.

There was a lot to hide with Shaw, in direct relation to the JFK case. And the CIA knew it.  And Gordon Novel knew it because Allen Dulles himself hired him to infiltrate Garrison's office. (ibid, pp. 232, 33).  This is what I mean about DVP.  He is so ignorant about this stuff that he does not know he is jumping into a whirlpool. And there is no escape.

Then he wonders why people think he is being paid.

Do you understand what treason is, David Von Pein?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David Ferrie...murdered...

So the coroner of New Orleans is part of the "cover up" too, eh? He said Ferrie died of natural causes. But you've decided that Ferrie was "murdered", despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion.

Is that about the size of it?

Do you understand what sheer speculation is, Michael Clark?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

So the coroner of New Orleans is part of the "cover up" too, eh? He said Ferrie died of natural causes. But you've decided to call Ferrie's death a "murder", despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion, correct?

More Weasling by David Von Pein....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

More Weasling by David Von Pein....

How do you know David Ferrie was "murdered", Michael Clark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of chief Chief Exececutives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.

How does it feel to be David Von Pein?

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of Chief Executives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.

How does it feel to be David Von Pein?

And the 2018 Academy Award winner for Best Actor In A Fictional Drama Series is....

[...envelope please...]

Michael Clark

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And the 2018 Academy Award winner for Best Actor In A Fictional Drama Series is....

[...envelope please...]

Michael Clark

You have avoided every salient point in this dedate. The question remains....

48 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of chief Chief Exececutives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.

How does it feel to be David Von Pein?

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

How do you know David Ferrie was "murdered", Michael Clark?

Good question ! I wish Mister Michael Clark would agree to answer (if he can, that is…)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most fascinating discussions I ever read on this subject.  A real physician makes two anti Garrison critics look silly.

 

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t166-dr-pittelli-vs-david-reitzes-friends

 

(BTW, as is his penchant, Retizes is misrepresenting my position on the issue.  I have never stated that Ferrie was murdered.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, get real, Dawn! There are a whopping TWO (maybe three) LNers posting here. And one of those LNers (Francois Carlier) hadn't posted here in 8 years prior to this month. That's hardly "so many lone nut voices". It's not even close to a level playing field. CTers outnumber LNers 20 to 1 (at least).

And, anyway, why is it "sad" to have a few LNers posting, Dawn? Are you against free speech? We all know you've totally banned all LNers at the all-CTer forum you control at DPF, but that doesn't mean that Kathy Becket, James Gordon, et al, have to exhibit that same kind of censorship here at EF.

"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; Feb. 20, 2014

DPF-Post-February-20-2014.png

Indeed. It is called Deep Politics Forum for a reason.  Lone nutters know zero about the study of the Deep State.  By choice we believe.

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

×