Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This is one of the realities of life that CTs refuse to accept. Of course, the main reason they do is because the well known and documented physical evidence in this case supports the lone gunman theory. All they are left with is witness statements. And they believe that every witness statement is factual and must be accounted for. But professional investigators know better as you point out. Witnesses to the same event will vary wildly. And the fact is people simply lie for any number of reasons. As Jeremy Gunn said about eyewitness testimony:

"You just cannot believe it. And I'll tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony."

I mention his quote about 35-year-old testimony because it relates particularly to the mother of all "CIA-did-it" theories the H&L theory since that is the exact time-frame during which Armstrong was interviewing his "amazing" witnesses and believing everything they said.

CT's can understand that. Can LN's understand that evidence can be faked and planted? Can LN's understand and admit that there's a problem with the chain of evidence for some key pieces? If LN's are going to rely solely on evidence, why do they wave away any problems with the chain of evidence as immaterial?

Of course some witnesses recall things differently, but that doesn't discount the usefulness of witness testimony. With as many people claiming to be lawyers on this forum, that truth should be evident. If someone stole my purple hat, and I call a detective, and the detective finds multiple witnesses all saying they saw someone with a purple hat in their hands running up Main street and going into the orange building, the detective doesn't get to go back to the police station and shrug her shoulders and say "Sorry, I have no leads whatsoever. That hat is as good as gone." IT would be foolish to admit otherwise.

LN's also rely a lot on witness statements as well. Helen Markham was the most prominent witness relied upon for the Tippit killing, and one of the WC's own investigators admitted that she was a "goofball." But that doesn't stop LN's from believing her and other witnesses. They just accept the ones that support their version of events and discount the ones that don't. Acquilla Clemons, who was NOT called a "goofball" by the WC's own staff, and who says she WAS pressured to keep quiet about what she had seen, is conveniently ignored, and Markham unquestioningly accepted.

LN's also seem to completely ignore any witnesses that say they were pressured to change their stories because the investigators had already decided on their conclusion - the same conclusion arrived at just a few hours after the assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This is one of the realities of life that CTs refuse to accept. Of course, the main reason they do is because the well known and documented physical evidence in this case supports the lone gunman theory.

The only extant physical evidence found with the body is JFK's clothing.

To claim otherwise is a Big Lie.

Parnell, how do you expect a civil discussion when you make stuff up?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Testimony in a court is very important.  We do not throw it away.

I certainly agree. My problem is with theorists who seem to insist that every witness statement needs to be accounted for or explained. As you point out, they need to be evaluated within the context of the totality of the evidence. I also agree that it would have been preferable for the WC to have interviewed as many witnesses as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Can LN's understand and admit that there's a problem with the chain of evidence for some key pieces?

I would refer you to Bugliosi's comments on the chain of custody and admissibility of evidence. I believe it was a good argument made by someone who would know.

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

LN's also rely a lot on witness statements as well.

I agree. I would just add that in most instances the witness confirms other evidence and is not the sole source. You don't need Howard Brennan to convict LHO, you have other evidence. But it is nice to have a witness because people tend to believe them (unless they are CTs :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The only extant physical evidence found with the body is JFK's clothing.

To claim otherwise is a Big Lie.

Parnell, how do you expect a civil discussion when you make stuff up?

Physical evidence doesn't have to be "found with the body." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Physical evidence doesn't have to be "found with the body." 

Sure it does.  You don't know if CE399 struck Kennedy; you don't know if the MC was used to kill Kennedy.

Both could have been planted.

The only extant physical evidence found with the body is the clothing, with bullet holes too low to associate with the throat wound.

It's your chronic intellectual dishonesty on this subject I find egregious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sure it does.  You don't know if CE399 struck Kennedy; you don't know if the MC was used to kill Kennedy.

Both could have been planted.

The only extant physical evidence found with the body is the clothing, with bullet holes too low to associate with the throat wound.

It's your chronic intellectual dishonesty on this subject I find egregious.

I sure wish you would cite the law or statute that says all physical evidence must be found "with the body". If I shoot someone and escape and later police find my gun at my house and use ballistics to connect it to the crime can it be used against me or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I sure wish you would cite the law or statute that says all physical evidence must be found "with the body". If I shoot someone and escape and later police find my gun at my house and use ballistics to connect it to the crime can it be used against me or not? 

You're begging the question.

If the police find a murder weapon in your home does it mean you're the killer?

If physical evidence found with the body proves there was a second shooter, then it's a conspiracy.

You're claiming that possibly planted evidence is dispositive while ignoring the actual physical evidence found with the body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. I love this one.

TP: I would refer you to Bugliosi's comments on the chain of custody and admissibility of evidence. I believe it was a good argument made by someone who would know.

As I know something about RH, Vince argued he could win out over all the chain of custody evidence arguments the defense could  argue.  I said good.  But why would you want to?  What prosecutor would want to argue the evidence below:

 

1. Like CE 399?  That projectile that never hit anything in Dealey Plaza and which the FBI had to prevaricate about so many times that not even Hoover could keep his story straight? Like saying Odum showed it to the witnesses, when he did not.

2. Like CE 139?  Which turned out to be the wrong rifle, which even going on their evidence was not the one the defendant ordered?

3. Like the shells at the scene which Fritz had to rearrange because they looked so close to each other that they were clearly planted?  And when the FBI tested the ejection mechanism on the wrong rifle, they proved that was the case.

4. Like the three shells that were found at the scene; or was it only two?  Because the photos and evidence reports say only two went to the FBI?  And then the BS story the DPD came up with was that Fritz kept one of the shells in Dallas for "testing" purposes.  Except the one he kept there was the miraculously dented one. The one which TInk Thompson tried all day to dent in that manner and could not. And Chris Mills found out it could only be dented that way by dry loading and then only very rarely.

5. Like the hole that disappeared from the back of JFK's head, which the HSCA lied about by saying that only the witnesses at Parkland saw it?  When in fact forty witnesses saw it at both Parkland and Bethesda.

6. Or that raised rear skull wound that the Fisher panel had to elevate since Thompson's book disturbed Ramsey Clark so much?  Except now you have two Magic Bullets in six seconds.  Because that bullet now leaves its center part at the rear of the skull while the head and tail fly forward to the front of the car.  Something which your guy Sturdivan says is not possible.

7. Or the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail?  Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there.

8.  Or the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives?  Which the man who took them, Mr. Stringer, when examined by Gunn said, no he did not take them. Because he never used that type of  film, and he never used the Press Pack technique they were taken with.

 

When you witnesses on the stand, like Stringer, who are going to say that he never took the pictures that the official story has him taking, and Humes saying the x rays do not match what is in his report,  and 42 witnesses saying that heck yes there was  hole in the back of JFK's skull.  

I mean what kind of case is that?  What self respecting prosecutor would bring such evidence into court in the first place?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

OMG. I love this one.

TP: I would refer you to Bugliosi's comments on the chain of custody and admissibility of evidence. I believe it was a good argument made by someone who would know.

As I know something about RH, Vince argued he could win out over all the chain of custody evidence arguments the defense could  argue.  I said good.  But why would you want to?  What prosecutor would want to argue the evidence below:

 

1. Like CE 399?  That projectile that never hit anything in Dealey Plaza and which the FBI had to prevaricate about so many times that not even Hoover could keep his story straight? Like saying Odum showed it to the witnesses, when he did not.

2. Like CE 139?  Which turned out to be the wrong rifle, which even going on their evidence was not the one the defendant ordered?

3. Like the shells at the scene which Fritz had to rearrange because they looked so close to each other that they were clearly planted?  And when the FBI tested the ejection mechanism on the wrong rifle, they proved that was the case.

4. Like the three shells that were found at the scene; or was it only two?  Because the photos and evidence reports say only two went to the FBI?  And then the BS story the DPD came up with was that Fritz kept one of the shells in Dallas for "testing" purposes.  Except the one he kept there was the miraculously dented one. The one which TInk Thompson tried all day to dent in that manner and could not. And Chris Mills found out it could only be dented that way by dry loading and then only very rarely.

5. Like the hole that disappeared from the back of JFK's head, which the HSCA lied about by saying that only the witnesses at Parkland saw it?  When in fact forty witnesses saw it at both Parkland and Bethesda.

6. Or that raised rear skull wound that the Fisher panel had to elevate since Thompson's book disturbed Ramsey Clark so much?  Except now you have two Magic Bullets in six seconds.  Because that bullet now leaves its center part at the rear of the skull while the head and tail fly forward to the front of the car.  Something which your guy Sturdivan says is not possible.

7. Or the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail?  Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there.

8.  Or the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives?  Which the man who took them, Mr. Stringer, when examined by Gunn said, no he did not take them. Because he never used that type of  film, and he never used the Press Pack technique they were taken with.

 

When you witnesses on the stand, like Stringer, who are going to say that he never took the pictures that the official story has him taking, and Humes saying the x rays do not match what is in his report,  and 42 witnesses saying that heck yes there was  hole in the back of JFK's skull.  

I mean what kind of case is that?  What self respecting prosecutor would bring such evidence into court in the first place?

My beef with Jim DiEugenio is that he thinks the above is the most efficient way to prove conspiracy.

In order to inflate the significance of this analysis DiEugenio denies what the clothing evidence proves -- that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the prima facie case for conspiracy.

It's people like Jim DiEugenio and Tink Thomson who've kept this case so muddled for decades that the genuine conspiracy facts can't get more traction.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey, you never answered my question.

Why did Kirk Coleman never appear to testify before the Warren Commission?

Just to watch you squeal "It's a conspiracy!", I imagine. What else could be the reason?

Share this post


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

So according to your view,  the bullet entered the head low down at the back, travelled upwards and blew the top of the President's head off and then continued to strike the curb in front of Tague.  

No, the bullet entered the UPPER part of JFK's head, just exactly as this autopsy photo proves....

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg

 

Quote

Wanna buy a bridge?

Wanna look at a picture?....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Are you seriously suggesting that one of the shots at JFK both hit AND missed?

Of course not. Why are you suggesting such a silly thing?

When did I ever even hint at such a ridiculous belief? Please show me.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 5:59 PM, David Von Pein said:

Yes, the 4 rounds were all of one type --- FMJ / Western Cartridge Company / Mannlicher-Carcano / 6.5 mm. bullets.

 

David,

Can you please offer an explanation on how a FMJ round could leave a trail of small fragments in JFK's head (From James D's post for reference: 7. Do you mean the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail?  Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there.) while the exact same type of round made 7 wounds in JFK and JBC and came out nearly pristine as CE399?

I'm curious how two identical FMJ rounds can behave so differently; I would think that only a frangible / explosive round could cause the damage in JFK's head and leave the dust trail of lead.

Thanks

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're begging the question.

If the police find a murder weapon in your home does it mean you're the killer?

If physical evidence found with the body proves there was a second shooter, then it's a conspiracy.

You're claiming that possibly planted evidence is dispositive while ignoring the actual physical evidence found with the body.

No, I just find your claim that all physical evidence has to be found with a body to be silly as well as inaccurate. Or perhaps you are holding the evidence in the JFK case to a different standard than is considered normal or usual. But maybe I am all wet, perhaps Lance or one of the other attorneys will chime in.

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

×