Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In the letter, Oswald says he met with Hosty and Hosty gave him a warning.

Davey, when did Hosty meet with Oswald, prior to MC [Mexico City] or directly after?

And that is not all.  But I am surprised you missed that obvious faux pas.

In the November 9th letter in question [Commission Exhibit No. 15], Lee Oswald tells us the exact date of Hosty's visit---November 1. But Oswald then goes on to tell one of the multiple lies that he told in the letter by implying that he and Hosty met face-to-face, which, of course, never happened on Nov. 1 (or on Nov. 5).

But let me get this straight, Jim....

You think the CE15 letter is totally bogus, right? And yet you think that the plotters who concocted that letter would want to put things in it that would tend to PROVE its "bogus" status? That's similar to crooks who have a desire to videotape their own heists, isn't it? Were your "plotters" REALLY that stupid? Or could it be---just maybe!---that the great James DiEugenio of Los Angeles is full of beans when it comes to CE15 (and so many other matters regarding the events of November 22, 1963)?

(I'll vote for the latter option.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of the suspicious connections that characterize my life? I just happened to be in DC for the first time ever when GHWB's body was brought to the rotunda.  His death caused the cancellation of the Capitol tour I had previously booked.  Here we are that morning, trying to figure out what to do next.  Not exactly crowded, eh?  Whatever one may think of GHWB, he had qualifications for the Presidency that make all of his successors look like bad sophomore actors in a high school play.  Any notion that he had some role in the assassination of JFK is right down there with the alien angle.  Some of you conspiracy folks really need to take a break and get in touch with reality.  You're losing it.

IMG_0178.thumb.JPG.75208eed053f3fdb9c35813de9e79afa.JPG

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

Did the reality that these were not facts, but actually false, did that influence any of the members of the WC or the FBI to suspect that something was up with the letter?

Answer: No.

And in fact when you trotted it out a couple of days ago to say, "See Oswald was in Mexico"  did you acknowledge any of these problems with the letter?

Answer : No.

Would you have acknowledged them if I had not brought them up.

Answer : No.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

Do you think the letter (CE15) is a "fake" letter, which was written (and signed) by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald?

(Silly question, I know. But I'm just looking for confirmation of that belief.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:44 PM, Cory Santos said:

As such, he CANNOT rule this out.  But the fact that there is a question, alone, causes a reasonable doubt to be made-remember, any doubt, no matter how small, is enough in a criminal courtroom.  So, since this is a murder case, I ask, do you have a reasonable doubt that LHO acted alone?

 

This my friend is one of the many reasons that although I would rather believe LHO acted alone, I cannot.  When you review the experts in this case, the speculative opinions, you find the evidence is not as clear as you think it is.

That's your whole problem:  You're under the illusion that we're still listening to closing arguments 55 years after the fact.  There are any number of aspects to the assassination, up to and including Cliff's Irrefutable Solution, for which any sane person might agree there is reasonable doubt as to what the evidence shows.  Big whoop.  Reasonable doubt of guilt is not determined on an item-by-item basis.  The fact that there may be reasonable doubt about 12 items of evidence does not mean the crime has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is the Conspiracy Game - parse the assassination down to the microscopic level and scream reasonable doubt without regard to the weight of the items or their bearing on the overall case.  An unsophisticated listener might easily buy into this:  "My God, there are 74 items that can reasonably be viewed as suggesting a conspiracy!  There must have been one!"

My very first criminal trial was a misdemeanor DUI in which the defendant was a tiny woman who admitted she had consumed a full pitcher of beer.  She had stumbled and dropped her purse and keys coming out of the restaurant, backed her car over a curb, been observed weaving on the road, badly failed the field sobriety tests, yada yada yada.  The experienced defense attorney parsed this all out for the jury:  "Ever drop your purse?  Sure you have.  Ever backed over a curb?  Sure you have.  Ever stumbled a bit or let your car wander into the next lane?  Sure you have."  Because the case was a clear loser, this was all he had.  The answer, of course, was:  "Ever do ALL those things in the space of 15 minutes when you weren't DRUNK ON YOUR ASS?"

See all the imaginary walkie-talkies you want.  The fact remains, there is a clear connect-the-dots path from Oswald's ordering of the rifle to his retrieval of the rifle from the garage to his use of the rifle to his escape from the TSBD to his retrieval of the pistol to his use of the pistol on Tippit to his escape to the theater to his attempted use of the pistol when confronted at the theater.  The elements of the crime and Oswald's guilt have been proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.  No tap-dancing defense attorney sideshow is going to change this reality.  If you're going to challenge this reality, you're going to need a LOT more than "Oh, yeah, what about this over here?  What about this blurry photo of some unidentified bystander who might be looking toward the grassy knoll and might be communicating via walkie-talkie with some unidentified second gunman who might be escaping in some identified car?  What about that, huh?"  I hope that sounds as silly to you as it would to a jury weighing the mountain of evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James DiEugenio said:

...did you acknowledge any of these problems with the letter?

Jim,

What you think of as "problems" with the letter are, in fact, mostly just the deliberate LIES being told by a person---Lee Harvey Oswald---who liked to LIE when it suited his needs. And the "Kostin" error was likely just an HONEST mistake on Oswald's part.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Davey:

Is it utterly impossible for you to tell the whole story about any piece of evidence in this case?

Answer: Yes

Jimmy:

Is it utterly impossible for you to fairly and reasonably and rationally look at a piece of evidence in the JFK case (any piece at all!) without concluding that that piece of evidence was faked, planted, or manufactured by someone?

Answer: Yes.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not answer my question did you?

Instead you went into our usual tantrum about "Everything is fake!"

This is a diversion on your part since you cannot face the facts on this particular issue on which you thought you had a slam dunk: See, LHO was in Mexico.

It backfired on you.  The name was wrong, LHO did not meet with Hosty, and he could not have known the diplomat was transferred.  Plus that diplomat said he never met with Oswald. That is four strikes.

Those are facts that you do not want to deal with.  And you escape into a world of assumptions, just like the WC did.

I never said the letter was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false.  I indicated that there were serious problems with the letter.  Problems you want to paper over and never bring up.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

And you escape into a world of assumptions...

Geesh! A CTer is whining about an LNer escaping into "a world of assumptions"???? That's hypocrisy at its finest indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, François Carlier said:

....the fact that Lee Oswald was seen shooting at officer Tippit ?


Just a quick question, Francois:

What makes you think that it was Oswald who shot Tippet?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

That's your whole problem:  You're under the illusion that we're still listening to closing arguments 55 years after the fact.  There are any number of aspects to the assassination, up to and including Cliff's Irrefutable Solution, for which any sane person might agree there is reasonable doubt as to what the evidence shows.  Big whoop.  Reasonable doubt of guilt is not determined on an item-by-item basis.  The fact that there may be reasonable doubt about 12 items of evidence does not mean the crime has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is the Conspiracy Game - parse the assassination down to the microscopic level and scream reasonable doubt without regard to the weight of the items or their bearing on the overall case.  An unsophisticated listener might easily buy into this:  "My God, there are 74 items that can reasonably be viewed as suggesting a conspiracy!  There must have been one!"

My very first criminal trial was a misdemeanor DUI in which the defendant was a tiny woman who admitted she had consumed a full pitcher of beer.  She had stumbled and dropped her purse and keys coming out of the restaurant, backed her car over a curb, been observed weaving on the road, badly failed the field sobriety tests, yada yada yada.  The experienced defense attorney parsed this all out for the jury:  "Ever drop your purse?  Sure you have.  Ever backed over a curb?  Sure you have.  Ever stumbled a bit or let your car wander into the next lane?  Sure you have."  Because the case was a clear loser, this was all he had.  The answer, of course, was:  "Ever do ALL those things in the space of 15 minutes when you weren't DRUNK ON YOUR ASS?"

See all the imaginary walkie-talkies you want.  The fact remains, there is a clear connect-the-dots path from Oswald's ordering of the rifle to his retrieval of the rifle from the garage to his use of the rifle to his escape from the TSBD to his retrieval of the pistol to his use of the pistol on Tippit to his escape to the theater to his attempted use of the pistol when confronted at the theater.  The elements of the crime and Oswald's guilt have been proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.  No tap-dancing defense attorney sideshow is going to change this reality.  If you're going to challenge this reality, you're going to need a LOT more than "Oh, yeah, what about this over here?  What about this blurry photo of some unidentified bystander who might be looking toward the grassy knoll and might be communicating via walkie-talkie with some unidentified second gunman who might be escaping in some identified car?  What about that, huh?"  I hope that sounds as silly to you as it would to a jury weighing the mountain of evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Wow way to come into a discussion and try and change the issue.   I’ll stick with it. So you know what that is by DCM head?  Do you dispute Bowers testimony?  

 

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...