Jump to content
The Education Forum
Derek Thibeault

Thursday at Ruth Paines House

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The above is more of Davey's Kreskin type of mind reading.

Yawn.

Just keep on ignoring the obvious, Jimmy. After all, it's the only way you can convince yourself that Oswald was nothing but a patsy.

These-Two-Things...-Logo.png

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey Boy is shameless.

Don't bother clicking through to his latest "obviousness".

Why?  Because they are anything but.

First, Oswald never ordered that rifle Davey. You can moan and groan and think up of any silly and stupid excuse you want to.  But one of the more convincing witnesses at the Houston mock trial was Brian Edwards.  When he testified that the rifle in evidence is not the rifle the WC said it was, that was a turning point.  Its the first time that got on any kind of a jury record.  It will not go away.

Second, funny about that so called sack.  How come no one else saw it?  Why did Shields tell the HSCA that Oswald was not even with Frazier when he parked his car that morning?  Why did the DPD not photograph it in situ?  They got the whole sixth floor except that. Why did Studebaker say the bag was twice as long as the one Frazier testified to? Why did Cadigan say there was no oil or grease found on the inside of the sack he got from the DPD?  Yet the rifle was  supposed to be soaked in Cosomoline. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 199-209.  I had  a lot of fun with this whole gun sack story.)

Share this post


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

Second, funny about that so called sack.  How come no one else saw it?  Why did Shields tell the HSCA that Oswald was not even with Frazier when he parked his car that morning?  Why did the DPD not photograph it in situ?  They got the whole sixth floor except that. Why did Studebaker say the bag was twice as long as the one Frazier testified to? Why did Cadigan say there was no oil or grease found on the inside of the sack he got from the DPD?  Yet the rifle was  supposed to be soaked in Cosomoline. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 199-209.  I had  a lot of fun with this whole gun sack story.)

So no sack photo in situ

No rifle ordered

No Oswald with Frazier

and I understand no-one knew anything about curtain rods except Frazier?

Then we have Oswald arriving at the TSBD Friday morning by other means with no long sack or rifle, correct?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frazier dropped Oswald off in the front with his sack lunch, then he parked the car. No rifle. No walk in together with Oswald way out in front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Derek Thibeault said:

Frazier dropped Oswald off in the front with his sack lunch, then he parked the car. No rifle. No walk in together with Oswald way out in front.

Of course that's possible, Frazier may have invented the charging of the alternator and Oswald walking ahead, but we are left with a long package on Frazier's back seat. 

If no long package on the back seat, we have both Frazier and his sister inventing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derek Thibeault said:

Frazier dropped Oswald off in the front with his sack lunch, then he parked the car. No rifle. No walk in together with Oswald way out in front.

You just made that up. Nothing you just said is true.

It's funny how many people are said to be liars in this case by CTers----EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald. He's a beacon of truth and honesty, per many CTers.

It's ridiculous.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey likes to say things like this and he does it by ignoring evidence.

Derek did not just make that up.

Shields told the HSCA that Frazier arrived at the parking lot without Oswald.  I have that in my book and its sourced there. Davey wants to call him a xxxx.

Now, there has never been anyone else at the TSBD who said they saw Oswald with that gun sack. Dougherty specifically said he did not see it.  Therefore he is a xxxx according to DVP.  (Unless you want to use the whole "fishing pole" story that Lifton is going to use in his book.  That did not get a good reception when LIfton tried to use it here.)

The point is that no one is ever going to know for sure since the WC was such a debacle of investigatory technique.  One would think they would at least have gotten to the bottom of why there was no picture of the so called gun sack in situ.  To my knowledge they did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, I read your post.  For you to rely on Brennan's identification to prove beyond a reasonable doubtLHO did it is impossible for me.  I really find it hard to believe that it would survive in court.  The show up was ridiculous.  As a lawyer to me that point is worthless, the wedding ring carries more weight as evidence against him.  Dont you think you should mention how many times it took him to id LHO and mention the other people in the line up?

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


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

You just made that up. Nothing you just said is true.

It's funny how many people are said to be LIARS in this case by CTers----EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald. He's a beacon of truth and honesty, per many CTers.

It's ridiculous.

It's my opinion based on what I have read...most of the evidence comes from 2 sources Frazier and Randle...I dont believe them. No one else saw Oswald with the bag.

Share this post


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

Davey likes to say things like this and he does it by ignoring evidence.

Derek did not just make that up.

Shields told the HSCA that Frazier arrived at the parking lot without Oswald.  I have that in my book and its sourced there. Davey wants to call him a xxxx.

Nope. I've never once called Edward Shields a l-i-a-r. But Shields' testimony does not (and cannot, IMO) trump the words of Buell Frazier. No way.

 

Quote

Now, there has never been anyone else at the TSBD who said they saw Oswald with that gun sack. Dougherty specifically said he did not see it.  Therefore he is a xxxx according to DVP.  (Unless you want to use the whole "fishing pole" story that Lifton is going to use in his book.  That did not get a good reception when LIfton tried to use it here.)

And Dougherty also said he only saw Oswald "out of the corner of my eye" ---- which means Dougherty wasn't even looking at Oswald directly when LHO came in the door. Yet CTers use Dougherty like he was the Holy Grail of witnesses. Hardly.

Plus, as I've pointed out before, it's quite conceivable that Oswald left the rifle out on the loading dock somewhere and didn't bring it inside the building until a little later. We'll never know, of course, but it is POSSIBLE.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

David, I read your post.  For you to rely on Brennan's identification to prove beyond a reasonable doubt LHO did it is impossible for me...

Howard Brennan, IMO, comes across as an honest witness. He provided a reasonable explanation for why he failed to I.D. Oswald on Day 1. And I believe him. A lot of CTers do not. So be it.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

http://drive.google.com/file/video/1964 Interview With Howard Brennan

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Davey does not say is that the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report.

This is Dougherty's  WC testimony:

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.

Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.

Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?

And later on:

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

 

Ball tried to use the FBI report against him, but Dougherty held firm.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, as Sylvia Meagher noted in her book, there is not any other witness in the volumes that can place a gun sack in Oswald's hands prior to the shooting or after he got in Frazier's car.

I ask, does that sound possible?  Does it sound probable?

And recall, if one buys Frazier and his sister, the gun had to have been broken down inside that sack.  Why was there no trace of grease or oil then?

Further, how did Oswald put the gun back together?  With what tools?  Ian Griggs said he tried to do it with a coin and gave up after 25 minutes.

And finally, let me bring up the key name of Troy West.  West was the paper dispenser at the TSBD.  When asked if Oswald ever came to him to get some paper in the weeks leading up to the assassination, he said no.  When asked if he ever left his station he said nope.  When asked if he ate lunch there, he said yes.

Share this post


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

Howard Brennan, IMO, comes across as an honest witness. He provided a reasonable explanation for why he failed to I.D. Oswald on Day 1. And I believe him. A lot of CTers do not. So be it.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

http://drive.google.com/file/video/1964 Interview With Howard Brennan

No he comes off as a guided witness because that is what he was.  Being a wc supporter or a conspiracist does not matter.  The separate issue is did the line up comply  with constitutional requirements.  In my opinion it did not.  So you have two problems there.  Either way your blog post fails to mention this information.

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


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

Howard Brennan, IMO, comes across as an honest witness. He provided a reasonable explanation for why he failed to I.D. Oswald on Day 1. And I believe him. A lot of CTers do not. So be it.

 

how was Brennan's eyesight again?

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...