Then went outside to watch the P. parade

[David Von Pein]

5 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

But she [Acquilla Clemons] said as I recall she was visited and told to keep quiet. 

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/Lane, Clemons, And Tippit

 

[Derek Thibeault]

Ok, Maybe I overreacted. I should assume positive intent.

[Rob Couteau]

Just now, Cory Santos said:

she said as I recall she was visited and told to keep quiet. 

As Cory points out, so many of those connected to the WC "investigation" were badgered, intimidated, coerced, and threatened. That is just a fact. Any reasonable person would have to factor that in when assessing these things.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Derek Thibeault said:

Ok, Maybe I overreacted. I should assume positive intent.

Thank you for saying that, Derek. I appreciate it.

Edited February 15, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

"You best keep silent, not go around talking, cause I don't want anything to happen to my family .................. I can accept a lot of things happen to me .............. but not my family" - Frazier

Powerful stuff!

After watching the last minute of the previously-mentioned 2013 video featuring Buell Frazier, and after reading Tony Krome's post [seen above] concerning Frazier's remark about "keeping silent", my previous comment — "stuff like this gets taken out of context a lot in this (JFK) case" — rings even truer.

Here's the complete quote by Frazier that can be found in that 2013 video:

"But I knew, if there was people behind this, you best keep silent."

So Buell wasn't saying that somebody had told him to "keep silent". He was saying that IF there was anyone else involved in the President's assassination, he thought it would be better to "keep silent"---even though Mr. Frazier has been far from "silent" in the years since 1963. He's made numerous appearances over the years, even in the year just following the assassination, including an appearance in the Oscar-nominated 1964 feature motion picture produced by David L. Wolper, "Four Days In November".

But the way that Tony Krome has got that quote written out in his post, it makes it look like some third party is telling Frazier: "You best keep silent." But that's not what Frazier said or implied at all.

Now, even when the correct context of Frazier's quote is taken into account, CTers can still believe (if they want to) that Buell Wesley Frazier is "keeping silent" and concealing (to this day) a big secret concerning the identity of "Prayer Man". But, Tony, you should have shown Frazier's whole quote, in order to give the proper context, don't you think?
 

Edited February 15, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On 2/13/2019 at 12:59 AM, David Von Pein said:

Where on Earth did this revelation come from (and when)? It's the first I've ever heard of this.

And the above "sighting" of Oswald is particularly interesting considering the following statement made by the same Ochus Campbell in an FBI interview on November 24, 1963 [via Commission Document No. 5]....

"Mr. CAMPBELL observed a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD...and stated that he is sure this is a photograph of the employee named above, but added that he is not personally acquainted with him and has never seen him." [DVP's emphasis]

Of course, we now need to ask: How in the world could Mr. Campbell have been so "sure" that the picture he was shown was definitely Oswald if Campbell had never before seen Oswald in his life?

~big shrug~

 

Hi Mr DVP,   at this point in the thread you were unaware that Campbell had been reported as saying he saw Oswald on the first floor. You dug about a bit and discovered it was the case. In fact you realised it in the middle of a subsequent post. 

Without the batting of an eye you had rejected this new evidence (to you) as quickly as you have rejected the evidence upon which this thread is based. 

That is very closed minded behaviour. You had a conclusion prior to your assessment of the facts. 

[James DiEugenio]

EB: You had a conclusion prior to your assessment of the facts.

Right Eddy, just like the Warren Commission had a conclusion prior to hearing the first witness.

[James DiEugenio]

Do you believe what FC wrote above?

If Oswald was so innocent (being "prayer man", having the perfect alibi since he had been outside during the shooting sequence), then try explaining to us why he killed a policeman half an hour later !

Uh, sir, we do not know that at all.  To pose just one question:  Did you ever call Officer Nelson to ask him why he drove to Dealey Plaza when the order on the radio told him and TIppit to go to central Oak Cliff?  

And if this was a genuine order, why did it not exist on the first radio transcript the WC got?   After all the WC and the DPD were looking for any excuse to place Tippit anywhere near where he was not supposed to be at that time: 10th and Patton.  You also might have asked Nelson why he did not directly acknowledge that order, it might explain why the dead TIppit did not either.

You could also have looked around to see if there were any crimes in central Oak Cliff that somehow superseded the murder of President Kennedy in importance.  (I kind of doubt it.) And BTW, all of the above is in Henry Hurt's book which dates from decades ago. (pp. 161-63)

You might also ask Howard Willens of the WC why they never deposed Murray Jackson, the actual broadcaster for the DPD.

Now, if there was no emergency to move into that area, then that may explain the rather bizarre order that came across nine minutes later, "You will be at large for any emergency that comes in."   This is about 25 minutes after JFK has been shot.  And they have not found anyone culpable for the crime.

Now, guess what, the third time was the charm.  The third transcript, produced in April, did finally have replies to the order.  But they were not direct replies.  They just said where the two men were at that time.  Did not explain why they ended up in separate places under the same order.

But here is the real puzzler: there already was an officer in Oak Cliff.  His name was William Mentzel.  Now look in the volumes and find where the WC interviewed Mentzel or Nelson.  And I should add, the weird order about being at large for any emergency that comes in, that was only sent to Tippit. (The above material is from McBride's work on the TIppit case, Into the Nightmare, pp 421-25.  Which I am sure FC has not read.) 

Let me know where you have addressed all these questions.  As I would like to see your answers Mr. Carlier.

You may also want to read this https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

The Tippit case has been broken open.

Edited February 15, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Without the batting of an eye you had rejected this new evidence (to you) as quickly as you have rejected the evidence upon which this thread is based. 

That is very closed minded behaviour. You had a conclusion prior to your assessment of the facts. 

I rejected the Campbell "sighting" because....

1. Campbell, on 11/24/63, said to the FBI he had never seen LHO in his entire life, which contradicts Campbell's alleged statement in a newspaper from the previous day. So, which report should we believe? I really don't know, but I'll ultimately choose the "never seen" report. Why, you ask? See #2 below.

2. I'm satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald could not possibly have been in a storage room near the front entrance of the TSBD on the first floor at the time Ochus Campbell allegedly said to have seen Oswald in that room, and that's because the evidence (in total) indicates that Oswald was on the sixth floor shooting at JFK at 12:30.

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, how long will it take for FC to reply?

Oh I forgot, its very late over in gay Paree.

Because, those questions I posed are only the beginning for the newest info on the Tippit case.

If VB had brought that case up--as he should not have been allowed to do in London-- with all this new info, he would get murdered today.

Edited February 15, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

It's interesting to note that out of 331 posts on this thread 117 of them, over one third, are by Dave and Frank.  The Fact that we now have three of their trusted reliable sources saying Oswald said he was out front when the parade went by seems to be disturbing to them.  Has their faith in the Warren Omission been shaken?  They've become extremely defensive on the subject.  Great job stirring the hornet's nest Bart, and of course Uncle Malcom.

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If VB had brought that case up--as he should not have been allowed to do in London-- with all this new info, he would get murdered today.

And then CTers could have blamed the CIA for murdering Vince too!

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

It's interesting to note that out of 331 posts on this thread 117 of them, over one third, are by Dave and Frank. 

Where did you get that info? Does Edu. Forum offer detailed analytics on every thread? (Or ---- Don't tell me you actually went through all 23 pages and counted the posts by hand? You didn't really do that, did you? Surely not.)

Edited February 16, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

A group on facebook talking about conspiracy theories? I see you like to live dangerously. Even the blogspot is pushing it. Hope you have all your stuff backed up.

[David Von Pein]

4 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

A group on facebook talking about conspiracy theories? I see you like to live dangerously. Even the blogspot is pushing it. Hope you have all your stuff backed up.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?

You seem to be implying that I am a CTer myself. (???)

And why would having a Blogger.com JFK blog be "pushing it"? (Google = CIA? Is that it?)

Edited February 16, 2019 by David Von Pein