Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

We agree!

That'll be the day.

It couldn't be more obvious that Lee Oswald purchased (and possessed) Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 in 1963. In order for him to have NOT purchased and possessed that rifle, we'd actually have to be silly enough to believe a whole bunch of people "lied their eyes out" in 1963 (and continued to lie about it for the rest of their lives).

But to CTers, of course, the more people they can accuse of being bald-faced l-i-a-r-s in this case, the better.

Right, Paul?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Paul:

I don't know if you understand DVP's psychology.

I most recently swore him off when he said M. Baker's first day affidavit was fine except for the floor: everything else was consistent with the second floor lunch room.

No honest, objective, normal person could say something like that. 

So, I am just trying to give you a heads up if you are not aware of just how averse to evidence and logic the (retired) Indiana chicken retailer is.

I have come to the conclusion it  is better to starve the xxxxx.  The only reason Simkin let him back on is DVP begged him to do so when I came on, and he gave him strict rules to adhere to.  Simkin said he liked watching me beat the daylights out of him. 

Personally, it gets boring after awhile since he is like Zab Judah facing Kosta Tszyu: he does not know when he is knocked out.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

That'll be the day.

It couldn't be more obvious that Lee Oswald purchased (and possessed) Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 in 1963. In order for him to have NOT purchased and possessed that rifle, we'd actually have to be silly enough to believe a whole bunch of people "lied their eyes out" in 1963 (and continued to lie about it for the rest of their lives).

But to CTers, of course, the more people they can accuse of being bald-faced l-i-a-r-s in this case, the better.

Right, Paul?

 

David, 

No one was able to place the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano (WC Exhibit 139) in "Oswald's" possession before the assassination. No one. Whatever the thing MAY have been in the closet on Neely Street in April of 1963, no one can identify it as CE 139. 

For that matter, no one on Friday afternoon, 11/22/63, could say that the rifle recovered by the DPD in the TSBD was, in fact, CE139. Certainly not the DPD, nor the Dallas Sheriff's Dept., nor the media.

It was not until late Friday night/early Saturday morning that the rifle was identified as a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano - not until it was in the hands of the FBI, secure in Washington, D.C., far away from anyone who could look at it.

Was CE139 the same rifle recovered in the TSBD?

Not according to the man who found it, Deputy Eugene Boone (watch from 11:35 to 12:35)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

I don't know if you understand DVP's psychology.

I most recently swore him off when he said M. Baker's first day affidavit was fine except for the floor: everything else was consistent with the second floor lunch room.

No honest, objective, normal person could say something like that. 

So, I am just trying to give you a heads up if you are not aware of just how averse to evidence and logic the (retired) Indiana chicken retailer is.

I have come to the conclusion it  is better to starve the xxxxx.  The only reason Simkin let him back on is DVP begged him to do so when I came on, and he gave him strict rules to adhere to.  Simkin said he liked watching me beat the daylights out of him. 

Personally, it gets boring after awhile since he is like Zeb Jadah facing Kosta Tszyu: he does not know when he is knocked out.

 

Zab Judah. That fight makes me sick every time I see it. Judah should have won. He went in too cocky. It came out later that Mike Tyson who was in Judah’s corner said he had Tszyu winning by KO. You a boxing fan Jim?

Edited by John Kozlowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

I don't know if you understand DVP's psychology.

I most recently swore him off when he said M. Baker's first day affidavit was fine except for the floor: everything else was consistent with the second floor lunch room.

No honest, objective, normal person could say something like that. 

So, I am just trying to give you a heads up if you are not aware of just how averse to evidence and logic the (retired) Indiana chicken retailer is.

I have come to the conclusion it  is better to starve the xxxxx.  The only reason Simkin let him back on is DVP begged him to do so when I came on, and he gave him strict rules to adhere to.  Simkin said he liked watching me beat the daylights out of him. 

Personally, it gets boring after awhile since he is like Zeb Jadah facing Kosta Tszyu: he does not know when he is knocked out.

 

Thanks, Jim. I'll heed your advice next time. Personally, I don't really care what motivates guys like DVP.  The government does indeed pay shills to xxxxx sites like this - as to whether DVP is a paid shill, well I have absolutely no evidence for that. I suspect that some people just enjoy being contrarians, and perhaps that fits David. Or perhaps, David genuinely believes that his writing here corrects errors. I don't know.

I suppose I could ask, so here goes: David, what in the world motivates you to write what you write? 

Edited by Paul Jolliffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

I don't know if you understand DVP's psychology.

I most recently swore him off when he said M. Baker's first day affidavit was fine except for the floor: everything else was consistent with the second floor lunch room.

No honest, objective, normal person could say something like that. 

And any honest and objective person who wasn't hellbent on accusing many, many people of lying about the evidence in this case would easily come to the conclusion that the Lunchroom Encounter definitely DID happen---in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor---just as Roy Truly verified.

I'll let the "honest and objective and normal" people decide if I make a good case here (and please note the utter desperation of CTers like DiEugenio in this discussion):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-121.html

 

Quote

So, I am just trying to give you a heads up if you are not aware of just how averse to evidence and logic the (retired) Indiana chicken retailer is.

I need my POT/KETTLE icon---yet again.

The irony never ceases when you're talking to Jim.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Correction noted, John.  

Paul, that was a very nice clip from the London trial.   Thanks for that.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

David, what in the world motivates you to write what you write? 

Simple ---- The actual evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, that's what.

And that evidence most definitely proves (beyond the proverbial reasonable doubt) that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy and Officer Tippit on 11/22/63. No other conclusion is even possible, IMO.

That's adequate motivation to write what I write, I would say.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Paul, that was a very nice clip from the London trial.   Thanks for that.

Maybe Jim didn't notice ---- Paul got that clip from me. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

It was not until late Friday night/early Saturday morning that the rifle was identified as a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano - not until it was in the hands of the FBI, secure in Washington, D.C., far away from anyone who could look at it.

You're wrong about that, Paul. The rifle was identified at 6:16 PM CST Nov. 22 by the DPD's J.C. Day as being "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940" (in the famous video clip of Lt. Day holding the rifle above his head as he walked down the DPD corridor). And that was 5 hours before the DPD handed the rifle over to the FBI. (See the video proof at the link below....)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Joe,

Here is the Occam's Razor answer:

Marina lied her eyes out about the rifle.

"Oswald" neither owned nor possessed any rifle. 

He never ordered one, he never bought one, he never paid for one, he never handled one after the Marine Corps and he never had one of his own.

He was framed.

Paul,

 

David is right. Based on the evidence we have, Oswald was guilty as sin.

Here's an example. This comes from Marina's testimony of February 6, 1964:

"Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Exhibit 135.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 135, and received in evidence.)
Mr. RANKIN. I call the Commission's attention to the fact that this is the coupon under which it appears the rifle was ordered, showing an enclosed $10 notation--"Check for $29.95, A. G. Hidell, age 28, post office box 2915, Dallas, Texas"
And it is marked, "One quantity. Point 38 ST. W. 2 inch barrel, 29.95." and underlined is 29.95, and an arrow at that point."

Ummmmm...

Exhibit 135 is an order form for the pistol, not the rifle.

 

CE 773 was the Klein's Order Form for the Rifle

CE 788 was the Postal Money Order for the Rifle

 

With that kind of evidence.......

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

C'mon, Steve. Aren't you reaching just a little too much here in order to find something that you can criticize the WC for?

In the passage you quoted above, it's obvious that J. Lee Rankin simply made an error by saying "rifle" instead of "pistol" or "revolver". It becomes quite obvious when just one second later he then describes a .38 REVOLVER.

Or do you think Mr. Rankin was deliberately TRYING to look like a clueless dumbass?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Steve:

Funny story.  These guys were just stooges.  Reminds me of Belin showing that witness the wrong jacket. Or what they did with VIctoria Adams-which takes the cake.  They switched a map of the first floor out and placed Oswald's work application in the volumes. 

Its like they just got what they needed that day from the FBI and really did not know what they were getting or how they got it until that day.  This was a central problem with the WC.  As Bob Tanenbaum says, as a prosecutor you have to be involved with what is called qualitative analysis of your case.  But the WC knew they did not have to do that since they had denied Marguerite Oswald the right to have her son represented by counsel.  Therefore, they could just slop on whatever they needed to create a myth, knowing it would not be challenged and knowing that since the hearings were closed, nobody would know what they were doing.

I mean, look at what they did with Odio. The WC wanted her discredited since she was so credible and her story was so damaging to the myth.  So what happens. Liebeler threatens her with a polygraph.  He then tells her that Warren told them any conspiratorial leads would be ignored.  And then tries to get her in the sack.

When none of that works, the FBI puts together that pile of sludge about Howard, Seymour, and Hall.  Which was discredited almost as soon as the volumes were printed.

What a joke.  But that is how they treated evidence.  And your illustration is a good example.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Funny story.  These guys were just stooges.

It was nothing but a slip of the tongue by Rankin ("rifle" instead of "pistol"). Why not just admit it wasn't some sinister cover-up move by Rankin to frame a patsy --- especially after reading the NEXT sentence uttered by Rankin, which is clearly referring to the pistol and not a rifle?

Or can't you admit that anything (no matter how small and insignificant) could have been the result of something that happens over and over again with human beings --- he made a mistake?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the reason I know this is I saw the way the WC was set up when I went to the Dallas Public Library.

There was not that much there but they did have a few agendas for the WC hearings.  How they got them I will never know. Because I have never seen them anywhere else.

But what happened is that the FBI liaisons worked up the agenda with the Junior counsels.  They would describe the witness, his or her importance, and if there were exhibits.  They would then even suggest lines of questioning and they would write down maybe three questions.  It was really something to see.

Its just the opposite of what Tanenbaum meant when he described qualitative analysis. That is best exemplified by his book Echoes of My Soul. He shows there how one of his mentors, Mel Glass, reviewed a case and corrected an injustice by due diligence into the evidence. The WC never did anything like that. 

In fact, Specter did the opposite.  He deliberately cut out anything that did not fit the myth he was building. I mean can you imagine asking Boswell 14 questions?  I mean just off his two illustrations, you could ask him a hundred questions. And that should have just been the beginning.,

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...