Dawn Meredith
-
Posts
2,646 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Dawn Meredith
-
-
On 8/16/2018 at 6:59 PM, James DiEugenio said:
Its really something how these columns I do on people like Cockburn and Chomsky do not apparently interest a lot of people here, but they get passed around on Facebook a lot.
I mean 476 times in one day.
But alas, here we have Monroe, Hoffa, and the box from 1963.
Ya facebook has become very adept at pushing lies and censoring a lot of truth. Making me wonder if it's not just some CIA op to keep track of people like us. As always great article Jim. I really need to get RFK's book "Framed". I have found that the left has always been terrible on the assassinations. And refuse to be educated. (I did manage to get my professor brother in law to read JFK and the Unspeakable but he was quick to tell me this would never happen today...ah...he missed the point.)
-
17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Oh, get real, Dawn! There are a whopping TWO (maybe three) LNers posting here. And one of those LNers (Francois Carlier) hadn't posted here in 8 years prior to this month. That's hardly "so many lone nut voices". It's not even close to a level playing field. CTers outnumber LNers 20 to 1 (at least).
And, anyway, why is it "sad" to have a few LNers posting, Dawn? Are you against free speech? We all know you've totally banned all LNers at the all-CTer forum you control at DPF, but that doesn't mean that Kathy Becket, James Gordon, et al, have to exhibit that same kind of censorship here at EF.
"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; Feb. 20, 2014
Indeed. It is called Deep Politics Forum for a reason. Lone nutters know zero about the study of the Deep State. By choice we believe.
-
On 7/13/2018 at 11:42 PM, Joseph McBride said:
David Von Pein, all you do is deny everything, every piece of evidence that doesn't fit the official Warren Commission theory, and defend
the transparently phony Warren Report. Your role is that of a professional Conspiracy Denier. It's entirely predictable, and your posts
could have been written in late 1964. In case you haven't noticed, this is 2018, and a lot of independent
research has been done, and many documents and witness statements have come out that weren't
public back then, as well as abundant new evidence. I don't know why people bother arguing
with you here. Your role seems to be to take up time and space by reiterating your
few simple points and attacking others' arguments through rote denial and to deflect any
genuine questioning and investigation. You seem to spend many hours each day
at this task. The only interesting question is, Who is paying you?
WOW Joe, I posted before I read this. You hit the nail on the head. Bravo.
-
On 7/13/2018 at 3:23 AM, Michael Clark said:
I really don't see the value in engaging these guys. They are just given the opportunity to shuck and jive and repeat their falsehoods with subtle nuanced changes (sound familiar?).
Meanwhile, worthwhile debate, study, debate and research time is missed.
I totally agree. They will never agree with the truth. I have long wondered why so many lone nut advocates come to these forums. I have my own suspicions of course especially about the ones who post all the darn time.
It is sad to see so many lone nut voices on a forum dedicated to serious discussion about the assassination of JFK.
Last month our 15 year old grand daughter was asked to write a paper on this subject by her lone nut teacher. She did her own research and came to the conclusion that her teacher was dead wrong. She got an A.
-
Imagine if all those polled knew all the truly great things JFK did, he would be counted the greatest. But history books, mainstream media and college professors continue the lies. Such as LBJ continued JFK's policy in Viet Nam.
-
Very interesting tale of yet one more witness who only knew LEE Oswald. Thanks for bumping this Jim.
Dawn
-
On 6/17/2018 at 1:53 PM, Paul Brancato said:
I heard RFK Jr. address this, without naming Sheridan. It’s in one of the recent posted video interviews, I think the one Paz posted. If I recall this correctly, he lays the blame for Sheridan’s actions not on RFK but on NBC. Is there really any proof that RFK sent Sheridan to stop Garrison? Without that proof it becomes a logical mistake - RFK sends Sheridan, ergo Sheridan’s actions were with RFK’s approval.
Zero proof. Joan Mellen alleges this in her Garrison book, but I have been told she hated RFK so that may explain this allegation. Sheridan was CIA so you can guess who sent him to sabotage JG.
EDIT: Once again Jim D. corrects the record with facts. David Talbot was still a newbie on this case when he was writing Brothers. I think he would no longer be so quick to give Sheridan a pass.
-
9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Jim:
To my knowledge Doyle has been suspended from this site.
I think it was over his vitriol towards other members.
Jim, you may not know who troppocrat is, but everything he wrote there sound just like Doyle. Of course Doyle may have used someone else since he does all kinds of things in order to get on places he is banned. But the fact that its him is revealed by his reference to the PW page. He used you to give some info on Stanton, hoping it would then jimmy open the PM thing. Which it did. So what you have done, apparently unawares, is you have given hims a chance that he would not have had to insult Bart, Andrej, and Gordon and the Mods.
Doyle used to email me and his email is "troppocrat".
-
On 5/24/2018 at 5:01 PM, James DiEugenio said:
Here is one example of how bad Sherman was for the defense. From my review:
Let me close with what I perceive as probably the worst failure of the defense. In doing so, I relate another episode that I can hardly believe happened in an American court of law. Again, I had to read this twice in order to fully comprehend it. Prosecutor Benedict knew that he had a problem with the time of death in this case. If Martha was dead by 10:00 PM, and Michael was watching television eleven miles away, then how could a jury convict him? Furthermore, the authorities had brought in an outside consultant, one of the most illustrious forensic pathologists in America, Joseph Jachimczyk of Houston, to certify that time. And he said this was the far end of the time frame, which began at 9:30. (ibid, p. 27) In addition, there were other pieces of evidence that corroborated this time frame. (ibid, p. 28)
To counteract all this, Benedict did something that I have never heard of before. He called the autopsist in this case, Elliot Gross; but he did not put him on the stand. The fact that he did not take the stand indicates that he would not give Benedict the information he wanted to hear. Instead, he put Wayne Carver on the stand, the current medical examiner. Carver said that, looking over the notes, the time of death could be as late as 1:30 AM. The problem was that Carver had never worked on the case. This juggling would seem to present a made-to-order opportunity for a real takedown of Benedict. One could imagine a pointed, detailed, rigorous cross-examination that would expose this as nothing but a ploy. Sherman asked one question in rebuttal: “Could the murder have occurred at 9:30 PM?” Carver replied yes. Sherman sat down. Which should have been the last thing he did. As Kennedy then writes, the obvious next question should have been: “How can you say that the time of death could happen at both 9:30 PM and 1:30 AM?” And that should have been just the beginning. (ibid, p. 28)
When Cyril Wecht read about this, he was stunned. I would have called the actual pathologist and then called the DA himself to the stand.
Wow now I have to add this book to my growing list. I have always considered Sherman a bit of a fame whore but am just shocked at his lack of a cross exam. A layman would have done better. As a criminal defense attorney I am ashamed. Actually I need to make that former as I am closing out that part of my practice to focus on Child Protective Services cases. Had a great jury win yesterday on behalf of my kids, twins who turned four yesterday and a younger sibling. I am still feeling the joy of that moment, knowing these kids will be adopted in their forever homes very soon, after two years.
-
WOW, thanks for posting this Doug. For those requiring proof this should suffice!
I would post it at facebook but they blocked me this am for the crime of posting
"Americans are so stupid". So for 24 hours I am locked out. I "offended community standards".
So much for free speech on fb.
Dawn
-
On 4/29/2018 at 9:24 AM, Eddy Bainbridge said:
Dreaming of an end to this misery I wondered if Oliver Stone would be able to get finance for another film ; 'JFK 2018' (or 2020 if it takes a while). Since the 90's the original films premise has been enhanced. I think the people who advised on the film (still living) could colour in some more of the story and the reputation of the original would get the crowds flocking in. Whilst the first film looked at events in New Orleans the new one could look at Mexico City and really hammer home the cover-up of medical evidence.
I would love to see JFK and The Unspeakable made into a film.
-
On 3/22/2018 at 6:09 PM, James DiEugenio said:
This is some really interesting stuff Jim.
Not just for what it says about Wilcott and Oswald, but also about how the HSCA operated.
I see something like this, and it just makes me sick about the day that Sprague left.
I remember this as it was happening and how worried I became that HSCA would be one more cover-up as a result.
-
14 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
I think it needs to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, though I doubt it will.
Many people do not realize this but Garrison's actions against Clay Shaw actually did get up to the U.S. Supreme Court. I wrote about it in my law school paper, "Separating Fact From Fiction: The Ethical Dimensions of Jim Garrisons prosecution of Clay Shaw for Conspiracy in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
To think Morley's case has been ongoing for over 15 years.
Scary a case can take that long.
It needs to just be decided one way or the other so that it is done.
I would love to see your paper. I did two papers on this case while in college, but nothing in law school. Did come up with an idea for this case in law school however, that I was prevented from pursuing due to the actions of an unethical researcher who shall remain nameless.
Kudos to Morley and especially his attorney who has been at his stuff for decades.
Dawn
-
20 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:
I just want to mention one thing because it is egregious behavior, IMO, and the mods may not have noticed. Our prolific “KGB did it” member has started to equivocate his theory with that of being a patriotic Amarican. To be sure, he has supported his position by pointing out that he is a proud American, and questioned whether detractors of his theory are patriotic. And, make no mistake, sometimes his sarcastic comment that “ Putin is a very nice man” is used to characterize his impression of the character of other members.
It can be very hard to control oneself under such circumstances, and such behavior is guaranteed to provoke harsh, personal pushback if it is not checked.
Michael,
Since I seem to be the only member of this forum who is "pushing" the KGB or Castro did it "theories" (hey, maybe even with the witting or unwitting help of some rogue CIA types), I can only assume that when you say, above, "our prolific 'KGB did it' member," you are referring to me. Am I correct in that assumption? Or am I just being "paranoid," here?
If so, why didn't you say my name? Are you afraid the moderators would chastise you if you did?
Regardless, in my humble opinion there are lots and lots of patriotic Americans who truly love their country but who have been unwittingly misled and conditioned by at least 58 years of (Soviet/Russian) "active measures" counterintelligence ops interwoven with "strategic / operative deception" counterintelligence ops into doing certain things (like believing that we live in a "Deep State," etc, or like voting for a blackmail-able "useful idiot" of Vladimir Putin) or not doing certain things (like voting, or like fact-checking stuff on reputable fact-checking websites).
I don't appreciate your insinuating that I believe that I am more patriotic than you or anyone else on this forum. More knowledgeable on certain things perhaps, but not more patriotic.
At least I hope there aren't any dyed-in-the-wool traitors lurking here.
(Laughing Out Loud)Have a nice day, Michael, and I (edit: really do) mean it.
-- Tommy
Are you serious??? You believe Russia or Castro had JFK killed? Have you done no research on JFK's peace efforts with both leaders, or do you just choose to ignore this?. When I asked you in another thread who you believed had JFK killed you avoided the question.
WOW.
-
So you ARE admitting he was banned.? That is really outrageous.
-
4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:
Dawn,
Thanks for the heads up. If he's been "axed," I would imagine that it has more to do with his "style," than anything.
After all, this forum is more or less dominated by members who believe that the CIA killed JFK.-- Tommy
I'll bite: Who do you think killed JFK?
So if people (like me) believe the CIA killed JFK that can be grounds for removal? Or one's "style"? How are these decisions made here? At DPF we actually discuss such a move privately and take a vote. We also give ample warning.
-
It has come to my attention that David Josephs has been axed from this forum. With no warning or reason as to why.
What is going on? Don't you have to break some rules or something?
Or perhaps his views are simply unwelcome. ???
Dawn
-
On 2/26/2018 at 10:52 AM, Don Jeffries said:
And by the way, trying to claim the "commies" were funding Mark Lane is straight out of the CIA handbook. It also eerily corresponds to how the "Russians" are now used by the establishment left as bogeymen that can be conveniently blamed for any and all dissent in America.
Tommy, was Joe McCarthy right? After all, in his day, the Soviets were a lot more powerful....
Great question Don. You know of course from his fb posts that Tommy completely buys into the Russia hysteria. It makes me crazy- I refuse to argue this with people who parrot the rants of MSM.
-
On 2/25/2018 at 7:45 PM, Don Jeffries said:
RCD,
It's great to see you alive and posting again. I hope you'll chime in more often. This place certainly needs more people like you.
OMG What a treat. I rarely come here but if RCD returns I will be a regular. Tommy you are WAY our of your league when it comes to the enormous talent, knowledge and analysis of RCD.
-
On 2/1/2018 at 10:55 AM, Don Jeffries said:
Why do any of you treat Thomas Graves as a serious researcher? His every post is filled with sarcastic jabs and unsuccessful attempts at humor. He has become much more than just another John Armstrong-basher, as he promulgates the only conspiracy theory the establishment has ever loved- the "Russians did it" nonsense. He is also becoming some kind of outlandish grammar cop.
From what little I can decipher out of his multitude of posts, Graves now believes disinfo agent/lone nutter Edward Epstein was essentially right. He is promoting the Oswald-did-it mantra, just in a more subtle way than Tracy Parnell or DVP. Reading his posts is like watching a mainstream media broadcast, while very drunk. Chris Cuomo might as well be posting here.
Engaging him in "debate" and treating his intentionally incoherent ramblings seriously just lowers the level of discourse here. It's hard to picture all the fine researchers who no longer post here, ever giving Thomas Graves the time of day.
For the record, RT is the only television network that will tell the truth about the massive corruption in this country. I'm proud to have been interviewed at their studios a couple of times. They are not disseminating any propaganda, unlike our own homegrown television networks, which are far closer to the old Pravda. The difference between Pravda and CNN, CBS, NBC, etc., is that the Soviets were awake enough to at least realize they were absorbing state propaganda.
I do not consider him serious in the least. Never have. So I don't respond to him. In fact I rarely come here anymore as there are so many lone nuts that wading through all the posts is a waste of time. Glad I saw this one from you Don. Totally agree.
-
On 1/22/2018 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Graves said:
James,
Oliver Stone??
With all due respect, do you mean the guy who has David Ferrie confessing to killing Kennedy in the film "JFK," and whose son is (or was) working for Putin's propaganda outlet, "RT"?
-- Tommy
OMG I LOVE Sean Stone and I love RT.
-
On 11/20/2017 at 3:35 AM, Pat Speer said:
The trial was discussed at Lancer by some of those involved, and I discussed it with a number of them outside their presentation.
Here's a few points of interest..
1. The trial was limited to two days. The prosecution agreed to limit their case to one witness. But in return the defense had to agree to limit their responses to the prosecution's questions of their witnesses. Some saw this as a mistake, as there was not enough time to respond to the challenges of the prosecution.
2. The deliberation time for the jury was also limited. Word has it that it started out 8-3 in favor of conviction, and that 2 jurors were turned to acquittal during the limited deliberation. The thinking is that more would have turned with a longer deliberation.
3. The jurors were filmed and the response of the jurors to the defense witnesses are going to be studied.
4. It is hoped that this is the first of a series of mock trials to be performed at a number of law schools. The defense team plans to use what they've learned from this mock trial to improve their performance.
5. There was much discussion over the direction of the defense. There was a movement by some of those involved to let the doctors make their case for conspiracy, that won the day. But the next go-round will probably be different, as some of those involved felt the science was much too much for the jury.
6. Some felt it was a mistake to spend so much of the opening statement discussing ethics. Some wanted this on the record, but others felt this was too boring for the jury. Should this same team perform another mock trial, this opening salvo will probably be re-focused.
7. The feeling was that the defense did much better with the seniors, than it did with millennials. An effort will be made to address this.
In short, this mock trial was kind of like an experiment. For decades, a certain group of doctors and experts--you know who they are--have been dying to present their case to a jury. With this mock trial, they finally got their chance. Only it didn't go as well as they planned. So corrections will be made.
WOW...you have just listed all of my issues with this trial. That said the lawyers are all well versed in this case and in spite of all of the above did very well. This case is simply far too complicated to present in two days. I did not know that about the cross of the state's sole witness, now it makes more sense.
An whoever decided to do an ethics presentation as part of the opening was totally off the mark. You have to grab your jurors coming out of the park. On why your client is not guilty.
A history lesson puts them to sleep.
-
Jim you can email me dmeredith@austin.rr.com
The clothing WAS presented by the state's only witness -that and the silly drawing of the bullet going from neck out of neck, more than once but it was left unchallenged by the defense. As for the Mauser, the defense said that was a mistake. A mistake when that kind of gun has its name printed on it. How could trained cops make that mistake?
But I do commend the defense for all the work that went into the trial, perhaps TX jurors would never vote NG. They also plan to learn from the mistakes and do it again.
-
49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
I agree.
Also Dawn, is there something wrong with DPF? I cannot get on of late. The connection is so slow.
Jim the site is down. I asked Maggie about it via fb message the other day...
Jim Did you watch the entire trial? Will you write about it? I KNEW the prosecutor would jump all over LHO leaving as consciousness of guilt and that was left, no re direct to correct that. And when Bill said that we don't know that he was not involved I knew that the prosecutor would jump to the law of parties, which of course she did. I have so many criticisms of the trial but am too exhausted to articulate such in writing. Just getting over a terrible flu...I have enormous respect for the entire team but I would have tried the case very differently. Lawyers who try criminal cases know that too much technical stuff loses the jury. It was like they were trying to prove there were more shooters, NOT that LHO was a patsy.
Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable"
in JFK Book Discussions
Posted
Thank you Steve. Very well put and right on the mark. In a field where there are so many stand out books this one remains my favorite. Sounds like the poster above his come with an anti Kennedy bias. Hope he finishes the book and continues his study.
Dawn