Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Weldon

Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Weldon

  1. Doug, Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror? I'd like to move on as wel
  2. Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire to not continue on this thread? I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further. Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible? I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked. Cliff: I was not aware of that. Jim posted three times yesterday and did not mention anything. The last thing I knew was that Jim stated that Judyth was going to answer the questions I and others raised. Best, Doug Weldon
  3. I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade. [my emphasis]Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument. Monk: Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on. Best, Doug
  4. MonK: Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated. Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person. A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless peo
  5. Jack, there was no IQ test when most of these people were alive, so whoever made this list was just guesstimating. 100 is by definition average. 200 is the highest score possible. The tests are not standard from year to year. It could very well be, therefore, that a 100 in 1963 would translate to a 105 in 2010, etc. FWIW, when I was 7 years old my mother was told I had a very high IQ, and was asked if they could skip me ahead in school. She said no, afraid I would be mocked by the older kids. In fifth grade I was put into an experimental program, whereby the kids with the highest IQs from
  6. Obama 126 Nixon 164 George Bush 40 Thanks Doug Weldon
  7. Dean: This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so m
  8. Dean: This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so m
  9. Dean: This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so m
  10. Jim: A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of y
  11. Jim: A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of y
  12. It looks like we just disagree, Greg. Them having known one another is the base of virtually all her claims re New Orleans and the assassination. Thus, it is vital to her entire story that she can establish that she even knew Oswald. Everything else flows from that. I stand by what I said before ... The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sp
  13. Monk: It's late here but I think I understand your point. I am always open to the evidence. As I noted before I believe she is a "tainted" witness as you eloquently put it for me. However, this is something she could not have researched and it would be a significant verification of her credibility. For many on the fence and wanting to believe her it would give them a significant excuse to do so. I did listen to the youtube on Cancun. One thing was not clear to me. If it was possible that Lee was going to get married within Cancun, Kancun, somewhere in the Yucatan peninsula, or Merida how w
  14. MonK: See my prior post. How can anyone suspect what the results would be? Judyth made the assertion. I would suspect she would not be so foolish to make a false assertion about something that can be proved or disproved so easily? What's to hide. Just do it. It can shut up a lot of people about this issue, including me. I cannot understand why this is so difficult or why there would be any resistance. Are we simply to believe her when it's something that can be independently addressed so easily? It's like saying I can tell if someone is guilty or not guilty just by looking at them. You are
  15. It looks like we just disagree, Greg. Them having known one another is the base of virtually all her claims re New Orleans and the assassination. Thus, it is vital to her entire story that she can establish that she even knew Oswald. Everything else flows from that. I stand by what I said before ... The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sp
  16. Doug, I'm not against getting it examined at all. But, let's be clear: Her "failure" to get it examined does not disprove any of her claims any more than confirmation of the writing would prove any of her claims beyond their having known each other. However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else? Monk: I would agree with Barb. If it is not Oswald's signature it would and should damage Judyth's credi
  17. Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed. The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with
  18. Doug, I don't recall having ever libeled you or anyone else for raising questions or anything else, do you? Monk: Absolutely not. I should have attached this to a different post. Doug Weldon
  19. Doug, I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more... This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case? Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor
  20. Jim: I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My
  21. Doug, I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more... This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case? Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor
  22. Doug, would it be fair to say this: In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless? Monk: Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently. Best, Doug Would it also be accurate to say that the same "handicap" would NOT exist if she were a defendant (as opposed to being a witness)? Please answer
  23. Doug, would it be fair to say this: In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless? Monk: Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently. Best, Doug
  24. Jim: I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My
  25. Yes Doug, I suppose that if you were representing her you would tell her to shut up because you would have a fiduciary to do just that, but you ARE NOT representing Judyth! You have no obligation to protect her. In fact, you don't think she is telling the truth to begin with. Why does she need your advice (to remain silent) if she is fabricating her story and therefore has nothing to fear? Did something about her presentation on TMWKK strike you as possibly true? I'm confused. Monk: You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read
×
×
  • Create New...