Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Weldon

Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Weldon

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Upon establishing a corpus I would charge her with open murder which encompasses 1st and 2nd degree murder. It is a non bondable offense(s). Doug Weldon
  5. Since this vaccine experiment probably has relevant similarities and differences to the test with the prisoner, I will ask Judyth to elaborate upon the facts of the matter, which you have indicated can make a significant difference. I would like to gain greater clarity on this case from moral, political, and legal points of view. Jim Jim: I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people h
  6. Jim: Did you look at the letter? It is dated April 27, 1963. It is a letter from Marina to aunt Valya and uncle Ilya. The pertinent part says: We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka (Oswald) buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections. The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his Ame
  7. Jim: Did you look at the letter? It is dated April 27, 1963. It is a letter from Marina to aunt Valya and uncle Ilya. The pertinent part says: We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka (Oswald) buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections. The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his Ame
  8. Dean: I have both prosecuted and defended murders. If the person was injected with a substance that could foreseeably result in the death of that person then all people who participated in the process leading to the injection and knew that it would be injected into someone would be principals in the crime and intent could be implied and even first degree (premeditated) murder could be found. It would be if you started firing a machine gun into a crowd of people and afterwards saying you didn't mean to kill anyone. Even a reckless act without intent could result in manslaughter, or 2nd degr
  9. Dean: I have both prosecuted and defended murders. If the person was injected with a substance that could foreseeably result in the death of that person then all people who participated in the process leading to the injection and knew that it would be injected into someone would be principals in the crime and intent could be implied and even first degree (premeditated) murder could be found. It would be if you started firing a machine gun into a crowd of people and afterwards saying you didn't mean to kill anyone. Even a reckless act without intent could result in manslaughter, or 2nd degr
  10. Dean: I have both prosecuted and defended murders. If the person was injected with a substance that could foreseeably result in the death of that person then all people who participated in the process leading to the injection and knew that it would be injected into someone would be principals in the crime and intent could be implied and even first degree (premeditated) murder could be found. It would be if you started firing a machine gun into a crowd of people and afterwards saying you didn't mean to kill anyone. Even a reckless act without intent could result in manslaughter, or 2nd degr
  11. I don't get this Jim. Why can't you have both? I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed? If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it? If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it? Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you
  12. Doug, your apology is accepted. Your carefully-crafted lawyerly response is not. Greg: i have been called worse than a lawyer. On second thought, I guess I haven't. Best, Doug
  13. Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making: From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses]. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"? From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classma
  14. Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making: From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses]. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"? From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classma
  15. Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher o
  16. Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher o
  17. Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher o
  18. HI-LARIOUS! Worthy of Vaughan Meader! Applause. :) Is that Monk doing the audio? Comedy! Satire! History! and Double-talk too! You missed your true calling! Jack :clapping Monk: This is great!! Doug
  19. Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of u
  20. Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of u
  21. Jim: I agree that John made some errors (blunders) and I believe he would be the first to acknowledge such. He also had problems with the editing of his book because of being self-published though I am not utilizing this as an excuse for errors. I believe it was always John's intent to lay out all the evidence he gathered and could corroborate andvput it out there and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Again, I have found a number of things he wrote that I have thought innocuous, irrelevent, or explainable. John is quite modest and I have never seen him argue his position so much
  22. Jim: I agree that John made some errors (blunders) and I believe he would be the first to acknowledge such. He also had problems with the editing of his book because of being self-published though I am not utilizing this as an excuse for errors. I believe it was always John's intent to lay out all the evidence he gathered and could corroborate andvput it out there and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Again, I have found a number of things he wrote that I have thought innocuous, irrelevent, or explainable. John is quite modest and I have never seen him argue his position so much
×
×
  • Create New...