Glenn Nall

and don't call me Truly.

nothing whatsoever like a TLD, that's State Grants v. Federal Grants. Huge difference. I owe the fine state of GA about 48 large. But at least i did not rely on the Fed govt to put me through college.

maybe, but i bet his bottom wasn't as cute as hers.

in a nutshell, i pretty much agree.

as i've become enamored with the way our country was created, and with the spirit (and the letter) of our US Constitution, i've imagined our 'forefathers' to be a group of well-meaning, idealistic people who valued an idealistic, independent society and then created it. i'm "reading" (through) The Federalist Papers and there's no denying Hamilton's fervor for freedom and social independence from a large government - his honorable ideals.

in studying the Murder for the past 30+ years i've become awakened to the truth that, you're right, they turned against us pretty quickly. It took me a while to accept this, being the idealist that i am. My realist won out, though. Yes, greed and power has been the rule for a long, long time, but i still feel that the final coup occurred in Dallas and that's when this "new, other" government took over and it all went to xxxx. I think there is a definite change that took place then.

before, what we had was tolerable. now it is not. i too fail to see an ability to stop the slide. but neither can i do nothing. Eldridge Cleaver said that if we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem, and i do believe that, in something like this, it's that simple. to ignore it is to condone it.

the slide can be hindered, and maybe, just maybe, stopped. if there is a round table that spreads as wide as it's suspected to, then no, it'll never be stopped. but i'll die knowing that i stood against the spineless f***s.

the study of "this thing of ours" is a godsend to me - the Assassination has given me an outlet through which i can put into practice this "spreading of the awareness" without getting abjectly frustrated and demoralized. without it, i'm too lazy to remain passionate. with it my passion can breath.

i wax poetic. peace

i see.

i was being tactful.

i think i understand him a bit more, now.

...i love their chicken.

[redacted. Kenneth, i may have misread your post - i was certainly making fun of his TLD approach, in any case. i WAS referring to your signature.]

Davey,

Maybe you also forgot about the meeting Ball had with Redlich as related in Inquest?

Some of the staff were a little wiser than you. (Which isn't hard to be.)

They did not want to use witnesses as bad as Brennan, Marina, and Markham. (Which is what Liebeler also objected to in his memo. You have read that, have you not?)

Same thing happened here as what happened to Liebeler. They got overruled. That's the real world Davey. I mean do you let the employees run your KFC? Do they set the prices and policies?

BTW, Redlich, who actually wrote a large part of the final report, actually said to Liebeler, "I work for the Commission and they want it in."

Now, who was the Commission? It was the Troika plus Warren. Because Willens in his dairy related a story about getting the opinion from Dulles and Warren on an issue, and then writing that he had to now get the opinion of the "other two commissioners." Two, Howard? Should that not have been five?

He gave the game away. Its like I have always said, the WC was the Troika,: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, With Warren for window dressing. That is who Redlich was working for. And Hoover was doing most of the investigative work. Some line up eh?

Davey, please quit or I am going to call the referee over to stop it.

um.

KFC?

may i snicker?

no?

ok, forget i asked.

["the jury will pretend the witness didn't say that."]

wait.

DVP has written a book?

understanding basic legal jurisprudence and procedure is not limited to lawyers, D. other people are allowed to study and understand the law, too.

on the other hand, continuing to place good faith in the conclusions formed by the WC and the HSCA does seem to be limited to - well, the limited...

LOL...

D. seems to feel that we CTers don't believe in any evidence

Yes, that's his backup argument... "you mean ALL the evidence is not believeable?" [incredulity shining thru]

The book I am writing, "The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" will explain in detail this exact thing.

(like I did for Mexico City and that pile of steaming evidence created a discarded repeatedly by the FBI even though they KNEW he was never down there... in fact I think they KNEW he was at Odio's and is the reason the reports on Oswald don't pick up again until Nov 1)

So to LNers, no, the evidence we are offered in the WCR and HSCA is not authentic. none of it. It does not illustrate the event, it illustrates what the FBI, CIA, SS, I&NS and a handful of others compiled which says just about everything in the world but that Oswald killed JFK alone. It doesn't even show that he did it as part of conspiracy.

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... so when DVP or other LNers want to refer to any Evidence during their arguments, have them AUTHENTICATE IT. Prove it's provenance, Prove that a court of law would accept it as admissible...

Since that never happens... and they build their arguments on facts made of pixie dust... well, you know the rest.

It's all they've got Glenn. The number of things that can be said for certain from that day is woefully small. That can be proven, even smaller.

The WCR and HSCA report are some of the greatest works of Fiction this world has ever seen... and they include the facts which prove it.

Peace

DJ

"The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" --- that's very interesting. I'm developing my own thoughts (and a project) from a belief that the abundance of circumstance - the conspiracy - IS the Evidence, and will ultimately win out. which i think is not contrary to your thesis. at least I guess it's not...

just as absolute, rightful convictions can be obtained with no direct evidence but on circumstantial alone, so can enough circumstantial evidence, eventually, gain the attention necessary to reopen the case, or at least prove conspiracy in the public eye.

but that wouldn't be enough, would it. hhmmm.

that brings to my mind the next question. what do I want out of this, finally? vindication? for the bad guys to suffer (many are already dead)? for this "other" form of government to fall...?

to regain the america we once had...?

am i effin' crazy?

LOL, nice one Dave

Incredible how DVP completely reverses the standard of evidence. Which shows he has no comprehension of what the legal system is all about.

It was the job of the WC to prove their case against Oswald.

They did not do that. By any legal standard.

Our side does not have to prove what actually happened. They always say we should. But its simply not in the rule book.

What our side has to do is to show that their case is simply not credible.

Which we have done. A zillion times over. In every aspect.

http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_00.html

he really doesn't have a clue why it's the prosecution's obligation to prove its case and not the defense's. in my very few 'civil' (non-conflictive) chats with him it became clear to me that his understanding of the basic definition of "evidence" is not even close, much less the many kinds of it that exist in a complex charge (and counter-charge) like this one.

he could easily grasp it if he wanted to, but he's so adamant in disagreeing with a CTer that he argues the point with me by rote. he argues with his eyes closed.

also, he probably knows subconsciously that if he were to admit to understanding evidentiary procedure and the american justice system then he'd be painted into a corner of sunlight, from which there would be no escape.

That is only the beginning of the problems with CE 399.

I mean, if I am a defense lawyer, I want the prosecutor to admit that exhibit since it would be the beginning of the end of his case. I would not even call a 402 hearing. Since I think it would be harder to prove the people's case with it than without it. In fact, if the prosecution tried to prove the case without it, I would then enter it myself.

Because not only would you prove it's bogus, you prove the whole unreliability of the handling of evidence in the state's case. Which is a very important plateau to cross. Once you have done that, its an uphill climb with the jury.

Tanenbaum once mentioned this to me. He said, once you lose the jury's trust in the efficacy of the people's case, then they begin to look at your case as not really factual, but theorizing.

Which, of course, is the giant problem with the Warren Commission. Its one big theory. (Which makes it so bizarrely ironic that DVP calls us conspiracy theorists.) The WR doesn't prove anything. Even Jesse Curry admitted that the DPD could never put Oswald in the window with that rifle. And then when you add in Vickie Adams?

In the last couple of years, I have tried to stress that the WC is an object lesson in what happens to our judiciary if the adversarial procedure breaks down. Oswald was not allowed a defense. And the guy sent by the ABA did not do his job at all. Since the rules of evidence were not even acknowledged, let alone followed. As Chris Sharrett once said, the Nazis at Nuremberg got a better defense than Oswald. I mean, does it get worse than that?

And with Dulles, McCloy and Ford running the show, the fix was in. I mean, Ford even admitted this later to the president of France.

http://ctka.net/2013/VGEonJFK.html

399 creates more problems than it provides answers, no doubt - in and out of a court of law. that's why a prosecutor would fight its admission and why we (the defense) appreciate it for what it is (among many other like items). it opens the door to the chain of custody issue just for starters (they couldn't even decide who found it and who gave it to who in the elevator lobby), and from there it snowballs. that bullet really could have led to an awful lot of embarrassing questions.

the OJ case is a good example of your and Tannenbaum's point, James; the investigation even before the case was brought was such a shambles that the jury early on had lost the respect of the prosecution. a more efficient prosecution team might have saved it, but I don't think so.

People have a tendency to believe that "eyewitness" evidence is the good stuff and circumstantial evidence is useless, when this is far from the truth. The three bullet casings appear to be solid evidence to some people, but actually carry very little weight in and of themselves. They prove nothing. I think this is what you're referring to when you presented to us the idea of "closed loop corroboration"...? Evidence that stands (or doesn't stand) on its own...?

I've been meaning to get back and ask you if you'd give me a good example of what you mean by this; the fingerprint(s) found on the gun are completely dependant upon about a thousand other factors lining up like the planets never will in a million more years. this is what's NOT a - may I? - CLC.

I'm tired of fighting and of being annoyed... that's whya few posts back I wrote to Steve what I did.

Like getting mad at the sun for setting. DVP and LNers in general really have no other choice.

-------------

As for CLC (as if the world needs another 3 letter acronym) - I like it

What I meant that to mean is a set of evidence that only corroborates each other. The VC# assigned by Klein's to C2766 has only 3 pieces of evidence from which to corroborate it... 1) the 2 page VC# list of the 100 rifles 2) the Crescent packing slip #3620 for carton #3376 with C2766 in it and 3) the Order Blank with C20-T750 wherethe VC# and Serial # is written in.

If I only show you only those three documents it APPEARS that VC836 = C2766 = what HIDELL was shipped

As long as we never see other VC# = Serial #'s pages

As long as we never see what happened to the other 99 rifles

As long as we are never shown what Klein's shipped for other C20-T750 orders...

This evidence corroborates itself. Yet in the paper CTKA is putting up shortly, I prove how these items are FBI frauds and why the FBI steered clear of any other records which showed what Klein's did inthenormal course of business... all we get is OSWALD's business docs...

----------------

As for your fingerprint comment... I don't think that's what I posted... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22128&page=3#entry310335

and no, the fingerprints cannot be CLC unless the fingerprint card it is compared to and the finger prints on evidence were never checked against Oswald's actual fingerprints. By stating that the fingerprints on the rifle match "this" fingerprint card which we claim is Oswald's can only stay closed-loop if we were neer allowed to authentically take his fingerprints and compare them.

I am NOT saying this happened.. here me DVP, NOT... just an example of how fingerprints could qualify for a CLC.

----

Hope that made sense. Most CLC is used to authenticate evidence for which we should have recourse tro but don't. The Klein's microfilm is yet another.

I asked DVP about this and he's never addressed it. WCD7 pages 187-188-189 show two teribbly conflicting reports with virtually all the same info except that in one Waldman keeps the microfilm and in the other FBI SA DOLAN takes the film with him.

Since the film is now missing from the archives and the copy which Dolan claims he gave Waldman has not turned up, there is no way to corroborate that ORDER BLANK as authentic... the Closed Loop Corroboration is the FBI reports claiming what they say was on the film, was...

Same page?

DJ

"As for your fingerprint comment... I don't think that's what I posted."

My fault - i did not mean to imply that you were saying that. I was pointing out how, even though some people (no names, please) think that those prints are gospel, their values actually depend upon a multitude of things; that they are an example of what's NOT a closed loop corroboration, if i understand it right, because of this dependency.

sorry about the misunderstanding.

btw, D. seems to feel that we CTers don't believe in any evidence, according to his reply to my response to his post in the Lane thread - so please try to discourage him from reading this thread if you can, lest he see us discussing the plethora of evidence that we seem to think exists. I'd hate for him to come across some evidence contrary to one of his millions of statements of absolute fact. there's going to come a day when his wall of denial suffers a crack and i don't want to be the cause of it or be there when it happens. it could be messy.

DVP actually calls CE 399 evidence.

When any prosecutor in his right mind would be anathema to put that exhibit in play. It would blow up his whole case.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

Only the WC would do such a desperate act.

BTW, when Clay Shaw's lawyers were defending him in New Orleans, they actually tried to get Garrison's charge thrown out by presenting the WC volumes in court as evidence. They brought the 26 volumes into court in a wheelbarrow and put it in front of the judge.

The judge was aghast. He then started smiling. He said words to the effect: You are going to ask me to admit that pile of unchallenged testimony, and unvetted exhibits into evidence? He then started to giggle.

One of DVP's personal shortcomings is his lack of humor.

that's funny, i even mentioned that in the thread. CE 399 is evidence only in the sense that it was verbally testified to having been discovered during the "investigation" of the crime. And therein lies the entirety of its value as evidence. No blood evidence on the bullet, right? Not found IN the Governor, or even near him.

you're right, a prosecutor would not want it admitted, i'm willing to bet.

[...] Because Vince was not looking at the case in an official capacity. What he did was pure entertainment. And it should be look upon in that way.

[...]

Entertainment? I'd sooner watch Granny Clampett mud wrestling with Roy Clark on a deranged hybrid between The Beverly Hillbillies and Hee Haw!

I enjoyed that episode, damnit.

do NOT make fun of Roy Clark — he was ill that day!

and besides, I think the film was altered before it made it to air. Granny had his arm pinned well above his shoulder, as EVERYONE knows, and on TV it appears that she only gets it to about 6 inches below his neck. I think it was faked.

and you'll note that WCW took off after that - a real ratings bonanza. all because Granny (a secret John Bircher and mistress of Senator Byrd) whupped Roy Clark's (a known Trotskyist/Castro supporter) a**.

So let's watch it with the Beverly Hills Hee Haw slurs. What would Nixon think???

i just said the same thing in the Truly thread: there's no way on God's green earth (or Satan's, in deference to the LNers) that Henry Wade or any prosecutor would have considered this case for court in 1964, or ever, really. not a chance. reasonable doubt would have been order of the day.

you've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."

And there's the rub. You don't consider ANYTHING "evidence". Nor does Jon G. "Counselor for Oswald" Tidd. Nor does Kenneth "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle" Drew. Nor does anyone else who thinks Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy.

The physical evidence in this case all screams Oswald's guilt and everybody knows it. Hence, CTers in the ABO club are forced to pretend it's all fake. Because if it's not ALL FAKE, then Oswald is guilty. That is plainly--and simply--true.

I suggest that the ball is in the defense (CTers') court when it comes to the accusation that every last piece of evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases is artificially crafted (i.e., fake) evidence.

Conspiracists are making the extraordinary allegation that all the evidence is phony. Not LNers. So wouldn't it be kind of nice--just for a change of pace--to have just one conspiracy theorist actually provide some kind of PROOF to back up the idea that the evidence (just ONE piece of it!) against Lee Harvey Oswald is fraudulent?

Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?

you're not well, are you Dave...

so that means that Ruby and OJ were knew each other!!

coincidence? i think not... [cue spooky music]

[oh, and more fodder for DVP to show that we are, in fact, idiots]

DJ -

First, I admire your attempts to elicit civility from DVP in your genuine interest in some things he may have to say. I lost both a while back.

"...the "Why would they..." & "it's just not possible that..." type of statements..."

As I'm sure you're aware these are but two of a group of what're known as logical fallacies ("everybody knows that..." or "what with LNers believing in the exact opposite") - a tendency many people have, to different degrees, to avoid reason and facts when engaging in civil debate. DVP is a walking, living, breathing case study in logical fallacies that serve nothing better than to insult his opponent and destroy his own credibility. There is conflict and then there's conflict. He doesn't understand the difference so he cannot avoid using insult and logical fallacy in order to salvage what little he has left of a theory and his dignity.

I haven't read up on these fallacies in a long time - I'm constantly reminded of them, and how much fun they are, in here... the frustration is in trying to convince someone why, for instance, the opinions of a Supreme Court Justice have nothing to do with evidence that can or cannot place a person on the 6th floor of a particular building pulling the trigger of a certain gun at 12.30 on a given day.

this is why i posted in my signature the snippet from The Gun That Doesn't [or Didn't] Smoke about evidence. I fully agree with you in regards to authenticating evidence; my purpose in this blurb is to simply clarify the different kinds of evidence and how one kind can be so much better than another kind depending upon its relevance and competence.

People have a tendency to believe that "eyewitness" evidence is the good stuff and circumstantial evidence is useless, when this is far from the truth. The three bullet casings appear to be solid evidence to some people, but actually carry very little weight in and of themselves. They prove nothing. I think this is what you're referring to when you presented to us the idea of "closed loop corroboration"...? Evidence that stands (or doesn't stand) on its own...?

I've been meaning to get back and ask you if you'd give me a good example of what you mean by this; the fingerprint(s) found on the gun are completely dependant upon about a thousand other factors lining up like the planets never will in a million more years. this is what's NOT a - may I? - CLC.

you're right in that this case is full of real evidence - the problem is (well, the FIRST problem is) in assigning a proper and realistic value to each bit of evidence. the 3 shells are real evidence. the gun is real evidence. this doesn't make it good evidence. because of the destroyed chain of custody these things are hardly competent to the point of being almost irrelevant. CE399? Assuredly incompetent and probably inadmissible.

I honestly believe Henry Wade would not have taken this to court on what evidence became available to the Warren Commission. I don't know, though. That outcome might just as well have been prearranged like Shaw was.

I'm of the utter and confident stance that enough circumstantial evidence can decide the thing. Eventually, that is. It's all we have.

To me, the HSCA proved that there is ample circumstantial evidence by the fact that, try as they did not to, they were forced to find that there was probably a conspiracy. There was no direct evidence available as far as i know, or else everyone would be convinced that LHO had help. Circumstantial evidence led that group of people to admit collusion, and that in and of itself lays reasonable doubt of LHO's sole guilt at your feet.

anyway. you're right. i just wanted to refresh some memories of the difference between kinds of evidence, and what kind of evidence things like those damn shell casings are - and the rifle, for that matter.

"it's critical if understanding the evidence for what it is, is desired..."

there are two kinds of JFK enthusiasts in the world: those who desire to understand the evidence of its own accord, and the Lone Nutters.

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

Huh? What argument? Healy made no argument. He said nothing. Like always. (And I assume you weren't referring to Mark Lane's arguments.)

Healy was merely heaping praise upon a wholly unworthy recipient -- Ben Holmes -- who is a person I've destroyed with the facts on dozens of previous occasions--and Healy knows it.

Show me one argument made online by David G. Healy that isn't completely laughable on its face. I dare ya to find one. You'll be searching for a while.

In fact, you'll have a hard time finding any "argument" made by Healy at all on the Internet. And everybody knows it. All he does is throw insults and call people "hon". Great debating skills there.

"he said nothing"

neither did you. you posted some videos, letting others do the speaking.

"...a person I've destroyed with the facts on dozens of previous occasions."

you've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."

your entire tactic is personal attack, in each of your attempts, and there's not a person in here who's in any way emotionally or literally susceptible to your comic volleys.

So much for Healy's tantalizing promise.....

"My time has come and now gone. Too old and too tired. This will be my last post on JFK assassination-related forums." -- David G. Healy; July 25, 2015

Well, it was nice while it lasted anyway.

nice dodge, spineless...

pay close attention to this ensuing COMPLETE lack of conflict:

[ crickets... ]

there you go with your dogmatic adjectives again. conflict may be quite ubiquitous in your own self-described "intense battles," but in the civil debates and disagreements i've experienced in here and elsewhere, there WAS NO conflict, in this sense of the word. Far be it from you to understand, but other people can disagree without it getting rude and personal. i've experienced nothing but good logic and manners from every other non-CTer and alternative theoretician in here, except for you.

it's easy enough to recite the definition of a word (and copy and paste it) for anyone who can read; knowing its meaning in context is what i was referring to.

here's your next homework assignment: go look up "context." don't bother me with it; i already know what it means, too. just read it.