David G. Healy

Don't give up your day job, son... "DEEP INSIDE" -- lmfao, a homicide investigator you aren't, Thespis of Icaria, maybe, quite possible -- provided of course, it's worth the effort. Vinnie B. or Rosemary ever tell you, that at times you can be embarrassing?

It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all. This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his sig that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter. And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case. I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats. you've been on the ropes for a few weeks now DVP. Is this desperation time or what? Been doin' some mighty fine dancing of late...

what trial was the above entered into as evidence? And what was the name of the sitting judge? After all, someone must of objected, "hearsay" eh?

Dale *ya wanna see my EMMY* Myers -- LMAO! Ya think Myers would forward his Lightwave files for his award winning Z-film project to another researcher for a little, um, "outside the lone nut loop research?" Just curious....

[...] Apparently the only thing that will satisfy CTers is to dig up JFK and Governor Connally and put them back in the limousine on Elm Street and shoot them again with CE399. ... It's infantile statements like the above which shows your lack of concern regarding the President of the United States... asinine comes to mind... And dude the Aussie docu was trash (all that gaffers tape too lmao), reminds me of that picture of .john dressed up in his trenchcoat out in that cold Wisconsin hinterland shooting at vicious sandbags! lmao! You don't know what or where that bullet hit, you'll buy into anything that supports WCR trash...

Why pretend otherwise, Glenn? You have surely got to know that a lot of Internet CTers DO, indeed, think that ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald is fake/phony evidence. Because if it's not all fake, then Oswald is very likely GUILTY, correct? (How could he not be?) And there have been several CTers at this forum who have said they think all of the evidence against LHO is fraudulent (or words to that effect), with the comments by Neal and Drew below certainly leaning in that direction, wouldn't you say? Granted, Ken Drew's comments are just flat-out weird, idiotic, and Twilight Zone-ish in nature, but I kinda doubt that Ken is suggesting that the evidence against Oswald is legit.... DAVID JOSEPHS SAID: Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC. TOM NEAL SAID: JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence. KENNETH DREW SAID: There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero. it appears David you're finally confronting reality... 1964 WCR best evidence is a bit tarnished these days, eh?

a stunner, sold 8 copies... enough for Mel Ayton to retire to Caan.

it's done frequently on the floor(s) of congress as well as committee meetings and investigations...

I'm looking forward to DJosephs comments regarding the BYP(s)...

... Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say? hell son, the 1963/64 WC was the prosecution, where have you been! The WC failed, the US public was skeptical from the very first instant, even before the reports 1964 release. We now know the WC did not make the case against Oswald. The only thing CTer's need prove was that JFK was in Dallas 11/22/1963. I think that's beyond any shadow or reasonable doubt... do you agree, or would you like to "spin" that too?

... "During my examination of the evidence in preparation for the [1986 mock] trial, I found that virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald maddeningly had some small but explainable problem with it. However, two things became obvious to me: One was that Oswald, an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America, was as guilty as sin. Based on the Himalayan mountain of uncontroverted evidence against Oswald, anyone who could believe he was innocent would probably also believe someone claiming to have heard a cow speaking the Spanish language. Secondly, there was not one speck of credible evidence that Oswald was framed or that he was a hit man for others in a conspiracy to murder the president. [...] - Vincent Bugliosi DVP, that's even better yet... so, "not one speck of evidence that Oswald was framed" AND there was not one speck of credible evidence to charge LHO with the murder of JFK. Why are we dealing with LHO, son? Who was the next suspect, surely there was more than one, eh? BTW, It's also easy to say Bugliosi was an unhinged, megalomaniac and malcontent based on what we now know of his, shall we say, 'dark side'. In case English is a problem, Tannebaum suggests early in his book, Oswald would have never been put on trial based on the 1964 Warren Commission findings and report. He goes even further stating the WCR reads like a prosecutor's brief, a BAD one. The 1964 WCR stinks...Oswald need not of worried about walking out of a courtroom, murder charges would of been dropped.... What does that say about your "evidence?"

hardly Kathleen, but thanks for the thought... lmao.

that's right David... "my time has come and now gone..." the debate is over for me... after 19 years, not bad, eh? It's simple: A conspiracy murdered JFK... And yet, I can't prove the Zapruder film was altered. Was altering possible? Of course it was. Go figure...

... 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. right you are, son. I have no need to argue... facts and truth win out. Class researchers both here and other forums/boards are wiping their collective feet on the 1964 WCR. It's all over but the lone nut whining. Those that now argue: a conspiracy did NOT murder JFK, do absolutely nothing else but argue and some build overweight websites to bolster their argument. Argue for argument sake, what a novelty, what a diversion. Here's something startling: read Bob Tanenbaum's (HSCA's lead investigator into the assassination of JFK), Corruption of Blood (1995/6). It would be good for you soul, a real eye opener, if you can find it...the book's front cover blurb: "His most enthralling legal thriller to date" --Vincent Bugliosi. (oh-my) Within the first 100 pages of the book, after *Butch* read the 1964 WCR, as did his investigative team... *there's nothing there...* No case against Oswald? WHAT! A guy that has personally prosecuted hundred + and responsible in a supervising capacity prosecuting hundreds of other murder cases and he never, ever lost one personally, saying that after reading the entire WCR? I don't have to argue dude...

let me see..... for 2 straight years and 450+ threads on ACJ re Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, Ben Holmes debating same literally cleaned lone nut clock. There wasn't one lone nut left standing... he took the debate to AAJ and did the same. He's doing the same right now on Amazon... and you dutifully post and hide behind a few videos, how convenient... You're a real charmer David Von Pein.

Hello Greg, Please accept my apology for acting the fool on your forum. Questioning one's efforts and motives is out of line. Please extend my apologies to your members and your supporters. I breached your forums' etiquette. My time has come and now gone. Too old and too tired. This will be my last post on JFK assassination-related forums. Take care and keep up the good work. Respectfully, David Healy 07.25.2015

comment in quote box above...

disregard-duplicate

Great Robert Tanenbaum interview.... The Probe Interview: Bob Tanenbaum Robert K. Tanenbaum was chosen by Richard Sprague to be the House Select Committee's first Deputy Counsel in charge of the John Kennedy murder investigation. Last year he wrote a fictionalized account of that experience entitled Corruption of Blood.The book was released as a mass market paperback this year in a million copy print run, the first highly successful release in the field since Case Closed. He was recently the keynote speaker at the 1995 COPA Conference in Washington. [...] http://www.jfk-info.com/pr796.htm

Wasn't TMWKK before he began working at the museum? first two episodes of TMWKK came out in 1988, by 1995 a total of 6 were produced, the final 3 episodes were ready by 2003 (the 40th anniversary). http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/gary-mack-who-helped-create-jfk-assassination-museum-dies-at-68/2015/07/17/0df89ad6-2ca2-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html Mr. Mack served as a consultant in the planning of “John F. Kennedy and the Memory of a Nation,” the exhibit that opened the Sixth Floor Museum in 1989. The museum is in the former Texas School Book Depository... Mr. Mack joined the museum staff in 1994 as an archivist and was named curator in 2000, becoming a name and face familiar to Kennedy history buffs. He also became the voice of the museum, providing the recorded narrations to exhibits and self-guided tours.

Ron, your experience is similar to mine. I was old enough (23) when it happened that I remember seeing quite a bit on tv over that weekend. some I have seen again from various archives and forum sites, but other film I have never seen again. The one I am confronted on most is seeing a person with a rifle recovered (they said) from the TSBD building and shown and identified as a Mauser at the time. I've never seen that in any film since that weekend. Many say it never happened. The very first discrepancy that I recall in the whole chain of events is when the type of rifle changed from a Mauser to a Manlicher-Carcano. I wondered how a rifle that was clearly identified by several persons could change brand names after it got to police headquarters. Since that time, many other things have 'changed' miraculously' to either conceal actual evidence or to modify it to fit the "story". seems to me there was a local (Dallas) news cameraman on the 6th floor soon after the shooting. From what I recall, he shot quite a bit of 16mm film while the TSBD search was underway.

methinks you've been in the wilderness way to long, son! I see DVP's presence here as an 'orchestrated distraction' Rarely does he write about anything worth writing about and he spends an inordinate amount of time quibbling over pennies. Even he has admitted that some evidence is 'useless' such as Brennan's 'sworn statement' but nevertheless, he will bring it up time after time as if it means something. Even then he won't admit to the facts, such as Brennan could barely see beyond the tip of his nose and damn sure couldn't have identified a person on the 6th floor. So since he likes to be a distraction, I figure "what the hell" throw him some red meat. May as well play the same game as he does. He eats the red meat every time. DVP has been an 'orchestrated distraction' since he stopped serving 'extra crispy'. He is simply in conspiracy denial. A lone nut assassination website, even one the size of and having the content of the Library of Congress will NOT change that simple fact or conclusion the HSCA determined!

methinks you've been in the wilderness way to long, son!

how was Brennan's eyesight, again?

George Bailey-loved him in "Its a Wonderful Life". Seriously, this has been answered time and time again and they keep bringing it up. Here, Bugliosi replies to the same allegation by Summers: But the very preceding paragraph, which Summers conveniently makes no mention of, reveals why Hoover made the birth certificate reference and where he most likely got the idea of imposture—from Oswald’s mother, Marguerite. Hoover points out in the paragraph that Marguerite had informed the FBI the previous month that Oswald had taken his birth certificate with him when he had defected to the Soviet Union, and that three letters she had written him had been returned to her undelivered. Also, she had recently received a letter addressed to her son from the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland indicating that he had been expected to show up at the college on April 20, 1960, but hadn’t. The mother, Hoover said, was therefore “apprehensive about his safety.” Bugliosi, Vincent (2007-05-17). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Kindle Locations 28663-28668). Norton. Kindle Edition. I don't admire lone nuts! They've so damn many hills to climb concerning case evidence. It also doesn't take much to understand lone nutter diversion tactics taking place on most forum's/boards either....