Jump to content
The Education Forum

Vanessa Loney

Members
  • Content Count

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vanessa Loney

  1. David, stick to the new evidence. It cancels out all that old 'evidence'.
  2. David, it would make sense if even one or two people on the steps said they saw a stranger. Although out of 13 people on the steps (who were all employed in the building) I would actually expect more than that to ID a stranger standing right in the doorway as they are re-entering the building. But for none of them to see him? As Andrej has pointed out so well this stranger, who none of them saw, just happens to be identified by Marina as Lee and has the same height, weight, hair and clothes as Lee. How can it not be Lee?
  3. David, 13 TSBD employees are on the steps and they manage to identify who is standing behind them, in front and beside them. But they all fail to identify one person, the same person. And they don't even say there was a stranger there. Not one. Even though he is clearly visible standing right next to the door they need to open to get back into the building. And no-one saw this stranger even though the FBI asked them if they saw any strangers that day.
  4. Absolutely awesome work Barto and Ed. Kudos to you both.
  5. David, there's a reason the authorities get the next of kin to identify a body. It's because they know the person best and can identify them even when others can't.
  6. Thanks Steve. I take your point about Kaminsky. So Jarman was wrong when he said it was the same police officer who stopped him and Oswald. Jarman was stopped by Barnett and Oswald possibly by Kaminsky. Although I note that Holmes doesn't mention that Truly was identifying employees so that part at least doesn't gell. Lovelady says that after leaving the steps he re-entered the building through a back entrance and waited around on the first floor for 30 minutes before going up to the 6th floor with the DPD. He doesn't mention returning to the steps. Mr. BALL - Did you see any other p
  7. With all due respect Francois, you are a numpty. David, what do you have to say about Frazier?
  8. And here's the rest of Brennan's testimony. Nothing about going into the building. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask there. By the second floor from the top, do you mean the one directly underneath the top floor? Mr. BRENNAN. Underneath the top floor, excluding the roof, yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. And then what happened, sir? Mr. BRENNAN. He said, "just a minute." And he had to give some orders or something on the east side of the building on Houston Street. And then he had taken me to, I believe, Mr. Sorrels, an automobile sitting in front of the Texas Book Store. Mr. BELIN. And then what happened there
  9. Are you answering for David now, Francois? My question is for David and I would like to hear his response. Frankly, I think Frazier's words speak for themselves.
  10. Thanks Sandy, I agree that's the crux of the issue. A key issue here is the 'policeman' involved. The policeman who stopped Jarman was Officer Barnett. I don't think any of this behaviour describes anything Officer Baker says he did that day. Baker heard the shots and ran straight into the building. Officer Barnett didn't even go into the building. Jarman clearly says Lovelady said the Officer was on his way into the building when he encountered Oswald. That does describe Baker but not Barnett. Here's the Officer's statement This officer was W. E. Barnett of the Dallas Poli
  11. Nice misdirection there David. We are not talking about Clemons we are talking about Frazier who is a key witness. Your side has stated that that the fact the Frazier won't identify PM is evidence that PM wasn't Oswald. The PM side say that quite possibly witnesses, including Frazier, were intimidated. Frazier says his family were threatened. And you do a quick sidestep. What is your actual response to Frazier's claims? Was he lying?
  12. David, here you can hear Buell Frazier say he kept quiet out of fear of what could happen to his family. He says it right at the end of the interview IIRC. https://jfkfacts.org/c-span-to-air-telling-story-from-oswalds-co-worker/#more-6018
  13. Thanks guys but no. Jarman is saying Lovelady told him about the incident after he Jarman came outside. Lovelady told Jarman that Oswald was stopped by the policeman at the front door as he was on his way in. This has to be referring to Baker coming in the front door of the building right after the assassination. Jarman was stopped by another officer and ordered back in to the building after the shooting. As some time after this Lovelady told him about Oswald.
  14. I think Junior Jarman should be added to the 2-4 sources who say Oswald was outside. In Junior Jarman's HSCA interview he said Billy Lovelady told him that Oswald was outside. What's significant about this is that even if Jarman was 'lying' or 'wrong' or just 'confused' the fact that he identified Lovelady as the source gives the statement credibility. Because we know with certainty that Lovelady was on the steps and was in a position to see PM/Oswald. If Jarman had mentioned as the source someone who wasn't on the steps then the claim wouldn't be so credible.
  15. Frazier also told the Sixth Floor Museum in an interview that his family was threatened and that he didn't mind for his own sake but it did matter when his family was threatened.
  16. Such manners. And from a Parisian too! I'm shocked. I haven't seen much of your work so far Francois but I don't see any evidence of logic and truth from you. Honestly, you make me nostalgic for the days of Paul May - at least he had a command of the details along with the rudeness. Let's get back to discussing Hosty's notes that say Oswald says he was out front watching the Presidential parade. .
  17. David, you've completely missed the point of this new evidence. It shows that Oswald gave an alibi that placed him out front and the authorities suppressed it by not taking a Statement from him to that effect. Any permutation you want to go with in deconstructing the WC testimony of Holmes or Fritz is not going to turn out well for you. Because both of them got caught up in their own lies and made statements that don't support the official story but do indicate that Oswald gave an alibi. Holmes is being asked about when the police officer (Baker) detained Oswald and instead of placin
  18. 19 year old Buell Wesley Frazier gave a signed Statement that weekend without a lawyer (or a recorder) present. In fact the whole weekend was conspicuous by its lack of lawyers. Did even one of the witnesses actually have a lawyer present during their interviews that weekend? So the DPD weren't hampered by the absence of lawyers (or recorders) in taking witness Statements. They seemed to manage just fine with just a pen and paper. And we know that Oswald was talking because he repeatedly denied having shot anyone and as Fritz said 'he denies everything'. It should have been easy for
  19. Seriously Francois. Do you actually have something to contribute to this debate apart from this dreck? I'll get to you in a minute Von Pein.
  20. You've inadvertently raised an important issue here. The difference between Oswald's statements about where he was and his actual official signed Statement. Unfortunately we don't have an official Statement from Oswald do we. We only have the notes of his interrogators and they say that that Oswald said he was 'in the vestibule', 'come out to this front part', at 'the front entrance to the first floor', 'saw the excitement' etc. If Oswald had ever been allowed to give an official Statement it would have contained all this information about his whereabouts which would have techn
  21. David, I'm referring to Fritz and Holmes WC testimony. I'm sure you know it. Holmes said that Oswald said he 'had come out to this front part' at 'the front entrance to the first floor'.... That is the TSBD doorway. Fritz said that Oswald said he came outside and 'saw all the excitement'. Oswald couldn't have seen the excitement from the 2nd floor lunchroom. It was windowless.
  22. Not nitpicking at all Francois. This information is crucial. We now have 3 investigators confirming that Oswald claimed to be outside when the President passed by. Do you agree that's Oswald's alibi?
  23. And that is a perfect example of your flawed logic. Your 'facts' are whatever you choose to call facts. Let's discuss some actual facts then. Holmes, Fritz and now Hosty confirm that in his interrogation Oswald said he was watching the Presidential parade. That is Oswald's alibi as presented by Holmes, Fritz and Hosty. Do you agree that is a fact?
  24. Your methodology is unsound David. It has inherent bias.
  25. David, David, David. Please my response to the Monsieur.
×
×
  • Create New...