"Finding" the Money Order

[Gil Jesus]

I have no doubt in my mind that it WAS Oswald whom Rowland observed holding a rifle.)

Don't you people contend that Oswald killed Kennedy wearing a brown shirt ?

Don't you contend that fibers from the brown shirt were found on the rifle and the bag ?

Rowland said that the man he saw with the rifle was wearing a light shirt, either white or light blue and it was unbuttoned halfway down, exposing his white t-shirt.

Mr. ROWLAND. He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be....

( 2 H 171 )

So now there's "no doubt in your mind" that the guy wearing a light blue or white buttoned-down shirt was Oswald ?

This is what happens when you don't read the testimony and revert to circular reasoning. It doesn't matter what the facts are because WE KNOW OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY. The shooter could have been wearing leotards and a tutu and it would have still been Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Greg Parker]

So you are saying that Oswald used Hidell as a way to insinuate there actually was a member of the FPCC in New Orleans?

But he never used it as an alias.

What about the New Orleans PO card?

Jim, I am saying that the testimony of Jones that Army intel had a file showing "Hidell" as an Oswald alias when there could not have been information to that effect available to them, is evidence that there was hanky panky concerning that name and Oswald which was not of Oswald's doing.

The PO card is not evidence of use as an alias since his own name was on the same card and no one has ever come forward claiming he presented himself at the PO claiming to be Hidell. It is only evidence that there was a person calling himself "Hidell", or that Oswald was pretending there was a person going by that name.

Davey boy is going to have apoplexy, but I couldn't rule out every single record with the name "Hidell" on it being fake. It's all smoke and mirrors.

The arrest reports - nothing on Hidell

Missing PO records allegedly showing Hidell

FPCC card signed Hidell claimed to be in Oswald's possession while in jail despite the same card also allegedly being police evidence against him

Mail Order coupons and other material relating to the purchase of the rifle now in grave doubt

The evidence concerning Oswald having a pistol is doubtful - therefore the use of the Hidell name in that purchase is also in doubt

Then there is the throwdown wallet at the Tippit site allegedly having Hidell cards... more signs of hanky panky with the name which was not instigated by Oswald.

Smoke and mirrors.

[David Von Pein]

RE: OSWALD & HIDELL.....

Of course every card and document that says "Hidell" was determined by both the WC and HSCA to have been in Lee Oswald's own handwriting.

Naturally, though, that fact means zilch to conspiracy mongers who are bent on clearing Oswald of 2 murders (for some silly reasons of their own).

Therefore, per the CTers, ALL of the "Hidell" documents are fakes. Just like ALL of the bullet/ballistic evidence is supposedly fake. And just like ALL of the many witnesses at the Tippit murder scene were either wrong or liars (yes, my mind wandered over to 10th Street for a minute, but this is related, because it goes to the heart of the main contention made by conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and others--i.e., their belief that virtually EVERYTHING connected with the evidence against Oswald is tainted, fake, and generally worthless).

Do you guys REALLY think Marina lied when she said she had known about Oswald using the name Hidell in New Orleans during the summer of '63? Why would she just make that up? Why?

Edited March 15, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

A Johnny Nobody gets arrested for a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge and the FBI sends an agent to interview him for three hours?

The FBI only sent an agent because Oswald, HIMSELF, asked to see one. They didn't do it on their own:

JOHN QUIGLEY -- "Lt. Francis L. Martello, platoon commander at the first district, New Orleans Police Station, called our office and advised that he wished an agent to stop by there since there was a prisoner who desired to speak with an agent."

And I suppose Quigley's lying (some more) when he said this to the WC (re: Hidell):

JOHN L. QUIGLEY -- "I asked him about A. J. Hidell, obviously you can see why I would have been interested in this. [Quigley quoting Oswald:] "Well, Mr. Hidell had a telephone." "What was Mr. Hidell's telephone number?" "Mr. Hidell's telephone has been disconnected." "What was the number?" "I can't remember." This was the end of it, so this is the basis for my thinking."

[Greg Parker]

A Johnny Nobody gets arrested for a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge and the FBI sends an agent to interview him for three hours?

The FBI only sent an agent because Oswald, HIMSELF, asked to see one. They didn't do it on their own:

JOHN QUIGLEY -- "Lt. Francis L. Martello, platoon commander at the first district, New Orleans Police Station, called our office and advised that he wished an agent to stop by there since there was a prisoner who desired to speak with an agent."

And I suppose Quigley's lying (some more) when he said this to the WC (re: Hidell):

JOHN L. QUIGLEY -- "I asked him about A. J. Hidell, obviously you can see why I would have been interested in this. [Quigley quoting Oswald:] "Well, Mr. Hidell had a telephone." "What was Mr. Hidell's telephone number?" "Mr. Hidell's telephone has been disconnected." "What was the number?" "I can't remember." This was the end of it, so this is the basis for my thinking."

At best, Oswald never used the name as an alias. That is just a plain statement of fact. At worst, he never used the name in any way shape or form. I cannot say that is a plain fact, but it most certainly is a possibility.

But if the latter, then yes - the above is another lie by Quigley.

Speaking of which - do you intend addressing yourself to how Oswald had possession of FPCC cards in jail which Quigley testified to, despite also testifying that he could not take the cards because they were police evidence?

If Quigley was NOT lying, please show the evidence that NOPD allowed prisoners to maintain possession of the evidence to be used against them.

If Quigley WAS lying about that, then on what basis can you rule out that he may have lied about related matters?

As for Quigley saying "so this was the basis of my thinking", I can't imagine a statement more in need of context since he never actually specified what his "thinking" was.

[David Von Pein]

Do you intend addressing yourself to how Oswald had possession of FPCC cards in jail which Quigley testified to, despite also testifying that he could not take the cards because they were police evidence?

That's easy -- Quigley was merely incorrect in assuming the cards were "evidence" that were confiscated by the New Orleans Police Department.

And why should Quigley lie about seeing those cards? Just...why?

Go ahead and make something up that has no basis in fact, Greg. I'm accustomed to that behavior from CTers. You seem to think Quigley was dying to see an innocent man [Oswald] hang for JFK's murder. But CTers never ask the logical question of -- WHY?

Did all of the Feds and local DPD authorities enjoy allowing the real killer(s) of both JFK and Tippit run free....and in the case of the DPD, the CT version of events is even more ludicrous and unrealistic -- i.e., the cops just stood by and did nothing to capture Officer Tippit's "real" killer, and instead tried to pin the murder of their friend and fellow officer on somebody they must have known didn't commit the crime (Lee Oswald).

Does anyone else besides me at this forum realize just how utterly preposterous the above paragraph sounds?

Edited March 16, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

DiEugenio's long list of liars just got longer. We can now add New Orleans Police Lieutenant Francis L. Martello to Jimbo's list of rotten liars who was trying to frame poor Oswald. (Apparently there wasn't a single person alive in the states of Louisiana or Texas who DIDN'T want to frame Oswald for two murders in 1963.)

Martello confirms that Oswald spoke with an FBI agent in Aug. '63 in New Orleans, and Martello also said he saw an I.D. card with the name HIDELL on it, which had been in Oswald's possession at the time of his Aug. '63 arrest.

I'm glad Jim D. chimed in (yet again) here, because every time he opens his conspiracy-hungry yap, I get to add another "xxxx" to Jimbo's silly list of 10,499 liars (and growing by the day).

And it never matters how utterly improbable (or even impossible) DiEugenio's theories are--he'll keep truckin' out the liars, just to keep from admitting the obvious truth -- with that truth being: DiEugenio's favorite patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/martell1.htm

Edited March 16, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Gil Jesus]

THe above is pure obfuscation. Or maybe DVP is really this dumb.

What I am questioning is why a Commie would request the FBI after such a thing happened. Why did he not call a cell member in his commie group t bail him out? Maybe because there was no group? Just like there was no FPCC in New Orleans.

The kind of commie who calls the FBi after being arrested is likely an informant. But with his RH shades on, Davey cannot see that.

He makes it sound like there's nothing strange about the whole deal because Oswald requested the agent. The FBI always shows up to interview people who have been arrested for misdemeanors. No problem. With all of the organized crime, bank robberies and all of the other crap that required their attention in 1963, they just had nothing better to do than to mosey on over the the N.O. police station and spend a couple of hours with a guy who was arrested after passing out flyers.

When the FBI closed its file on Oswald in August of 1962, Hoover sent copies of the FBI reports on Oswald to the CIA in response to their request. Nearly all of the reports, from March until October, 1963 dealt with following Lee Harvey Oswald and his activities. On November 8, 1963 Hoover wrote another letter to the Director of the CIA and said, " For your information, I am enclosing communications ( FBI reports on Oswald ) which may be of interest to you." The request to monitor Oswald's activities may have come, therefore, from the CIA.

( Armstrong, H&L, pg. 436 )

Keep in mind that November 8th was around the time Oswald was supposed to have left the note for Hosty.

Now you know why the FBI jumped when he called them. They were monitoring everything he did.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[William Kelly]

DiEugenio's long list of liars just got longer. We can now add New Orleans Police Lieutenant Francis L. Martello to Jimbo's list of rotten liars who was trying to frame poor Oswald. (Apparently there wasn't a single person alive in the states of Louisiana or Texas who DIDN'T want to frame Oswald for two murders in 1963.)

Martello confirms that Oswald spoke with an FBI agent in Aug. '63 in New Orleans, and Martello also said he saw an I.D. card with the name HIDELL on it, which had been in Oswald's possession at the time of his Aug. '63 arrest.

I'm glad Jim D. chimed in (yet again) here, because every time he opens his conspiracy-hungry yap, I get to add another "xxxx" to Jimbo's silly list of 10,499 liars (and growing by the day).

And it never matters how utterly improbable (or even impossible) DiEugenio's theories are--he'll keep truckin' out the liars, just to keep from admitting the obvious truth -- with that truth being: DiEugenio's favorite patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

http://mcadams.posc....ny/martell1.htm

http://www.maryferre..._in_New_Orleans

Francis Martello. When Oswald was arrested in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans during the scuffle with Carlos Bringuier, he wasinterviewed by Police Lieutenant Francis Martello.

• FBI Quigley memo of 29 Nov 1963. FBI Special Agent Quigley interviewed Martello, who talked about a handwritten note in Russian and English in Oswald's wallet.
• Slip of paper from Oswald's wallet. Photocopy of both sides of the handwritten note, with Weisberg's comments.
• FBI Quigley report of 29 Nov 1963. This report contains a much more detailed description of Martello's account of his interview with Oswald after the New Orleans arrest.

FBI Quigley memo of 29 Nov 1963. FBI Special Agent Quigley interviewed Martello, whotalked about a handwritten note in Russian and English in Oswald's wallet.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=515474

Document Appendix to Oswald in New Orleans.

Page 573

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=515450

Weisberg's Comments: This copy of the original slip of paper taken from Oswald'swallet by New Orleans Police Lt. Martello on August 10, 1963, is a copy of the copy made by the FBI,its Exhibit D-289. It is here reproduced in its actual size. The Commissionnever interested itself in Martello's great concern for this slip of paper, sogreat he gave the original to the Secret Service the day after theassassination and thereafter, while carefully preserving a copy for himself,gave an additional copy to the Secret Service. These are entries culled fromOswald's pocket address book, to which I laboriously traced them. They areconsistant with the establishment of a "cover". They seem to connect Oswaldwith the Soviet Union in an anti-American way, the lastthing a genuinely pro-Castroite would want on him when arrested in the United States. It is consistent with Oswald'sconnection with violently anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA.The Commission's failure – refusal – to investigate this is in accord with itspretence, in opposition to its own unassailable evidence, that Oswald was apro-Soviet and pro-Castro. The initials in the lower left-hand corner of theright-hand piece of paper, on the reverse side of the single slip in Oswald'swallet, are those of Adrian G. Viel, the Secret Service agent to whom Martellogave it, the date of November 23, 1963, the day on which it happened, and the second set of initials seem to be those ofMartello.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=515450

FBI Quigley report of 29 Nov 1963. This report contains a much more detaileddescription of Martello's account of his interview with Oswald after his New Orleans arrest.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=515476

Subject:Lt. Francis Martello's Fingers SCEF

From: jpshinley@my-deja.com

After theassassination, Lt Francis Martello of NOPD, tried to point a suspicious fingerat the three SCEF defendants, James Dobrowski, Ben Smith and Bruce Waltzer:

CE 3119 26 H 762-773

Secret Service Memo of 12/3/63

SA's A.G. Vial; Anthony F. Gerrets; Roger Counts, SAIC John Rice

Lt. [Francis] Martello said that at thetime of Oswald's arrest, he had various pamphlets in his possession and thosehad been kept by Lt. Martello. He said he would turn them over to this officeif we so desired. He also stated that before being transferred to the FirstDistrict, he had been assigned to the Intelligence Division, NOPD, for abouttwo years and that during this time he bacame familiar with various Communistfront organizations.

He said that an address in the 1100 blockof Pine St., New Orleans seemed to be the center of activity in New Orleans for various Communistic type front organizations. He saidthat a Dr. Reissmann, a professor at Tulane University, lives at the Pine St. address where numerous meetings were held. He said he hadlearned from one of his sources that Dr. James Dombrowski had been seen onnumerous occasions at the home of Dr. Reissmann and at the home of a neighborof Dr. Reissmann, name unknown, who is also supposed to be a professor at Tulane University. Dr. Reissmann, the unknown professor, and Dr. Dombrowskiwere all said to be active in the integration movement in New Orleans.

Dr. Dombrowski is said to have migrated tothe United States fromPoland. In 1956 [sic; 1954] Senator Eastland held hearings in NewOrleans and during those a person named Paul Crouch allegedly identified Dr.Dombrowski as a top member of the Communist party in the South, along withMiles [sic; Myles] Horton, Mt. Eagle Folk School, Mt. Eagle, Tenn. [sic;Monteagle]

Lt. Martello said he asked Oswald wheremeetings for members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee were held and Oswaldhad replied at various places in New Orleans. He said he asked him if any ofthe meetings were held on Pine St. and Oswald had replied in the affirmative. He said he hadasked Oswald if he was acquainted with Dr. Reissmann and Oswald replied he was.He said he had also asked him if he knew Dr. Dombrowski and Oswald evaded thequestion and never did answer it….

Lt. Martello said there was a group in NewOrleans organized under the name of the New Orleans Council for PeacefulAlternatives, and that Reissmann was affiliated with this group, as were twoattorneys, Ben E. Smith and Bruce C. Waltzer, Waltzer being a law partner ofSmith. Futher, that when Dr. Dombrowski appeared before the Eastland Committeein 1956 [1954], Bruce C. Waltzer represented Dombrowski. [actually, it wasSmith.]…. Lt. Martello said it was his information that Waltzer made frequenttrips to Mexico City, supposedly for the purpose of obtaining the finances fromthe Castro government to keep the NOCPA and other organizations favorable tothe Castro government going….

Jerry Shinley

Edited March 16, 2011 by William Kelly

[Guest Tom Scully]

David...your screech; "DiEugenio, ARE YOU CALLING LT. MARTELLO A xxxx, TOO???"...positions you between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, you have to feign being apolitical in your longtime, propaganda endeavors, to pull off what you are attempting with your "Lt. Martello as DiEugenio victim", a feat your reprehensible comrades in arms, do not even pretend to execute.:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fairplay.htm

Fair Play for Clay Shaw?

by Dave Reitzes

Schoenman's extreme left-wing views and aggressive personality are discussed in this biography by Ken Rahn. Schoenman — along with conspiracists like Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Paris Flammonde, and people associated with Ramparts Magazine — appears to have had a role in giving the Garrison enterprise a leftist quality.

...and this week, from John C. McAdams:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2011/03/skewed-audience-of-wisconsin-public.html

...The results are just what anybody would expect. Of course, if Fox can be the network for conservatives, why can’t NPR, its state affiliates and PBS be the voice of liberalism? No reason, except that Fox News doesn’t get taxpayer money....

The problem for you, McAdams, Reitzes, et al, is that your politics renders you as blind as hammers, and the result is that the rest of us appear as nails to you.

The flaw you do not recognize in the Warren Commission's machinations, nor in what NPR does, despite the comedy of McAdams dismissing NPR as "too liberal", is the flaw that consigns you to that historical ash heap I'll describe as "hammerdom".:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/27/burns

...Too many military reporters in the online/broadcast field have simply given up their watchdog role for the illusion of being a part of power. Example No. 1 of late is Tom Gjelten of NPR. . . Interviewed by his colleague on Oct. 22 about the latest WikiLeaks documents, this exchange happened:

__________

Robert Siegel: And reaction to the release today?

Gjelten: Well, the Pentagon is, understandably, very angry, as they were when the documents from Afghanistan were released. They said this decision to release them was made cavalierly. They do point out - and I can't say I disagree (emphasis Parker's) - that the period in Iraq that these documents covered was already very well chronicled. They say it does not bring new understanding to those events.

___________

There it is in black and white. Gjelten is lending his credibility to the Pentagon as "neutral" national journalist. . . . Gjelten, other Pentagon journalists and informed members of the public would benefit from watching "The Selling of the Pentagon," a 1971 documentary. It details how, in the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon sophisticatedly used taxpayer money against taxpayers in an effort to sway their opinions toward the Pentagon’s desires for unlimited war. Forty years later, the techniques of shaping public opinion via media has evolved exponentially. It has reached the point where flipping major journalists is a matter of painting in their personal numbers.

Precisely. The Pentagon has long been devoted to destroying the credibility and reputation of WikiLeaks, and the military-revering John Burns and his war-enabling newspaper, as usual, lent its helping hand to the Government's agenda. This is what NPR's Gjelten routinely does as well. ...

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mellen_2.html

Jim Garrison: His Life and Times

By Joan Mellen

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

.....V

We now come to the James Dombrowski case. Dombrowski ended up being a pawn on a large chessboard with which the dying remnants of southern racism tried to effect one last power play as they saw the end nearing. The idea was to smear integrationists as Communists in order to delay and hamstring their efforts. Jack Rogers and James Pfister of the Louisiana Un-American Activities Committee (LUAC), along with Senator James Eastland and also J. Edgar Hoover, backed this strategy.

Dombrowski was not a communist, but a communist sympathizer. And he did back the effort to integrate the south. But since he was not an actual Communist, the technique of tying him into the International Communist Conspiracy emanating from Moscow was not going to work . So the LUAC worked to get a state law passed entitled the "Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law". ( p. 162) And it was under this pretense that the state police arrested Dombrowski, along with his colleagues Ben Smith and Bruce Walzer.

As the book notes, the law was not evenly applied. If it was, then Lee Oswald could have been arrested under the same act. But the point was that Oswald did not play up integration as a cause. And the whole idea was to paint the civil rights movement with a red brush. Now state Attorney General Jack Gremillion knew that Garrison, a staunch first amendment backer, would not want to be part of any such effort. This is why the state police executed the raids, and why Garrison's office was not alerted to them in advance. (p. 165) In fact, speaking of the arrests, Garrison went on the radio and said, "There is always a danger, particularly in fighting communism, that we may end up imitating communism." (ibid)

The LUAC delivered the evidence secured from the raid to Sen. Eastland of Mississippi. Even though Dombrowski's civil rights organization was located in New Orleans. Garrison's office did as little as possible to help as the case went through the both state and federal court. For instance, Garrison said that the actual warrants were made out improperly. (p. 166) But clearly, Gremillion wanted Garrison's office to take over the prosecution since Dombrowski's organization was located in New Orleans. But the charges were ridiculous. One was participation in the management of a subversive organization. Yet Dombrowski's organization was not on the USA's list of Communist front groups. Which of course, cancelled the second charge. Which was being a member of a Communist front organization. The third was operating within state lines for five days without registering with the Department of Public Safety. (p. 164) It was all a sham. The law was clearly unconstitutional. Local Criminal Courts Judge Bernard Cocke ordered all three men released on grounds of insufficient evidence. Afterwards, Garrison made clear he had gone through with the formality of a hearing only because there was no evidence to present. And he also added, he was very concerned about the arrests of the individuals, believing the LUAC was out of line. (p. 165) He later added, even if Dombrowski was a Communist, he could not be part of a conspiracy since he was the only one in the city. (ibid)

As the case made its way upward on appeal, Garrison followed the same strategy: to evade, circumvent, and contribute as little to the prosecution as he could. For instance, he demanded that Eastland, in Mississippi, deliver all the documents seized from the Dombrowski office. Which he knew Eastland would not do. But eventually, in January of 1964, Garrison's office had the three men indicted. The men did not hold it against Garrison, understanding it was all the Attorney General's show. But the judge ruled the warrants were illegal and therefore the evidence seized was inadmissible. (p. 167) The case proceeded to the US Supreme Court with Garrison as the defendant. His office wrote an apologetic brief showing how the case was not handled through their office, but putting up a fig leaf defense of state's rights. The Supreme Court ruled against the DA and used his own previous case against the local judges as a precedent. The lawyer for Dombrowski was Milton Brener, obviously no fan of Garrison. But even he admitted that Garrison's office participated by rote, doing the "absolute minimum." (p. 169) Jerry Shinley is a rather responsible critic of Garrison, as opposed to the virulent chemical imbalance inherent in say Patricia Lambert or the John McAdams appendage Dave Reitzes. (An interent xxxxx who Rex Bradford actually links to.) Shinley uses this case to criticize Garrison. To me it's a judgment call, and a relative one at that. If Garrison had not participated, Gremillion would have probably stepped in. And things would have been worse. So Garrison did what he could to lose a case he wanted no part of....

In a nutshell, David, you posture as if your incessant practice of lending your helping hand to the Government's agenda, is not a political act, when what you have been doing is so reminiscent of what Leni Riefenstahl did.

Not a fair description of a tireless promoter of the questionable official line, rife with holes, of the most powerful government in the history of the world? Then, tell us, David, what are you and your right wing extremist buds, McAdams and Reitzes doing that sets you apart from, and on a different track than Leni?

Edited March 16, 2011 by Tom Scully

[David Von Pein]

The problem for you, McAdams, Reitzes, et al, is that your politics renders you as blind as hammers, and the result is that the rest of us appear as nails to you.

Tom Scully,

Sorry to disappoint you and your CT cronies, but I have no "politics" at all. None. Zilch. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I have no political leanings (or agenda) whatsoever. I couldn't possibly care less about politics.

I can tell you who the current President is, but that's about it.

My interest in the JFK assassination is all about EVIDENCE (and where that evidence leads). Not politics.

Edited March 16, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Gil Jesus]

My interest in the JFK assassination is all about EVIDENCE (and where that evidence leads). Not politics.

That's a lie. Far from being impartial, your interest isn't about evidence. It's about furthering the official lies and mocking, taunting, and insulting those who provide evidence contrary to the official story.

The ONLY postings you've started in this forum recently are "Discussing The Mindset Of Conspiracy Theorists" and a personal attack on Sherry Feister.

Neither topic has anything to do with the evidence.

You try to divert attention away from your lack of credentials by attempting to ridicule those who do have them. It's so transparent that you enter the debate with a preconceived notion that anyone who doubts the official version is a "conspiracy kook". Anyone who reads your postings in other forums can see that. All they have to do is Google the words "David Von Pein" and "Kook" to see how many different people you've "tagged" with that insult.

Someday, you're going to piss someone off in one of these forums and they're going to get a lawyer and sue you for libel.

I hope I live long enough to see it.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Greg Parker]

Do you intend addressing yourself to how Oswald had possession of FPCC cards in jail which Quigley testified to, despite also testifying that he could not take the cards because they were police evidence?

That's easy -- Quigley was merely incorrect in assuming the cards were "evidence" that were confiscated by the New Orleans Police Department.

Sorry Dave. That doesn't wash. He never said they were confiscated. He claimed Oswald produced them (thus establishing a history of Oswald's association with that name). Later, when asked if he could identify the cards that the commission now had in its possession, Quigley seems to have panicked and excused himself from being able to do so on the basis that he had been unable to take possession of them himself because they were evidence in the NOPD case. Surely you would have to agree that only someone in a panic would, on the one hand state that a prisoner had possession of a particular item in jail, then later, also claim that said item was to be used as evidence against him in court?

It was me who indicated they SHOULD have been confiscated if indeed, Oswald had possession of them.

And why should Quigley lie about seeing those cards? Just...why?

That's easy Establishing a history of Oswald associated with that name (as stated above).

Now your turn: why did Oswald shoot the President, and when did he decide to?

Go ahead and make something up that has no basis in fact, Greg. I'm accustomed to that behavior from CTers. You seem to think Quigley was dying to see an innocent man [Oswald] hang for JFK's murder.

I think hanging him several months after his demise might be considered... overkill... even for Dallas...

But CTers never ask the logical question of -- WHY?

Why what?

Did all of the Feds and local DPD authorities enjoy allowing the real killer(s) of both JFK and Tippit run free....and in the case of the DPD, the CT version of events is even more ludicrous and unrealistic -- i.e., the cops just stood by and did nothing to capture Officer Tippit's "real" killer, and instead tried to pin the murder of their friend and fellow officer on somebody they must have known didn't commit the crime (Lee Oswald).

And he ducks and dodges and tries to divert one more time. Start another thread on that, Dave and I promise I'll respond.

Does anyone else besides me at this forum realize just how utterly preposterous the above paragraph sounds?

Why wouldn't it sound preposterous - you wrote it!

[David Von Pein]

My goodness, what a nice little diatribe by Jimbo above.

What did I ever do to deserve such a devoted puppy-dog pal like DiEugenio?

The fact is, Jimbo, that I do indeed value the evidence in the JFK murder case (your last ranting-and-raving session notwithstanding).

I value the ACTUAL hard, physical evidence that proves (for all eternity) that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of TWO murders, even though Oswald is a person whom you think was TOTALLY INNOCENT of committing EITHER of those murders. (Talk about laughable. To deny Oswald's involvement in President Kennedy's murder is ridiculous enough, but for conspiracy theorists to extend that denial to Officer Tippit's slaying is beyond ridiculous--it's pathetic.)

So, yes, I value the REAL evidence in the case (things like the palmprints and the fingerprints and the bullet shells and the guns and the bullets and the fibers and the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it and the many eyewitnesses who fingered your prized patsy, plus Oswald's own highly-incriminating actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22).

And if you think that by taking a trip to Dallas or New Orleans or Clinton/Jackson (to discuss Jim Garrison's sham of a case against Clay Shaw) is going to suddenly make me see "the light of conspiracy", I beg to differ. Thanks to the Internet, I can evaluate just about every piece of evidence in the whole case by staring at this computer screen.*

* = Unfortunately, Vince Bugliosi doesn't even realize that fact to this day, although I tried to get word to him on this subject of "massive Internet content being available on the JFK case" in the past. But my messages apparently never got through to him.

In short -- I disregard "evidence" conjured up by conspiracists that has no basis in fact -- e.g., your contention that Lee Oswald had NO LARGE BAG at all with him on the morning of 11/22/63. (Don't you ever even have the decency to blush when you spout such silly theories? Even if you're only on Black Op Radio saying the silly things about Randle and Frazier and Paine and Ford and Dulles, et al, I'd think you'd turn beet-red with embarrassment when such unsupportable hunks of junk escape your lips, like the stuff about Frazier and Randle just MAKING UP the paper bag.)

But, alas, you think you're doing a great SERVICE to the heroic "JFK research community" by saying the vile things you have said (in print and on Internet radio) about such people as future President Ford and Ruth Paine and Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle (and so many others whom you have dragged through the mud without a SPECK of evidence to support your imaginary theories about any of these individuals whom you have verbally abused).

Gil Jesus wants some CTer to sue me because I merely called them a "kook" at one time or another. But what I'd really like to see is a headline in the Dallas Morning News next month saying that Buell Wesley Frazier and Ruth Paine have joined forces in a defamation lawsuit against a big-mouth high-school teacher named James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California. A headline like that would be worth more than three of my large "CIA Disinfo Agent" checks that I'm currently receiving each month from Langley.

You then have the gall or blindness to say that you are not political. When in fact the WC was probably the most politically oriented murder investigation in history. Run by four of the most arch conservative thugs in 20th century American history: Hoover, Dulles, McCloy and Ford.

What was I just saying about DiEugenio's defaming remarks about certain people? Well, I see Jimbo just can't contain himself.

And, btw, what do your last sickening remarks have to do with MY OWN political beliefs?

Answer: Nothing.

The fact that the Warren Commission was composed of mainly politicians doesn't mean a thing to me. The EVIDENCE speaks for itself in the case that those politicians were assigned to investigate -- the JFK assassination.

Are you implying that because you believe that some of the WC members were, to repeat your vile phrase, "four of the most arch conservative thugs in 20th century American history", this therefore means that anyone who agrees with their "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusions about JFK's murder also falls into that same category ("arch conservative thugs")?

If that's not what you're implying, then please spell it out for me. After all, I'm just a dumb-as-a-stump lil' ol' Hoosier boy here (who has never known a "nice girl" in his life).

DVP v. DiEUGENIO (PART 63)

Edited March 17, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Mighty weak retort by Jimbo The Great. He must be tired from looking for his daily quota of 33 additional people to call liars and cover-up operatives in the JFK case.

Are you actually going to argue that Dulles, Hoover, McCloy, and Ford were not arch conservative thugs who were part of some of the most pitiful and deplorable acts in 20th century American history?

You're sickening.

Let's see what Jimbo DiEugenio's very favorite of all authors and lawyers (Vincent T. Bugliosi) has to say.

(I always enjoy quoting Vince, so that Jimbo The Great can make another post about how Vince ignored all the evidence of the vast "Let's Frame Oswald" conspiracy that DiEugenio thinks people like Hoover, McCloy, Warren, Dulles, and Ford were an integral part of.) ....

"What is elliptical in Katzenbach's and Warren's reference to "rumors" is they obviously were referring to rumors "which had no evidence to support them." The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch rumors that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the FACTS of the assassination. But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public?

"How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Congressman Gerald Ford, Senator John Cooper, and so on, men of unimpeachable stature, honor, and probity, of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president (thereby jeopardizing their reputation and legacy and making them criminal accessories after the fact), or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"

=========================

"Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that [J. Edgar] Hoover could not be trusted in the Kennedy assassination case and investigation, and tried to emasculate the Warren Commission by convincing everyone early on that Oswald, despite his innocence, killed Kennedy and acted alone, and hence there was no need for a thorough investigation by the Warren Commission.

"That argument, like virtually all conspiracy arguments, doesn't go anywhere since we know Hoover did not succeed. As indicated, the HSCA concluded that the Warren Commission and FBI did, in fact, conduct a massive investigation. Warren Commission assistant counsel Norman Redlich...says that he "did not come to Washington with the view that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was a model that I should choose to follow."

"But he said that "notwithstanding my predisposition" against them, "I left Washington...with a feeling of respect for the FBI," finding it to be "a very cooperative agency. ... There is nothing that we asked them to do that they didn't do and do promptly."

"Perhaps most importantly, he found "they were fair, cautious, and did not try to overstate their case. They were not trying to convict Lee Harvey Oswald. ... They were a very professional organization."

"Finally, some conspiracy theorists have made the argument that Hoover couldn't be

trusted and was out to sabotage the investigation because he was behind the assassination and was out to cover up his complicity. But no serious and responsible conspiracy theorist believes this. Only those on the far-out fringes do.

"So where does the argument that Hoover cannot be trusted go? Nowhere. With conspiracy theorists, however, none of their arguments have to go anywhere. The argument (based on a contradiction, anomaly, rumor, etc.) is the end in itself.

"The bottom line is that even if the Warren Commission did rely exclusively on the

FBI for its investigation (which clearly wasn't the case), it would only compromise the Commission's conclusions if the FBI itself was involved in Kennedy's murder or in trying to cover up for those who did.

"In other words, when the critics say the Warren Commission was crippled by the reliance on the FBI as its chief investigative arm, they are for the most part presupposing that the FBI was involved in Kennedy's murder or cover up. But as you'll see later in this book, there is not a scintilla of evidence to support that proposition." -- Page 340 of "Reclaiming History"

Edited March 17, 2011 by David Von Pein