ANOTHER TEXAS EXONERATIION

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Judge Anderson's attorney was so clearly lying. Of course Anderson had that particular police report and it was not part of whatever the trial atty. got on trial date.

Dawn

But didn't you love Laura Logan.

The expression on her face made it clear that she knew

that the guy was just full of it.

lIKE YOU DAWN

I GENERALLY NEVER LOOK AT THE POLITICAL CONSPIRACIES FORUM

BUT IT SEEMS THE FOLKS HERE WOULDN'T KNOW THE MEANING OF RELEVANCE

IF IT HIT THEM IN THE ASS.

Edited March 27, 2012 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I recently posted the following here to show one obvious way

why the case of Michael Morton is relevant to the JFK case.

But someone removed it

without giving a reason.

Anyone who is not of DIMINISHED INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY

watching 60 minutes last Sunday

and who knows anything about the JFK case

must have been struck by the parallel

between the family of Michael Morton

and the family of Lee Oswald.

Morton's son disowned his father, and changed his name

because he trusted the authorities who falsely accused his father,

even though his father was alive and looked him straight in the face

and told his son he was at work when the murder happened.

But it would take a bloody-minded person indeed

to castigate young Morton

the way Hogan has been castigating Marina.

It was not until DNA scientifically exonerated Morton

that his son finally accepted his innocence.

Marina, on the other hand, has long ago come to realize that her husband was innocent

even though the authorities --Warren, Garrison, HSCA -- plus every Tom, Dick and Harry --claims he was guilty

either as a lone assassin or as a conspirator.

But I forget,The Morton case has been declared verboten

on the JFK forum

by SCULLY THE BULLY,

aided and abetted by

Robert Morrow, Len Colby

and apparently by the other moderators and members

who condone the bully by their silence.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Tom Scully
OT - Moved (2nd Time) by Tom Scully from "JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points" WARNING: Mr. Carroll, Stop Posting This

[J. Raymond Carroll]

This post has been edited by Tom Scully: Today, 03:45 AM

Reason for edit: OT - Moved (2nd Time) by Tom Scully from "JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points" WARNING: Mr. Carroll, Stop Posting This

Mr. Scully moved this from the JFK forum

on the grounds that it had no relevance there.

He called me

A PERSON OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY

When I posted it on the JFK rules of behaviour thread

in an effort to show relevance

he moved it again claiming it has no relevance there either.

What next from Mr. Scully.

Edited March 27, 2012 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Guest Tom Scully]

I've remained civil to you in these exchanges.

Yes Tom, you have remained civil

if calling me 'a person of diminished capacity'

meets your definition of civil

and if bullying me by arbitralily moving my posts to another forum

can be called civil.

By your definition, no doubt,

you have been very civil indeed.

Please review my posts and yours, Ray. Consider what you've posted and what your trying to accomplish and how you've been going about it.

I have reviewed both our posts as you suggested.

For your information

what I am trying to accomplish is to post about a case

that IMO has parallels to the case of Lee Oswald,

but apparently if I want to discuss Lee Oswald's innocence I m not allowed to do so

on the JFK forum.

P.S When I checked this thread a few hours ago

I saw a lengthy post from you

threatening me with all kinds of retribution,

but I see that post is not there now.

Does that mean you have withdrawn those threats

or have you just moved them to another forum.

Again Ray, for the 10th time, there was no mention by you of Oswald or anything JFK Assassination in the your opening post on this thread and I made a routine inquiry in the second post on the thread, and then you launched into this, and I am not the only member you fired it all at. Drop this, Ray. Your reply to my inquiry was over the top, and everything you've launched since is at least equally as troubling to read.:

My reasoning is that the only relevance is that the investigating of this crime was botched and it happened in the state of Texas and JFK was assassinated in Texas.

Tom, I submit that your real reasoning is that you believe Lee Oswald was guilty

of some involvement in the JFK assassination

although you are not sure in what way exactly.

So you and other false accusers don't like it when the mindset of false accusers

is exposed to the light.

John Raley is determined to prove, and time will tell if he is right

that the investigation of the Morton murder wan't botched, as you claim

but that Morton was deliberately framed

by the prosecutor who concealed proof of Morton's innocence.

A few of us know that that something similar happened in the case of Lee Oswald.

The first round of false accusers claimed that Lee was a lone assassin

while the second round of false accusers claim he was part of the conspiracy.

Not much difference between the the two sets of false accusers in my book.

As I have aid before, it beats me

how you came to be a moderator on this forum

with your agenda-driven style of moderation.

[Guest Tom Scully]

I've remained civil to you in these exchanges.

Yes Tom, you have remained civil

if calling me 'a person of diminished capacity'

meets your definition of civil

and if bullying me by arbitralily moving my posts to another forum

can be called civil.

By your definition, no doubt,

you have been very civil indeed.

Please review my posts and yours, Ray. Consider what you've posted and what your trying to accomplish and how you've been going about it.

I have reviewed both our posts as you suggested.

For your information

what I am trying to accomplish is to post about a case

that IMO has parallels to the case of Lee Oswald,

but apparently if I want to discuss Lee Oswald's innocence I m not allowed to do so

on the JFK forum.

P.S When I checked this thread a few hours ago

I saw a lengthy post from you

threatening me with all kinds of retribution,

but I see that post is not there now.

Does that mean you have withdrawn those threats

or have you just moved them to another forum.

Again Ray, for the 10th time, there was no mention by you of Oswald or anything JFK Assassination in the your opening post on this thread and I made a routine inquiry in the second post on the thread, and then you launched into this, and I am not the only member you fired it all at. Drop this, Ray. Your reply to my inquiry was over the top, and everything you've launched since is at least equally as troubling to read.:

My reasoning is that the only relevance is that the investigating of this crime was botched and it happened in the state of Texas and JFK was assassinated in Texas.

Tom, I submit that your real reasoning is that you believe Lee Oswald was guilty

of some involvement in the JFK assassination

although you are not sure in what way exactly.

So you and other false accusers don't like it when the mindset of false accusers

is exposed to the light.

John Raley is determined to prove, and time will tell if he is right

that the investigation of the Morton murder wan't botched, as you claim

but that Morton was deliberately framed

by the prosecutor who concealed proof of Morton's innocence.

A few of us know that that something similar happened in the case of Lee Oswald.

The first round of false accusers claimed that Lee was a lone assassin

while the second round of false accusers claim he was part of the conspiracy.

Not much difference between the the two sets of false accusers in my book.

As I have aid before, it beats me

how you came to be a moderator on this forum

with your agenda-driven style of moderation.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Again Ray, for the 10th time, there was no mention by you of Oswald or anything JFK Assassination in the your opening post on this thread

But I did mention Oswald in my SECOND POST

didn't I Tom.

Since you have either forgotten

or are just trying to rewrite history to justify yourself

Here again is my second post on this thread

Interesting story. But please move this thread out of the JFK assassination forum.

Why am I not surprised that Oswald accusers

would want to banish this thread

from the JFK forum

where it properly belongs

And that was BEFORE you arbitrarily moved this thread

to another forum, and one that I virtually never look at.

Drop this,Ray

Tough guy, huh.

I WILL DROP MY PROTEST AGAINST WHAT I SEE AS ARBITRARY AND MOTIVATED CENSORSHIP

IF THE OTHER MODERATORS AGREE THAT A THREAD THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE OF LEE OSWALD

SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE JFK FORUM.

cap lock key gets stuck sometimes.

I have sent emails to John Simkin and Pat Speer

VIA THE FORUM EMAIL system. I hope the email system works

and I hope John and Pat will weigh in.

[Dawn Meredith]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/michael-morton-60-minutes_n_1378773.html

Thanks for this Doug. I watched it again then posted it on facebook.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Ray, your second and third posts amount to incoherent attacks, especially taking into account what is in your opening post on this thread.

Your latest strafing of the Ed Forum seems to have begun spontaneously, here, before you even started this thread. Again Ray, I simply, politely asked you what your intent was in posting a seemingly OT subject in a new thread on the JFK Debate. Instead of answering my inquiry and acting cooperatively you seemed to already be past the point off interacting commensurate in an easily understood way.

This was posted before you started this thread on the exoneration of Michael Morton, in the thread titled, "Show Me The Money". Here, you seem to be replying in a similar, puzzling way, to something Lee Farley posted more than six months ago.:

(quote name='Lee Farley' date='06 September 2011 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1315345910' post='234177']

For those of you unfamiliar with this aspect of the case you'll be interested to know that C. A. Hamblen backed off his "spit image" identification of Oswald during his Warren Commission testimony. He suddenly became unsure and could not be certain one way or another.

(/quote)

What a pity for all the Oswald accusers on this forum.

Like the DPD, the Warren Commission, Jim GARRISON, etc, et al,

their accusations against Lee Oswald don't amount

to a warm bucket of spit.

A day later, you started this thread, and I simply began with....

Ray, I'm inclined to move this thread out of JFK Debate but I, and I'm sure other moderators want to give you the benefit of the doubt as to the issue of relevance.

........

And before you even came at me, you unloaded in the same off way at Robert Morrow:

Interesting story. But please move this thread out of the JFK assassination forum.

Why am I not surprised that Oswald accusers

would want to banish this thread

from the JFK forum

where it properly belongs

I am sorry, Ray, but my willingness to attempt to work with you was used up after this. Your threshhold seems much lower than mine, Ray.:

This is the your third post in the instant thread, your first response to me. Your response was neither coherent or cooperative, considering what you chose to put in the opening post and in how you chose to respond to me.:

..................

Tom, I submit that your real reasoning is that you believe Lee Oswald was guilty

of some involvement in the JFK assassination

although you are not sure in what way exactly.

So you and other false accusers don't like it when the mindset of false accusers

is exposed to the light.

John Raley is determined to prove, and time will tell if he is right

that the investigation of the Morton murder wan't botched, as you claim

but that Morton was deliberately framed

by the prosecutor who concealed proof of Morton's innocence.

A few of us know that that something similar happened in the case of Lee Oswald.

The first round of false accusers claimed that Lee was a lone assassin

while the second round of false accusers claim he was part of the conspiracy.

Not much difference between the the two sets of false accusers in my book.

As I have aid before, it beats me

how you came to be a moderator on this forum

with your agenda-driven style of moderation.

Stop pursuing this, Ray. Stop challenging me directly in your posts. This has not been your finest hour as a member of the Education Forum.

[Guest Tom Scully]

I have unapproved the two most recent posts by Mr. Carroll in this thread because Mr. Carroll continues to post personal attacks against me, despite receiving multiple, posted warnings to cease posting attacks and other insults and to conduct himself in a civil manner on this forum, per the posted rules.

Edit: Mr. Carroll has added three more posts to this thread and I have disapproved all three because Mr. Carroll is unable to post without including my name and a protest, criticism, insult or a combination of them.

A reminder so it will come as no surprise if an escalated response occurs to bring an end to Mr. Carroll's campaign of belligerence.:

The Forum rules have been revised; please read them.

Thank you.

The Spirit of the Law

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.

Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a xxxx, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies. Infraction of this rule will result in the immediate deletion of the offending post and the immediate moderation of the offending poster. The duration of moderation (or possible expulsion of the member) will be determined by consensus amongst moderators and / or administrators.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators, preferably via the reporting mechanism described here, or by PM or email. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly. ......

Disruptive Behavior

The moderators and administrators reserve the right to take action against a poster who is disrupting the normal flow of the board. This includes violations listed in the other rules (trolling, use of ad hominems, posting copyrighted materials, etc.), but may also include behavior we have not yet foreseen. Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread) and giving him/her a chance to explain his/her behavior, and we will take further action only if proven necessary.

Reporting Bad Posts

If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button. Do not talk about bad posts, start threads complaining about posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior in the forum itself nor suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.

Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action they believe is required. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, placing a member on moderation and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. Banning of a member will only be taken by collective collaboration of moderators and at least one administrator. If a moderator gives you advice, we recommend you to heed it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed. Complaints can be made in the relevant complaints thread (if one exists) if required but do not start thread complaining about the actions taken about a moderator. Such threads will be deleted without warning. ....

Edited March 28, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Michael Hogan]

Tom Scully deleted it on the grounds that it was a personal attack on him.

If Scully deletes this I will keep reposting it until my membership is suspended.

Ray, he didn't delete it. He moved it to another forum. He was probably right to do so. As so many of the threads on the JFK forum are only tangentially related to the assassination, I understand your desire to place it here. But you should stop attacking Tom. He was only doing his (incredibly frustrating and totally unpaid) job.

Carroll's name-calling on this thread was not confined to Tom Scully.

Ray, despite repeated, patient efforts to persuade you to observe the rules of the forum and to be respectful at all times to other members and moderators, you just won't let up.

The fact is, Carroll has a long track record on the Education Forum.

You swallow much of the official story, defend the likes of Gary Mack wholeheartedly, and demean many believers in conspiracy as "Oswald accusers."

And you do it all with perhaps the nastiest posting style on the forum.

[quote name=J. Raymond Carroll' date='08 May 2011 - 10:25 PM'

timestamp='1304907955' post='225030]

I think you will find that I never insult anyone who does not insult me first.

If that's not diminshed capacity, nothing is.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If that's not diminshed capacity, nothing is.

GO HOME HOGAN

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE

EXCEPT WIDOW-BASHING

Edited March 28, 2012 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Michael Hogan]

GO HOME HOGAN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE EXCEPT WIDOW-BASHING

cap lock key gets stuck sometimes.

[quote name=J. Raymond Carroll' date='29 December 2009 - 03:42 PM'

timestamp='1262119364' post='176891]

It is the ARGUMENT that matters, not the person making it.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

and Hogan doesn't got an argument

EXCEPT WIDOW-BASHING

[Michael Hogan]

Ray, he didn't delete it. He moved it to another forum.

I have searched the conspiracy forum but could not find my post on this like so many others. Seems to me it was deleted.

Jim: I am glad you are not claiming I have a diminished capacity, because I don't.

[Guest Tom Scully]

To make what is displayed in Michael Hogan's post immediately above this one, as clear to understand as possible, here is the last post in a now invisible protest thread started by Mr. Carroll late yesterday in JFK Debate. Pat and other moderators can still see it and the rest of the thread and the two others I posted links to. What is happening with Mr. Carroll since 24 March speaks to why the rule against publicy pushing back against moderators and moderating decisions must be observed and enforced.:

I unapproved this thread because protest posts and threads against moderators and moderating actions are not permitted per forum rules. I explained in depth in a post in the Moderator actions and guide for mods" thread, here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14562&pid=249554&st=105entry249554

Pat, these are linksto the threads Ray said he couldn't find. He created both after I warned him multiple times not to post my name in protest and criticism. I've warned him I will not permit him to do this. ............ Have the rules changed?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18951

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18952

Edited March 29, 2012 by Tom Scully