Marrion Baker identified Oswald in a lineup 11/22?

[Ian Kingsbury]

Carlier? And Mr Krusch the man you ran a mile from

Why not just read the article I posted for the limited purpose it was written. I.E., Krusch himself is saying the Sniper's Nest was largely constructed by people other than Oswald. This makes it EASIER for Oswald to have done the things I think he did on 11/22, because an already-in-place "Nest" (to a large degree) was already there on the southeast side of the 6th Floor for him to use as a shield.So why are you attempting to diss me in some way on this subject? ~shrug~

David

I am not trying to Diss you but you have a terrible time trying to explain

How the "killer" got away .

You do not see the humour in this episode.

It had to be Oswald because ......and never anything else

Everybody on the stairs was wrong?.

[David Von Pein]

So, having had the full implications of your trashing of Jack Dougherty's testimony spelled out, you have suddenly and arbitrarily moved away from deeming his descent in the elevator merely "possible" and started describing it as "probable". Jack's testimony, it seems, can be pretty much relied upon after all.

Predictable--and hilariously shameless--backtracking, David!

That's not much of a "backtrack", Sean.

But if you want to think that my "possible" and then "probable" posts regarding Jack Dougherty and the freight elevator constitute "hilariously shameless backtracking" on my part -- go right ahead and think that.

But it's not much of a "Gotcha!", IMO.

Edited July 19, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Sean Murphy]

So, having had the full implications of your trashing of Jack Dougherty's testimony spelled out, you have suddenly and arbitrarily moved away from deeming his descent in the elevator merely "possible" and started describing it as "probable". Jack's testimony, it seems, can be pretty much relied upon after all.

Predictable--and hilariously shameless--backtracking, David!

That's not much of a "backtrack", Sean.

But if you want to think that my "possible" and then "probable" posts regarding Jack Dougherty and the freight elevator constitute "hilariously shameless backtracking" on my part -- go right ahead and think that.

But it's not much of a "Gotcha!", IMO.

Your antics on this issue have been most amusing David. Yesterday you said: "I'd put a big ol' grain of salt by my side when evaluating anything in Dougherty's testimony." Well, not "anything", as it turned out. When it came to evaluating Dougherty's testimony about taking the elevator down from the fifth floor, you suddenly realised how important it was that you fling the big ol' grain of salt right out of reach. Cue your shameless sudden upgrading of his story from "possible" to "probable".

[David Von Pein]

Your antics on this issue have been most amusing David. Yesterday you said: "I'd put a big ol' grain of salt by my side when evaluating anything in Dougherty's testimony." Well, not "anything", as it turned out. When it came to evaluating Dougherty's testimony about taking the elevator down from the fifth floor, you suddenly realised how important it was that you fling the big ol' grain of salt right out of reach. Cue your shameless sudden upgrading of his story from "possible" to "probable".

"Possible" and "probable" can co-exist in a person's mind at the same time, Sean. When I said "that's possible" yesterday regarding Dougherty's alleged elevator excursion, that didn't exclude the idea that I also thought it was "probable". But keep thinking you got your "Gotcha!" in, if you want to.

But just to remind you -- neither of the words I used equates to the words "proven" or "definitely". That's why I utilized the words I did.

But I'm surprised you didn't jump all over me for another of my "shameless" attempts to have my cake and eat it too regarding the subject of Jack E. Dougherty:

I did, indeed, say that "a big ol' grain of salt" should be applied to all of Dougherty's testimony. But then I utilized his testimony about how he failed to hear Roy Truly's two "real loud" yells as totally reliable testimony. Shouldn't I have placed a "big ol' grain of salt" beside that testimony too?

IOW--shouldn't I believe that it's just as likely that Dougherty REALLY DID hear Truly yell up the elevator shaft, but he said he didn't?

BTW, can you explain how Dougherty missed hearing Truly's TWO loud yells that day (if Jack had been right near the elevators--and, hence, very near Oswald's stairway escape route too)?

And remember, Sean, you haven't placed any "big ol' grain of salt" beside anything uttered by Jack E. Dougherty---have you?

Edited July 19, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Sean Murphy]

Your antics on this issue have been most amusing David. Yesterday you said: "I'd put a big ol' grain of salt by my side when evaluating anything in Dougherty's testimony." Well, not "anything", as it turned out. When it came to evaluating Dougherty's testimony about taking the elevator down from the fifth floor, you suddenly realised how important it was that you fling the big ol' grain of salt right out of reach. Cue your shameless sudden upgrading of his story from "possible" to "probable".

"Possible" and "probable" can co-exist in a person's mind at the same time, Sean. When I said "that's possible" yesterday regarding Dougherty's alleged elevator excursion, that didn't exclude the idea that I also thought it was "probable". But keep thinking you got your "Gotcha!" in, if you want to.

But just to remind you -- neither of the words I used equates to the words "proven" or "definitely". That's why I utilized the words I did.

But I'm surprised you didn't jump all over me for another of my "shameless" attempts to have my cake and eat it too regarding the subject of Jack E. Dougherty:

I did, indeed, say that "a big ol' grain of salt" should be applied to all of Dougherty's testimony. But then I utilized his testimony about how he failed to hear Roy Truly's two "real loud" yells as totally reliable testimony. Shouldn't I have placed a "big ol' grain of salt" beside that testimony too?

IOW--shouldn't I believe that it's just as likely that Dougherty REALLY DID hear Truly yell up the elevator shaft, but he said he didn't?

BTW, can you explain how Dougherty missed hearing Truly's TWO loud yells that day (if Jack had been right near the elevators--and, hence, very near Oswald's stairway escape route too)?

And remember, Sean, you haven't placed any "big ol' grain of salt" beside anything uttered by Jack E. Dougherty---have you?

David, your attitude to Dougherty's testimony has (let's be polite here) evolved with remarkable speed over 24 hours.

Yesterday you were at pains to rubbish his reliability as a witness.

Here are some of the things you wrote:

"But anyone who reads through Jack Dougherty's testimony should know that his testimony is a complete mess. His timing of when he did things and when he supposedly heard the gunshots is a total disaster."

"...Dougherty's jigsaw puzzle which represents his testimony. As I said, it's a mess. His testimony reminds me of all the conspiracy theories -- a certifiable disaster area."

"I'd put a big ol' grain of salt by my side when evaluating anything in Dougherty's testimony."

"this incoherent mess that is Jack D.'s testimony".

Strong words, by any standards.

Now at first you were happy to extend this view of Dougherty to his claim to have taken the west freight elevator off the fifth floor. When the problem (from a LN point of view) of doubting this event was pointed out to you, you blithely told us it didn't matter who took that elevator down. When that silly line of argument didn't work, and the full implications of someone other than Dougherty having done it, you immediately promoted Dougherty's claim from a "possible" to a "probable".

Your new position on the "certifiable disaster area" that is Dougherty's testimony seems to be as follows:

I, David von Pein, no longer believe that "[h]is timing of when he did things and when he supposedly heard the gunshots is a total disaster". On the contrary, the basics of his story now work for me just fine.

There is of course one little bit you still don't believe, though: the bit about his standing just a few feet west of the west elevator at the time of the shooting. Can't see you calling that "probable" anytime soon.

It's quite clear what's going on here, David. You're backtracking with unseemly haste from your initial wholesale dismissal of Dougherty's testimony because you now realise your theory requires you to cherry-pick quite a few appealing bits after all.

You're perfectly entitled to proceed in this way. What you're not entitled to do, however, is pretend you haven't done a slick U-turn--or try to pass off your approach to Jack Dougherty's testimony as objective research. We're not fools.

[David Von Pein]

As I said before -- regardless of WHO took the elevator downstairs, it doesn't have to lead to "conspiracy" (which is something you unquestionably think it leads to if Dougherty didn't use the elevator).

Now, care to answer my last question, Sean?

Edited July 19, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Sean Murphy]

Care to answer my last question, Sean?

Sure--the reliability of Dougherty's testimony is open to serious doubt.

[Sean Murphy]

As I said before -- regardless of WHO took the elevator downstairs, it doesn't have to lead to "conspiracy" (which is something you unquestionably think it leads to if Dougherty didn't use the elevator).

OK, so I'll ask you again to give us a credible scenario whereby someone other than Jack Dougherty needed to take that elevator off the fifth floor at that time.

[David Von Pein]

Sure--the reliability of Dougherty's testimony is open to serious doubt.

Good. We finally agree on something.

Which, of course, leaves open the distinct possibility of Dougherty NOT being right near the elevators/stairway at 12:30 to 12:31 PM CST on 11/22/63. Which leaves open the distinct possibility (to the horror of the Anybody But Oswald CTers) that Lee Oswald used the stairs and Jack Dougherty just wasn't nearby to see him.

Thanks for confirming those possibilities for us, Sean. But the ABO crowd isn't going to like your conclusion.

Edited July 19, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Sean Murphy]

Sure--the reliability of Dougherty's testimony is open to serious doubt.

Good. We finally agree on something.

No we don't agree on this. Post-U-turn, you longer believe the basic reliability of Dougherty's testimony is open to serious doubt. What a difference a day makes.

Now back to the question you keep running away from:

Can you give us a credible scenario whereby someone other than Jack Dougherty needed to take that elevator off the fifth floor at that time?

[David Von Pein]

No we don't agree on this. Post-U-turn, you [no] longer believe the basic reliability of Dougherty's testimony is open to serious doubt. What a difference a day makes.

You don't know what you're talking about. You now seem to believe that all of the stuff I ridicule Dougherty for in my article below is now stuff that I deem 100% "reliable". You're hilarious.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jack-dougherty.html

And, FYI, everybody in JFK research "picks & chooses" the testimony they like best. We all do it. It's inevitable. Otherwise, every single witness would likely have to be thrown in the trash can, because there's almost always some part of each witness' testimony or statements or affidavit that we don't think is perfectly accurate (whether it be a "CTer" or an "LNer" doing the evaluating). So, to some degree, we always "pick and choose" the statements that best fit our overall beliefs regarding the case.

Edited July 19, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Now back to the question you keep running away from:

Can you give us a credible scenario whereby someone other than Jack Dougherty needed to take that elevator off the fifth floor at that time?

I've already said that I think it was "probably" Jack Dougherty who took the elevator downstairs. Why isn't that good enough for you?

Edited July 19, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Sean Murphy]

No we don't agree on this. Post-U-turn, you [no] longer believe the basic reliability of Dougherty's testimony is open to serious doubt. What a difference a day makes.

You don't know what you're talking about. You now seem to believe that all of the stuff I ridicule Dougherty for in my article below is now stuff that I deem 100% "reliable". You're hilarious.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jack-dougherty.html

And, FYI, everybody in JFK research "picks & chooses" the testimony they like best. We all do it. It's inevitable. Otherwise, every single witness would likely have to be thrown in the trash can, because there's almost always some part of each witness' testimony or statements or affidavit that we don't think is perfectly accurate (whether it be a "CTer" or an "LNer" doing the evaluating). So, to some degree, we always "pick and choose" the statements that best fit our overall beliefs regarding the case.

You do believe the essential points of Dougherty's testimony as to his whereabouts and doings at the time of the assassination.

Let's do a quick check:

Dougherty testified he was on the fifth floor at the time of the assassination: do you have any serious doubts about whether he was indeed there at that time?

Dougherty testified the reason he was there was to get stock: do you have any serious doubts about whether that was indeed the reason he was there?

Dougherty testified he took the west freight elevator down to the first floor shortly after this: do you any have serious doubts about whether he did indeed do this?

[Sean Murphy]

Now back to the question you keep running away from:

Can you give us a credible scenario whereby someone other than Jack Dougherty needed to take that elevator off the fifth floor at that time?

I've already said that I think it was "probably" Jack Dougherty who took the elevator downstairs. Why isn't that good enough for you?

It's quite clear that you can't give us a credible scenario whereby someone other than Jack Dougherty might have needed to take that elevator off the fifth floor at that time.

You have failed miserably to back up your claim that "regardless of WHO took the elevator downstairs, it doesn't have to lead to 'conspiracy' (which is something you unquestionably think it leads to if Dougherty didn't use the elevator)".

[David Von Pein]

You do believe the essential points of Dougherty's testimony as to his whereabouts and doings at the time of the assassination.

Oh sure, that must be why I said this a few posts back (which obviously means I do NOT accept Dougherty's testimony about being very near the elevator at 12:30):

"Dougherty said he did NOT hear anyone yelling up the elevator shaft. .... Therefore, it seems fairly clear to me that Jack Dougherty was not REAL CLOSE to those freight elevators at approximately 12:31 PM, which means he would not necessarily have been in a position to see Lee Harvey Oswald coming down the stairs from the sixth floor at just about that very same time when Truly was yelling "real loud" up that elevator shaft -- a loud yell that Dougherty never heard. .... From the available testimony, it seems pretty obvious to me that Jack Dougherty was not within earshot of Truly's yells. Which means, ergo, that Dougherty was probably somewhere else on the fifth floor, further away from the elevators/stairway, when Truly was yelling and when Oswald was descending." -- DVP

Edited July 20, 2013 by David Von Pein