Jump to content
The Education Forum

If Oswald Was Innocent....?


Recommended Posts

Davey, I proved nothing except that you have a really irrational way of evaluating evidence in this case.

For fifty people to all contradict the WC story and for you to say, "What, me worry?" :dis

And you see nothing wrong in that.

I will answer your question when you answer any of mine.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "What is this all about? I know my rights. .... Police officer been killed? I hear they burn for murder."

POLICE OFFICER C.T. WALKER -- "You might find out."

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die."

Reads like a bad movie script...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has "detonated" Officer M.N. McDonald's story. And you're living in Fantasy Land if you think they have.

Apart from a few minor inconsistencies, McDonald's account of what happened in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 is solid as a rock -- i.e., as McDonald approached the suspect in the theater, Oswald punched McDonald in the face and pulled a revolver from his waist and tried to shoot some policemen with that gun. During the struggle that ensued in an effort to disarm Oswald, Officer McDonald suffered this scratch on the left side of his face....

Nick+McDonald.jpg

Do you think Nick McDonald himself caused that scratch on his face? Did he cut his own face just to make the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot look a little more genuine and authentic?

I think James DiEugenio knows, deep down, that M.N. McDonald was telling the truth about the theater scuffle. But Jim just can't pass up yet another opportunity to label another person a xxxx (that's the L word, of course, but the forum software won't allow that awful word to be printed here anymore).

Right, Jimmy?

Was anyone disputing that a scuffle of some sort took place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "What is this all about? I know my rights. .... Police officer been killed? I hear they burn for murder."

POLICE OFFICER C.T. WALKER -- "You might find out."

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die."

Reads like a bad movie script...

Sorry Ian, even the Writers Guild has standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many Internet conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

Do completely innocent people normally do the things we know Oswald did while he was being apprehended in the theater that day? -- E.G., pulling a gun on police officers and saying things like "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".

Those two verbal statements -- all by themselves -- are extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence against Lee Oswald.

How can conspiracy theorists who believe in Oswald's complete innocence (CTers such as J. Raymond Carroll, for instance) possibly explain those words that Oswald was said to have uttered within a theory that has Oswald shooting nobody at all on November 22, 1963?

And the Cops All Lied About What Oswald Said dodge is hardly a convincing argument in light of what arresting officers M.N. McDonald and Paul Bentley had to say the following day (11/23/63)....

And then there are also the statements that Oswald allegedly made in the police car on the way to City Hall....

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "What is this all about? I know my rights. .... Police officer been killed? I hear they burn for murder."

POLICE OFFICER C.T. WALKER -- "You might find out."

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die."

[Via Warren Commission testimony of C.T. Walker; at 7 H 40 and 7 H 41.]

Now, what would a reasonable, objective person make out of Oswald's comment -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die"? Would a truly innocent person have uttered the words "it just takes a second to die"? That statement reeks with guilt and Oswald's guilty state-of-mind just after he was taken into custody.

David Von Pein

July 26, 2015

I haven't heard any recordings of Oswald talking prior to reaching police headquarters. I'm guessing what he said is 'alleged'. Put 6 people in a circle and whisper a sentence to the first one and let each in turn whisper it into their neighbors ear. You won't recognize the sentence when it comes out the other end. But for some reason you credit everyone in the middle of a commotion to have 'perfect recall' of all statements.

Just as an aside: if you ever get any evidence against LHO, will you show it to us?

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey, in all honesty, Hoosier Pride and all, let me ask you this:

Do you ever trace the history of an evidentiary point in this case, or see if there are any differing views in the official story by someone else who was there on the scene?

Because if you had in this case, you would have seen that if there is one cop who may be as bad as Gerry Hill as a witness, its McDonald. Either one of these guys would have been humiliated on the stand by a competent attorney.

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-filthy-lies-of-nick-mcdonald.html

But further, that BS about the police blocking a shot by LHO in the theater, please. Please Davey. The FBI lab technician exposed that for a hoax many years ago. Gil Jesus once had that on his site. And we are supposed to believe you do not know that? Its ancient history, and you know it.

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today?

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today? What? And all this time i've had him delivering for Domino's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when Jimbo gets going on one of his "Everybody Lied" tangents. I wish he'd do it more often, in fact. Because it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" side. And that's because when you're forced to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to make your case for conspiracy or cover up by pretending that a whole bunch of people (from different walks of life) were outright liars, as Jim DiEugenio constantly does when discussing the JFK and Tippit murders, all reasonable people can easily see how desperate (and unreasonable) an argument that truly is.

Just because there aren't very many police officers who heard Oswald make his "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" statements, Jimmy D. is ready to declare Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald a member of Jim's Liars Club. It's just silly.

McDonald was the officer who was the closest to Oswald (and to Oswald's MOUTH) when Oswald made his statement (or statements, if he did, in fact, make both of the statements, which is not 100% clear; but LHO certainly made at least ONE statement, per Officer McDonald, that indicates a guilty state of mind, that's for sure).

And WHY would McDonald feel the need to lie about ANY statement that came out of Oswald's mouth? Just....why?

Yes, I myself have said that either of those two statements attributed to Oswald "reeks with guilt", that's true enough. But even WITHOUT such verbal statements coming from Oswald's lips, the facts are pretty clear that Oswald fought wildly with the police after pulling a gun on Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater. And that gun Oswald was waving around (which was seen during the struggle by civilian eyewitness Johnny C. Brewer as well) was proven to be the exact same gun that ended the life of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And, try as he might, there's nothing Jimmy DiEugenio can do to change those basic facts.

So keep piling on those liars, Jim. Every time you do, you look much sillier than the day before.

it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" That would be the Nutters side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when Jimbo gets going on one of his "Everybody Lied" tangents. I wish he'd do it more often, in fact. Because it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" side. And that's because when you're forced to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to make your case for conspiracy or cover up by pretending that a whole bunch of people (from different walks of life) were outright liars, as Jim DiEugenio constantly does when discussing the JFK and Tippit murders, all reasonable people can easily see how desperate (and unreasonable) an argument that truly is.

Just because there aren't very many police officers who heard Oswald make his "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" statements, Jimmy D. is ready to declare Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald a member of Jim's Liars Club. It's just silly.

McDonald was the officer who was the closest to Oswald (and to Oswald's MOUTH) when Oswald made his statement (or statements, if he did, in fact, make both of the statements, which is not 100% clear; but LHO certainly made at least ONE statement, per Officer McDonald, that indicates a guilty state of mind, that's for sure).

And WHY would McDonald feel the need to lie about ANY statement that came out of Oswald's mouth? Just....why?

Yes, I myself have said that either of those two statements attributed to Oswald "reeks with guilt", that's true enough. But even WITHOUT such verbal statements coming from Oswald's lips, the facts are pretty clear that Oswald fought wildly with the police after pulling a gun on Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater. And that gun Oswald was waving around (which was seen during the struggle by civilian eyewitness Johnny C. Brewer as well) was proven to be the exact same gun that ended the life of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And, try as he might, there's nothing Jimmy DiEugenio can do to change those basic facts.

So keep piling on those liars, Jim. Every time you do, you look much sillier than the day before.

Just because there aren't very many police officers who heard Oswald make his "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" statements, Are you saying he said 'both of those' or you don't know which one it was that he said or whether he actually said either one? Oh, excuse me, you're a Nutter and you get to say which one is correct, er, uh which one fits your fiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling Mcdonald a l-i-a-r when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?

No officer "lied", Mark. (Oh, sorry, I mean "Knight". You don't want to use first names, remember.)

Some of the stories just didn't perfectly match other officers' accounts. Simple as that. No lies. Just slight inconsistencies about a chaotic event that nobody was tape recording. Does everybody's memory of a hectic event HAVE to match perfectly in order for one party or the other to NOT be considered liars? That's crazy talk.

Just slight inconsistencies When you are on a jury and there are 'inconsistencies' in the testimony, the verdict is usually 'not guilty'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you insist that in any story that conflicts with the "official" story, someone must be "LYING."

When have I ever "insisted" anything of the kind, Knight? Please cite.

Or do you think "WRONG" and "LYING" have the exact same meaning?

In actuality, I have called very few people "liars" when it comes to the JFK case. Very few. Far fewer than Jim DiEugenio, that's for certain.

Or do you think "WRONG" and "LYING" have the exact same meaning? You obviously don't, your word of choice is 'liars'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was anyone disputing that a scuffle of some sort took place?

Who can tell with Internet CTers. They simply utilize whole cloth speculation to supplant the facts, as DiEugenio has done so many times, such as the examples quoted below....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"I believe the incident [i.e., second-floor encounter] was created after the fact. .... I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that [James] Worrell saw running out the back of the building. I think the other conspirators got out through the freight elevator after planting the rifle and shells. And I think the odds are that Sean [Murphy] is correct about LHO being outside. Sean brought up some other devastating evidence--including photos--about how the WC aided in putting the whole lunch room encounter together. It took them awhile to get it down and he showed some amazing photos of the dress rehearsal." -- James DiEugenio; July 14, 2015

-------------

So it wouldn't surprise me the least little bit if tomorrow Jimmy D. declares that no fight involving Lee Harvey Oswald occurred at all in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63. Such a declaration of nonsense is just exactly what I have come to expect from Internet conspiracy hounds.

And Jimbo is just a whisker away from accepting Oswald as "Prayer Man" in the Depository doorway too. So, nothing would surprise me at this point. Because it couldn't be more obvious here in 2015 that retiring schoolteacher James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California, can be very easily swayed and influenced by just about any conspiracy theorist---just as long as that CTer is a member of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" frat club.

I mean, DiEugenio still thinks Jim Garrison, John Armstrong, Sean Murphy, Martin Hay, and Gil Jesus are convincing sources for factual information. And that's pretty sad company to be in. Yikes!

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like his mentor Vince Bugliosi, Davey has a real problem with quoting testimony and acknowledging evidence that counters what he says happened. So let me repeat what I wrote above.

Then why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.

Even the Warren Commission worried about what happened to this list.

John H Ely: "Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of every body in the theater, and you also stated you did not have this list. Do you know who has it?"

Westbrook: "No."

The Warren Commission then told the FBI to try and find the list. They could not.

Hmm. Wonder why? Maybe the incorruptible DPD just made a mistake and misplaced it right?

Now, would an attorney have made a big deal of this in court? Yep. Does Davey: Not a peep.

PS: Davey, doesn't Oswald have a bruise on his face also? What, did they do? Duke it out one handed with guns drawn? :help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, let us really question this series of events the way a good DA, or any skilled attorney would. But we must add the rubric, "if he was looking for the truth." Bugliosi was not, and neither is Davey.

First, how and why did Oswald go to the Texas Theater?

1. If Oswald shot TIppit, why did he leave his wallet there? And if he did not, then who did? Because as we know the official story says he gave it to a cop in the squad car on the way to the station after his arrest. But yet, we now know that a second Oswald wallet was left at the scene.

2. Why did he make it to Tenth and Patton in world record time for a walker, yet make like a turtle with arthritis to get to the Texas Theater from 10th and Patton? In Bugliosi's book, what he does with this is amusing. After walking so fast--like the comic book character Flash-- that no one saw him get to 10th and Patton, Vince now says that it took him so long to get to the theater because he was hiding behind trees, in doorways, in the gutter etc. Yeah sure Vince, and no one saw him either way, right?

3. Why did Tippit stop Oswald? I think everyone here understands that the whole Brennan story is baloney. I mean as Ian Griggs shows, Brennan very likely was never at any Oswald line up. And we also know he refused to be cross examined by the HSCA. Who requested an interview something like nine times. And there were no SS agents to give a description to in DP..

4. Why was TIppit in the wrong area of the city? The DPD did all they could to hide this fact. They rearranged the signal tapes 3 times to explain this. (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 422) And in the third version, finally appearing on March 20th, the order to go to Oak Cliff finally appeared. Naming only two cops to go to Oak Cliff, when almost the entire force was headed to Dealey Plaza. Even though, and its a kicker, there was already a cop stationed in Oak Cliff. (ibid) By the way, McBride's book pretty much demolishes the conflicting stories that dispatcher Murray Jackson gave over the years as to why this order finally showed up the third time around.

As McBride now pungently notes: is it just a coincidence that Oswald had an Oak Cliff address?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.

Jim D.,

Perhaps you are aware of a witness by the name of George J. Applin Jr.

Mr. Applin filled out an official affidavit on the day of the assassination, wherein he stated the following:

"On Friday evening [sic], November 22, 1963 at about 1:45 p.m., I was seated on the main floor of the Texas Theater on West Jefferson in Dallas, Texas. As I watched the movie I saw an officer walking down the isle [sic] with a riot gun and about that time the light came on in the theater. One of the patrolmen walked down to the front of the theater and walked back up the isle [sic] and I got up and started walking toward the front of the theater. I saw the officer shake two men down and then asked a man sitting by himself to stand up. As the officer started to shake him down, and when he did, this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once. Then I saw a large group of officers subdue this boy and arrest him." -- /s/ George Jefferson Applin Jr.

Affidavit-Of-George-Applin-Jr.gif

--------

So, as we can see in the above affidavit, George Applin, a 21-year-old civilian who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested, confirms all of the basic points brought out in Officer M.N. McDonald's account of Oswald's arrest. And Applin told the Warren Commission essentially the same things he said in his 11/22/63 affidavit (starting at 7 H 88).

So, Jim, should we now add the name of George Applin Jr. to your list of liars? Or is George on that list already?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if the order to go to Oak Cliff was actually on the broadcast tapes on 11/22, then why did TIppit disobey the order?

We know this since five witnesses saw him sitting in his squad car at the GLOCO filling station at1502 North Zang Blvd. WhIch is at the northernmost point of Oak Cliff; but the order said to move into the Central Oak Cliff area. (ibid, p. 422) Further, this was not where he said he was when he allegedly replied to the dispatcher that he was at Kiest and Bonnie View. (ibid) That was five miles away.

The witnesses said he was looking at a viaduct which connected up at the other end with Dealey Plaza. In fact, from where TIppit was watching, you could be in Dealey Plaza on that viaduct in about two minutes.

He then headed out and drove down tenth street, but he stopped a business man named James Andrews. This was a couple of blocks from the theater. Tippit cut in front of Andrews and forced him to stop. TIppit got out and motioned for Andrews to stay still. He then looked in the back seat of the car. When he saw nothing, he went back to his car and drove off. (ibid, p, 448)

PS Davey never answered the question I submitted to him. Where did the list of 24 witnesses go, and why could the FBI not find it? Keep blowing smoke Davey, I am about to demolish you again.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...