Lance Can Seal the Deal

[Jim Hargrove]

32 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Your research on the Money Order "Record Locator" was excellent and much appreciated. Funny that never gets mentioned again, huh?  

Steve,

The money order “Record Locator” proves nothing.  It could easily have been applied by whoever forged the Postal Money Order because it is a Post Office procedure.  Saying the locator number proves the money order is genuine is like saying a counterfeit twenty dollar bill can’t be fake because it says, “IN GOD WE TRUST.”  

What couldn’t be faked were the bank endorsement stamps that should have appeared on the money order.  That would have necessitated bringing banks into the conspiracy to fake the evidence.

FBI informant/US postal inspector Harry Holmes, for example, had the ability to have a bogus money order prepared, including putting the locator number on it.  He did not have the ability to bring banks into his little game.

Harry Holmes, by the way, if memory serves is about the only person on earth who claimed to hear “Lee Harvey Oswald” say he went to Mexico.  

[Jim Hargrove]

By the way, back in 2015 Sandy Larsen proved that in 1963 Federal Reserve Bank regulations required Postal Money Orders to have bank endorsements stamped directly on them.

Here is Sandy’s proof.

[Guest]

Here you go, people. Is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me leave (a Mae West reference for the unanimated)?

Avatar Image

 2 members active in this conversation (including you)

1. Lance Payette
   Not read yet
2. 
   James R Gordon
   Read: 13 minutes ago
3.  

 

• Report reply

James R Gordon

Started conversation: 13 minutes ago

Lance,

I believe I have already mentioned that it is a condition of being a member that you display a picture of yourself.

Please rectify this immediately.

James

• Quote

• Report reply

Lance Payette

Replied: just now

James - No, you haven't mentioned that previously. I had no idea. I deleted my photo because I don't want it floating all over the internet. Please make everyone happy and either deactivate or delete my account. - Lance

[Kirk Gallaway]

56 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Here you go, people. Is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me leave (a Mae West reference for the unanimated)?

Avatar Image

 2 members active in this conversation (including you)

1. Lance Payette
   Not read yet
2. 
   James R Gordon
   Read: 13 minutes ago
3.  

 

• Report reply

James R Gordon

Started conversation: 13 minutes ago

Lance,

I believe I have already mentioned that it is a condition of being a member that you display a picture of yourself.

Please rectify this immediately.

James

•  
• Quote

• Report reply

Lance Payette

Replied: just now

James - No, you haven't mentioned that previously. I had no idea. I deleted my photo because I don't want it floating all over the internet. Please make everyone happy and either deactivate or delete my account. - Lance

I don't know what the big deal is Lance. I've seen 3 of your pictures, including one with your wife. It sounds like your starting to turn into the very paranoid martyr that you so decry on this website. Why the change?  I'm wondering if your professed fascination and  internet meanderings onto other "weird" websites has cause you to fear some retaliation of some sort. I hope not.

You can always use that first "alien" picture with that barren backdrop and that funny hat, which probably isn't a funny hat, but you're so distant, no one can see the features of your face.

Here I'm trying to enable Lance? If he was around all the time, I'd find him insufferable too.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cliff Varnell]

[Michael Clark]

Lance admitted that he just can’t help himself, saying it is like reaching for the peanuts. He is trying to force the issue, making someone else force him to stop coming here. I vote that an avatar exception be made for Lance. There are avatarless others who post here of whom we would lament the loss.

[James DiEugenio]

Dear Mr Curbow:

You asked that I engage Lance on the evidence.  I brought up seven points concerning what most people would call the "core evidence" in the case:  this is as close as he came to answering my request:

"Admissibility" at this point is irrelevant because there is never going to be a trial. The Oswald "defense bar" does not seem to grasp the fundamental fact that "admissibility" at this point means nothing. Zero, nada, zilch. The only question is, does the totality of the evidence establish that Oswald alone assassinated JFK?

In answering that question, any and all pertinent evidence must be considered without regard to whether it would have been inadmissible at a trial - hearsay, tangible evidence for which there may be chain-of-custody problems, all of it. That's how we make decisions in the real-world - all day every day.

Every lawyer has lost a case where both sides knew pretty damn well what had happened, but the Rules of Evidence kept out critical testimony or evidence; it's just the nature of the trial game. My position is not based on any faith in the WC or HSCA or any other panel, except as they may be sources of information for me in reaching my own conclusions.

1.  That first paragraph is a humdinger of evasion, typical lawyerese.  Lance, why was there never going to be a trial?  Because Oswald was murdered in the basement of DPD headquarters, literally in the arms of the Dallas Police live on national television. And instead of the reporters asking, who is that guy, and how did he get in here, Tom Pettit said, "Oswald has been shot! Oswald has been shot!" Now that is reporting for you.

Once Oswald was disposed of, what happened? The pressure built to demonstrate that the USA was not a banana republic where you could eliminate presidents, dispose of the defendant and still say we had a democracy. The Warren Commission was set up.  Now this is where it really gets sticky for those watching Lance. Here is the Arizona lawyer, 36-37 years of practice, yet I have never seen him hurl an unkind word about the procedure conducted by the Warren Commission and how it impacted the evidence they accumulated against Oswald.  Just like the hired guns Bugliosi and Posner, he has very little or nothing to say about this clear legal and ethical issue over whether or not what the Commission did to Oswald aligned with any kind of legally binding or even fact finding standard.  No lawyer for Oswald?  Fine with Lance.  No ABA representative to make any complaint that the Commission was not following the legal canon in its handling of the case?  Fine with Lance.  The fact that the FBI downright lied to the Commission about CE 399?  And that the WC accepted that lie? Fine with Lance. Heck, that's just a "real world" decision--"all day every day".  Sort of like shopping for groceries I guess.

2. His second paragraph tells us what we need to know.  The idea of forensic value, that is the qualitative and quantitative testing of the case, this means nothing to him. He wants to do what the Warren Commission did.  Just dump it all in the hopper and therefore let the length of the brief disguise the fact that every step of that brief is dubious. This is the same thing Bugliosi did. It was an argument by volume and by authority.  How dare you question the FBI ? 

This does not fly anymore.  For the simple reason that we have proven that Hoover not only lied his head off, but he knew, and his agents knew, such was the case. And anyone who could trust what the CIA handed to the Warren Commission about Mexico City,  and then say, "That's how we make decisions in the real world--all day every day."  To say that, and then not to mention that the Warren Report never mentions either David Phillips or Anne Goodpasture in its 17,000 pages of testimony and evidence, that is about at the level of a cardsharp.  And to dismiss objections about the autopsy by saying, big deal Humes burned his notes--again this was not the case. He burned his notes, burned his first draft--some suspect that what we have is actually the third draft--and that report does not align with the x rays.  And as I mentioned, in very specific terms, the differences are not minor.  Again, this is something he wishes to ignore.  To me its like dealing from the bottom of the deck.

3.  Anyone who can presume that he knows what happened in this case is simply peeing in the wind.  No one knows what happened in this case. And Jerry Ford admitted that to Valery d'Estang. The Warren Commission could not even establish Oswald on the sixth floor, which is why they admitted the perjury of Givens, and they refused to admit the corroborating testimony for Adams and then misrepresented her testimony in the report. Lance dismisses this with, "That's how we make decisions in the real world--all day, every day."  

Oh really Lance?  You tell your wife you are going out to buy her favorite type of steak, she thinks you are being so nice--my cutie pie-- and then you bring back hamburger that is 25 per cent fat?  

Lance, all you are is another Bugliosi/Posner on this case.  Those books are worthless today, they were done for polemical/rhetorical reasons not as any examination of the evidence.  And anyone who can equate holsters with the fraud of Kennedy's autopsy has a real problem with with both judgment and analysis.  

Mr. Curbow, I tried.  This was the result. Like Specter leaving at Duquesne.

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Dave Curbow]

Dear Mr. DiEugenio,

thank you for trying; I appreciate it. 

I have a little anecdote from Duquesne that I will private message you.

Thank you again,

Dave

[James DiEugenio]

In rereading the above, I am struck by Payette's reason for refusing to debate my points.

I BELIEVE YOU ARE IN THE GRIP OF A MANIA THAT RENDERS COMMON SENSE AND CRITICAL THINKING IMPOSSIBLE. I BELIEVE YOU ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY ILL.

Most people who meet Jeremy Gunn, the former chief counsel of the ARRB, would say that he is a pretty conservative guy. He is also a pretty bright and skillful attorney.  And he prepares. As chief counsel, he worked on the JFK case for three years, about 10 hours per day, five days per week. He prepped for about 14 depositions of  key witnesses like Anne Goodpasture and Jim Humes, meaning he had to read the entire record of their prior statements.  If you recall, after all this, he made two key statements.  First, that what the Warren Commission did was a disservice to the country.  And second, that he would rather be defending Oswald than prosecuting him. 

Was Jeremy in the grip of a mania that renders common sense impossible?  No one would buy that since its contrary to the facts, record, and Gunn. Jeremy was characterizing the state of the evidence as examined and revealed by the ARRB.  Which was the last time that was done, or likely will be done.  And no one was in a more privileged position than he was. 

I could say the same about Sprague and Tanenbaum.  Very experienced criminal prosecutors.  Once they got a look at what the Commission had done, they decided they had to start over.

Were they both in the grip of a mania that renders common sense impossible?

Please. That statement bolded above is simply agitprop, which is an all too familiar tactic the other side uses to avoid real debate on the central issues. Its the last thing this case needs.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[John Iacoletti]

On 4/28/2020 at 6:23 PM, Lance Payette said:

• To repeat: I am well-aware of all the problem areas. I now know far more about the assassination than the average participant on forums such as this. I also have the analytical and critical-thinking skills of a lawyer of 36 years.

And therein lies the problem.  Lawyers don't succeed on the basis of sussing out the truth.  They succeed on how well they can manipulate other people to their own viewpoint with rhetoric.  In a nutshell, that's also where Bugliosi fails.  He was a lawyer, not a scientist.  And it shows.

Quote

Conspiracy salesmen and their minions consistently confuse “reality” with “what can be proved in a trial.” Many of my friends have been criminal defense attorneys. They specifically do not even want to know whether their clients are actually guilty of the crimes with which they’ve been charged. The objective in a criminal trial, and especially from the defense perspective, is not the truth. The objective from the defense perspective is to sow doubt – about everyone and everything. That’s how you win. It makes no difference how scurrilous, false or absurd the doubt you sow may be or how low you may have to stoop to sow it.

You may have alluded to it here, but it needs to be stated outright:  The objective from the prosecution perspective is not the truth either.  It is to sow guilt about every little thing.  A ring in a cup?  Guilt.  Didn't stick around and chat with people he never chatted with about anything?  Guilt.  Whatever the evidence is or how contradictory or tainted it is -- guilt.  Don't worry about all those problems.  They're just normal.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain -- I'll tell you what to look at.  The "Oswald did it" evangelists on these forums are acting like prosecuting attorneys at least as much, if not more, than conspiracy theorists act like defense lawyers, and definitely more than "official narrative" skeptics act like lawyers at all.

[John Iacoletti]

<delete duplicate>

Edited April 30, 2020 by John Iacoletti

[John Iacoletti]

<delete duplicate>

Edited April 30, 2020 by John Iacoletti

[James DiEugenio]

Jeremy Gunn was not taking this case to trial.  And he knew it from the start.

Further, he was not writing a book either.  And to my knowledge, he is still not writing a book.

 

[Denny Zartman]

On 4/28/2020 at 8:23 PM, Guest said:

The new Bob Dylan song? Yeah, let’s masturbate over that for eight threads and 400 posts.

When an artist of Dylan's stature and a winner of a Nobel prize in literature writes the longest song he's ever released and it happens to be about the JFK assassination, people on a JFK assassination forum are going to talk about it.

On 4/29/2020 at 9:35 AM, Guest said:

Mark Lane, in one of the few things he ever did that reflected favorably upon him, made no secret that Rush to Judgment was a defense brief for Oswald (pretty much without regard to accuracy or truth, but we'll let that slide)

I doubt you could name one single inaccuracy or false fact in Rush To Judgment.

On 4/29/2020 at 9:35 AM, Guest said:

Some items of evidence do, I believe, raise legitimate doubt.

Really? Then why do you continually attack those that doubt the conclusion of the investigation based on that evidence?

On 4/29/2020 at 9:35 AM, Guest said:

But I have found, across the entire spectrum of evidence, that none of the "superficially implausible" explanations is impossible or demands that the Lone Nut explanation be rejected. When those non-impossible explanations are factored into the totality of the evidence, specifically including the real Lee Harvey Oswald whom every conspiracy theorist wants to reinvent, the Lone Nut explanation is by far the solidest.

This is comical. You're going to lump in extremely implausible explanations with what you cleverly attempt to deceitfully characterize as "superficially implausible" explanations because they're not impossible. As a wise man once said, theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. Just because something extremely implausible is not absolutely impossible doesn't mean a rational person should conclude it's every bit as possible as anything else.

On 4/29/2020 at 9:35 AM, Guest said:

I GUARANTEE YOU: Neither Jim nor his embarrassingly mindless sycophants are going to provide you with any explanation as rational as THAT. They can't, because Conspiracy World is a fundamentally irrational realm.

You first say that some of the items of evidence in this case does raise legitimate doubt, and then you turn around with a blanket insult and say that CT's are fundamentally irrational. You think people should look past evidence that raises legitimate doubt and reach a different conclusion, and/or that examining that evidence is fundamentally irrational? That doesn't make sense.

You know what's irrational? Thinking that someone's going to kill the president with no motive and no getaway plan.

You know what's irrational? Thinking that the guy who killed the accused assassin risked going the electric chair to save a lady he's never met, and wouldn't even bother going across the street to see, a trip back to Dallas.

You know what's irrational? Claiming to be a lawyer and an expert in the JFK assassination, and yet not being able to answer one simple yes or no question: Could Oswald drive?

You know what's irrational? Believing Arlen Specter, a lawyer with no medical experience and who was not at Parkland hospital when JFK arrived, over every medical professional who saw JFK's anterior neck wound and described it as one of entrance.

Admiral George Burkley, President Kennedy's personal physician and the only medical professional to see JFK's body at Parkland and at Bethesda, didn't want to be quoted when asked if he agreed with Warren Commission about the number of bullets that entered JFK's body. What is a rational person supposed to think when confronted with that fact? Three Warren Commission members expressed doubt. Knowing that, is it really fundamentally irrational for a person to question things? Even Lyndon Johnson himself expressed doubt. Now is it rational to also harbor some doubt and attempt to seek answers to unanswered questions?

The current official position of the United States government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Those that believe there was no conspiracy are the ones that are outside the official position of the US government, not the conspiracy theorists.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Denny Zartman

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Danny. 

To never ask those questions about the case against Oswald is simply bewildering.