"The JFK Assassination Chokeholds: That Prove There Was a Conspiracy" by James DiEugenio, Matt Crumpton, Paul Bleau, Andrew Iler, Mark Adamczyk

[Vince Palamara]

"The JFK Assassination Chokeholds: That Prove There Was a Conspiracy" by James DiEugenio, Matt Crumpton, Paul Bleau, Andrew Iler, Mark Adamczyk

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Chokeholds-Prove-Conspiracy-ebook/dp/B0CL5VCFBH/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1699119769&sr=1-1

"In JFK Assassination Chokeholds, readers will find up to date evidence that would have compelled any jury to conclude that Oswald was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that there is clear and convincing evidence of both a conspiracy and obstruction of justice to cover it up.

The approach taken by the contributors in this anthology, three of whom are attorneys complemented by two of the leading authorities in the field, focuses on sixty years of revelations that have been inescapably proven. There is no way around these matters, making them argumentative “chokeholds.”

The next time a historian, teacher, author or Warren Commission backer pushes the lone-nut assassin scenario, the reader will be able to counter with troubling questions, such as: Why was Oswald impersonated? Why did Ruby receive assistance in murdering Oswald? Why do an overwhelming number of investigation insiders not believe the Warren Commission conclusions? How can one explain the scandalous shenanigans around JFK’s brain and the chain of custody for CE 399? And many other inexplicable facts that are a matter of record.

On November 22, 1963, the world took a turn for the worse. JFK and everything he stood for was cruelly taken away from us. Hopefully the truth can help pave the way for a new direction."

Edited November 4, 2023 by Vince Palamara

[Vince Palamara]

@James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I was not going to post this until the actual preview was up at Amazon.

Vince did it for me.

But you can pre order it in E book form now.

The paperback will be available I think on the 14th.

Three lawyers helped write the book.  

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

The next time a historian, teacher, author or Warren Commission backer pushes the lone-nut assassin scenario, the reader will be able to counter with troubling questions,

This makes no sense to me at all.

Why ask questions when a positive assertion of fact is all that is required to prove conspiracy?

The bullet holes in the back of JFK’s clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.  

In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria showed how to “chokehold” lone nutters — Fonzi rubbed Specter’s nose in the bullet holes and Arlen had a nervous breakdown.

I’m curious — when was the last time the clothing defects were mentioned at a JFKA Conference?  COPA in 1998?

What cold case murder investigation doesn’t start off with a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered from the victim?

The JFKA.  History’s most incompetently investigated murder.

[Cliff Varnell]

Asking troubling questions = pimping False Mystery.

[James DiEugenio]

One of the most interesting parts of the book is by Andrew Eiler. 

Andrew is a very accomplished lawyer from Ontario.

He talked to Tanenbaum about differing standards of proof and he describes them in the book and how they originated.

He then explained how the WC and the HSCA did not abide by them.

Therefore the question is: by what standard was Oswald convicted?

I had never seen this issue raised as pointedly or as knowledgeably as Andrew did.

I sure as heck would have liked to see him debate Bugliosi on this.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

One of the most interesting parts of the book is by Andrew Eiler. 

Andrew is a very accomplished lawyer from Ontario.

He talked to Tanenbaum about differing standards of proof and he describes them in the book and how they originated.

He then explained how the WC and the HSCA did not abide by them.

Therefore the question is: by what standard was Oswald convicted?

I had never seen this issue raised as pointedly or as knowledgeably as Andrew did.

I sure as heck would have liked to see him debate Bugliosi on this.

 

 

JFK had two soft tissue wounds with no exits.  6.5mm FMJ don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.  Therefore, Oswald could not have shot JFK with the rifle ascribed to him.

Why does proving Oswald’s innocence have to be more complicated than that?

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, one needs to make a distinction between two legal concepts:

Burden of Proof

Standard of Proof

In discussing this with Andrew, the first refers to the party who has the responsibility for presenting the case.  In the criminal field this is usually the DA or the state's attorney.

He then discusses differing standards of proof and what they are supposed to represent in court, that is the degree of evidence that is required to prove a civil case, an administrative case and finally, as in JFK, a criminal case.

One of his most interesting points was that the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard was originally designed to PROTECT THE COMMUNITY from the collective guilt of convicting an innocent man!

I mean whew,  talk about a direct connection.

              

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Vince Palamara]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I was not going to post this until the actual preview was up at Amazon.

Vince did it for me.

But you can pre order it in E book form now.

The paperback will be available I think on the 14th.

Three lawyers helped write the book.  

Can't wait! I will get it!

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Vince.

 

Appreciate it.

[Cliff Varnell]

I’ll donate $100 to the Ed Forum if this book cites the clothing evidence as proof of conspiracy.

[Cory Santos]

14 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I’ll donate $100 to the Ed Forum if this book cites the clothing evidence as proof of conspiracy.

Take me to lunch.  

[Benjamin Cole]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Vince.

 

Appreciate it.

Thanks for Vince and Jim for all the efforts they have put in, over decades, to advance understanding of the JFKA. 

I do not agree with Vince and Jim on every detail or emphasis. So what? I might be wrong. 

The JFKA is foggy due to the obfuscation of the Deep State, not the earnest work of Vince and Jim. 

So many JFKA researchers have worked, usually without monetary compensation, but just because they believed that people deserve the truth, and truth is necessary for democracy. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Take me to lunch.  

If the clothing evidence-as-proof-of-Conspiracy is cited at any conference or event relating to the 60th anniversary I’ll take you to lunch, Cory.  Don’t get your hopes up.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Ben, and no you do not have to agree with me about everything.

I contributed about 15-20 per cent of this book.

Paul Bleau and Matt Crumpton wrote most of the book.

Paul is becoming a very good commentator on the JFK case, as you saw from Stone's film, and Matt is an attorney from Ohio and has a very nice site on the JFK case.

I will get the name of it for you all.

BTW Matt is the guy who got me the appearance at the Cincinnati Mercantile Library for the 14th.  I hope I see some of you there.