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

[Cory Santos]

I would like to see the clothing evidence then cliff so you can take me to lunch.  

[Jean Ceulemans]

1131 pages, is that correct ? 

https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2021/08/bookshelf-hacks-for-when-you-run-out-of-space

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

I would like to see the clothing evidence then cliff so you can take me to lunch.  

You’re a bit short of an event.

[Gerry Down]

Paul Bleau is a smart guy.

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’re a bit short of an event.

So you’re suggesting focus on the magic bullet lol? 

[Mark Ulrik]

10 hours 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.

Perhaps you could get Lance Payette to review the book instead.

[Bill Fite]

Often wondered if the mixing of the lone nut / conspiracy with the legal arguments concerning Oswald don't confuse the issues.

Once it is demonstrated that the lone nut hypothesis is either impossible or highly improbable based on evidence & experiments that were run it has to be rejected.

Discussing legal standards for admissible evidence against Oswald confuses the lone nut / conspiracy issue with legal arguments for his guilt or innocence.    

To me the evidence that is important is the evidence that negates the lone nut (whoever it might be) theory in a discussion concerning JFK's murder.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

Often wondered if the mixing of the lone nut / conspiracy with the legal arguments concerning Oswald don't confuse the issues.

Once it is demonstrated that the lone nut hypothesis is either impossible or highly improbable based on evidence & experiments that were run it has to be rejected.

Discussing legal standards for admissible evidence against Oswald confuses the lone nut / conspiracy issue with legal arguments for his guilt or innocence.    

To me the evidence that is important is the evidence that negates the lone nut (whoever it might be) theory in a discussion concerning JFK's murder.

Agreed.  

Like any cold case murder where the remains cannot be accessed, a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered with the body is the highest priority.

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

This establishes the fact that JFK suffered shallow soft tissue wounds in his back and throat with no exits — shots from two different directions, therefore conspiracy.

Oswald is accused of shooting Kennedy with 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds — but 6.5mm FMJ don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.

Isn’t that enough to establish Oswald’s innocence?

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

Often wondered if the mixing of the lone nut / conspiracy with the legal arguments concerning Oswald don't confuse the issues.

Once it is demonstrated that the lone nut hypothesis is either impossible or highly improbable based on evidence & experiments that were run it has to be rejected.

Discussing legal standards for admissible evidence against Oswald confuses the lone nut / conspiracy issue with legal arguments for his guilt or innocence.    

To me the evidence that is important is the evidence that negates the lone nut (whoever it might be) theory in a discussion concerning JFK's murder.

Bill Fite:

I also have some reservations about the "LHO is legally innocent" line of argument. 

I appreciate legal fundamentals for preserving legal rights.  There is a reason for chain-for-evidence rules, and other important procedures. 

I fear the JFK CT crowd (of which I am a member) could look like we are citing legal technicalities, rather addressing LHO's actual guilt or innocence.  We all know of cases where a crook "got off" on a legal technicality. 

In addition, even if LHO was not the gunman that day, he could have been involved. (In fact, I suspect he was an unwitting participant). 

DA Garrison said the court system could not stand up to the Deep State, or unravel shadow government secrets.

Indeed, LHO might have been railroaded in court. 

And yet we have seen that two government investigations, the WC and HSCA, were also flummoxed by the Deep State.  

I advise voting for a President who will open up the JFK Records, and is not a Deep State puppet. If you can find one. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

12 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Paul Bleau is a smart guy.

Smarts are one thing.  Savvy is another.  

We shall see.

[Bill Fite]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Isn’t that enough to establish Oswald’s innocence?

I don't think so.  It only helps to wreck the lone nut w only 3 shots from behind theory.

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I fear the JFK CT crowd (of which I am a member) could look like we are citing legal technicalities, rather addressing LHO's actual guilt or innocence.  We all know of cases where a crook "got off" on a legal technicality. 

Exactly -- but why even address LHO's guilt or innocence without starting by demonstrating either the impossibility or highly improbable likelihood of some unnamed single assassin causing all the known damage with 3 shots from the window in the TSBD in a discussion with others?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

I don't think so.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

 It only helps to wreck the lone nut w only 3 shots from behind theory.

Only?

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

 

Exactly -- but why even address LHO's guilt or innocence without starting by demonstrating either the impossibility or highly improbable likelihood of some unnamed single assassin causing all the known damage with 3 shots from the window in the TSBD in a discussion with others?

Let’s go with impossible.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low.

[Bill Fite]

12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Only?

Meaning that there's a lot of other ways to wreck it also.... and the bullet hole location doesn't clear Oswald of having been 1 of the shooters.

cheers.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Bill Fite
adding info

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

Meaning that there's a lot of other ways to wreck it also.... and the bullet hole location doesn't clear Oswald of having been 1 of the shooters.

cheers.

Bill, you’ve persuaded me on the latter point.

However, the “other ways” of establishing Conspiracy are vastly inferior to the physical evidence, to the point of counter-productivity.

In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing defects and Specter suffered a nervous breakdown.

It never got better than that.

[Joe Bauer]

The massive power and effort of the deep state to undermine Jim Garrison and his investigation and it's subsequent trial, which included national media collusion and Garrison himself said couldn't be overcome in the end, would be kids play compared to what they would have done with a living ( or Jack Ruby shooting injured but surviving ) Lee Harvey Oswald trial.

An adequately financed and presented Lee Oswald defense trial could possibly have exposed so much corruption and abuse of power in our institutional power structure on every level of government it might have shaken our entire society to it's total trust losing core.

I must read this book.

There has been a trial for Lee Harvey Oswald. It's been taking place for 60 years now.

The courtroom has been the never-ending righteous truth driven conglomeration of books, films, articles, conferences, radio and TV interviews, public discussion internet sites such as this one, etc. etc.

The final verdict of guilt and guilty parties is in imo.