Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 9:08 am by greg parker

» The Bold and the Italics
Today at 9:06 am by greg parker

» Shirley Temple is Prayer Man According to Duncan McRae
Today at 4:12 am by steely dan

» The Eighth Naval District
Yesterday at 11:33 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2
Yesterday at 8:08 pm by barto

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1
Yesterday at 11:58 am by barto

» JFK Assassination
Yesterday at 7:15 am by jack ferguson

» Lifton on his "new evidence"
Yesterday at 4:47 am by steely dan

» friends student exchange programs
Wed 07 Dec 2016, 12:01 pm by greg parker

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Page 3 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by James DiEugenio on Sat 14 Sep 2013, 12:31 pm

What got to me the most was when Ray Carroll self destructed.

As I said, it was like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai.

First he liked it.  But then when he saw where you were headed with it, he began to back off.  Because, of course, it would have been completely exculpatory of Oswald.  Which is something he does not like a lot.

Then, when he saw you were going to stay on topic and not be distracted by his hijinks, he did something that really was like Guinness following the explosives wires once the tide has gone down.  He started a whole new thread on a subject that is not even related to the JFK case.

That has to be one of the most bizarre things since Tom Purvis. Or Bevilaqua.  Maybe even worse.  Because this one just had nothing at all to do with the JFK assassination whatsoever.

I mean, why did they let him do that and continue to do it?  Even when people complained.  Its obvious what he was trying to do: lower the rating on your thread.  And when no one came on, he started posting himself.

I mean anyone who does not see who this guy is now is blind or a CIA agent.

BTW, is Gary Mack also gone?    PM is Lovelady?  How?

James DiEugenio

Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Albert Rossi on Sat 14 Sep 2013, 12:59 pm

Sean, I'm a newcomer to JFK forums (though not entirely to the case), but I feel I must second what everyone else is saying about your painstaking and brilliant reevaluation of LHO's movements, and to repeat what has also been said about the need for you to publish your work.  I must also say you certainly have the patience of Job. 

I am filled with wonderment by you ... but also by Greg, Lee, Richard, Hasan, the legal expert who goes by "wolf of the bees" (I do so like that alias), and all the others on this forum.  Thank you.  You have my continuous attention.

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:59 am

Sean,

Face it. You're a celebrity. With big demands on your time. Have you considered getting a manager, to help book your appearances? Cool 

It's nice to see you posting here. I'll be putting up a post on the Prayer Man thread within the hour, and hopefully will get your response. That would be sensational. cat 


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Sun 15 Sep 2013, 11:26 am

Sean, you've put the effort in, methodically followed your hunches and leads and presented and developed your research in real time, taking the high road in response to baiting and other disruption. You set a great example as a researcher and as a presenter.

Enjoy all the positive feedback because I anticipate things will get worse for you in this work before they get better, and it may even be all downhill from here. There is no agreement of the weight of proof in the backyard photos despite comparatively good images of Oswald's face, even after nearly 50 years.

There are so many "little" people who would have had to remained silent about these circumstances through the decades. I am not in opposition to cover ups or alterations because too many people would have to have been involved, cooperated, and stayed silent.

I can accept law enforcement officials and Roy Truly to fall in line, DC establishment people, the WC principals and senior staff, executive branch officials, (silent Bill Moyers, for example) and military and intelligence officers. I fully accept that no one of the Joint Chiefs or officers on their staffs could be complicit or in the know, would later disclose anything deviating from the line.

I just think it too farfetched that Oswald in the doorway at the critical time would be still waiting to be discoverable fact. So far I see no consideration of the idea that the TSBD doorway was not behind a fence or on a corporate campuse removed from the public walk and roadway. The area in front of the TSBD on that day at that time under those circumstances has to be regarded as a public space akin to the top of the pedestal allegedly occupied by Zapruder and his assistant.

I am open to what you are presenting, especially the analysis tending to impeach what had been officially presented related to the immediate search for a suspect by Marion Baker and all who rushed in after him, with the cooperation of the TSBD management and employees we have statements from. Somebody should play devil's advocate and I do not see anyone else still sitting on the fence.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Ray Mitcham on Sun 15 Sep 2013, 9:46 pm

Stan Dane wrote:Sean Murphy:
 
When I saw where Bill Kelly started the "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" thread at Ed—a forum I had never visited before—I had the privilege of having a front row seat from the very beginning to watch one of the best demonstrations of deductive reasoning, logic and brilliant research I've ever seen in my long life. In retrospect, I would have paid to see this all unfold.
 
My wife, observing me glued to my PC over the recent weeks, commented, "Boy, you're really into that." I replied "I love watching genius in action."
 
I tried to become a member of Ed just to say how much I appreciated the great work you have done, but they weren't taking new members. Then I read your post 346 where you said:

"Greg Parker is aces with me--always has been, always will be. My single favourite JFK researcher."

I figured if he was aces with you, he must be damn good. I quickly found out about Greg Parker and his website and was happy to be able to join his forum here. Not that I have a lot to add—I don't—but if an idea or observation comes to you it's nice to have a good place to express it. Actually, it's a great place.
 
Anyway, I want to join the others in expressing my sincere thanks for the remarkable work you have done to convincingly demonstrate that Prayer Man is Lee Harvey Oswald.
 
Now please write a book!
Well said, Dan. I agree with everything you said about Sean, I think his work has provided a major breakthrough.

I signed up to this site last year but unfortunately in changing p.c.s, I lost track of the site and was recently reminded of it by Lee. (Thanks Lee!) From what I've seen over the last few days, the tone of debate here is much more "If I'm wrong ,please show me" rather than "you dumb M*$@*7%" type of post, on other sites I contribute on. Long may it continue.

Ray Mitcham

Posts : 24
Join date : 2012-07-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Goban Saor on Sun 15 Sep 2013, 9:52 pm

Tom Scully wrote:
I just think it too farfetched that Oswald in the doorway at the critical time would be still waiting to be discoverable fact. So far I see no consideration of the idea that the TSBD doorway was not behind a fence or on a corporate campuse removed from the public walk and roadway. The area in front of the TSBD on that day at that time under those circumstances has to be regarded as a public space akin to the top of the pedestal allegedly occupied by Zapruder and his assistant.

Tom, it’s highly unlikely that Prayer Man was someone other than a TSBD employee.


It’s not credible that a member of the public would choose Prayer Man’s position from which to watch the motorcade given that the view from there was so restricted and there were so many better vantage points available close by.


Moreover, the only conceivable way in which Lovelady could be displaced from his position near the left hand side of the doorway (as shown in the Hughes film still in post 136, page 10, of the EF Prayer Man thread) to a more central position in the doorway a few short seconds later (as shown in the Wiegman film still in post 69, page 5, of the EF Prayer Man thread) by Prayer Man is if Prayer Man has come from within the TSBD behind him.


And there is the further point that whatever tenuous argument can be made for a non-TSBD employee taking up such a poor viewing position as that of the Prayer Man in the first place, I can think of no reason why such a person would move to that position when the presidential limousine was at that moment moving out of sight, if not already so.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Mon 16 Sep 2013, 2:57 am

Goban Saor wrote:
Tom Scully wrote:
I just think it too farfetched that Oswald in the doorway at the critical time would be still waiting to be discoverable fact. So far I see no consideration of the idea that the TSBD doorway was not behind a fence or on a corporate campuse removed from the public walk and roadway. The area in front of the TSBD on that day at that time under those circumstances has to be regarded as a public space akin to the top of the pedestal allegedly occupied by Zapruder and his assistant.

Tom, it’s highly unlikely that Prayer Man was someone other than a TSBD employee.


It’s not credible that a member of the public would choose Prayer Man’s position from which to watch the motorcade given that the view from there was so restricted and there were so many better vantage points available close by.


Moreover, the only conceivable way in which Lovelady could be displaced from his position near the left hand side of the doorway (as shown in the Hughes film still in post 136, page 10, of the EF Prayer Man thread) to a more central position in the doorway a few short seconds later (as shown in the Wiegman film still in post 69, page 5, of the EF Prayer Man thread) by Prayer Man is if Prayer Man has come from within the TSBD behind him.


And there is the further point that whatever tenuous argument can be made for a non-TSBD employee taking up such a poor viewing position as that of the Prayer Man in the first place, I can think of no reason why such a person would move to that position when the presidential limousine was at that moment moving out of sight, if not already so.
I agree. And a non TSBD person would have had to make their way through a group of TSBD employees, up the steps at some time prior to the motorcades appearance, without being noticed. Were a TSBD employee to slip out to the top steps at the time of the motorcade's passing, it is entirely credible that no one would notice him behind them, their attention being fixed on the motorcade. Since we can eliminate all other TSBD employees, the PM must be Oswald. If we start with this assumption, then it remains to explain Baker's and Truly's various accounts. The substance of their accounts is the same if it were to have taken place in the doorway. All that was needed to avoid giving Oswald an air tight alibi, was to change the floor, to make it more credible that he was the shooter. It is possible that once Fritz heard from Baker that he saw Oswald on the first floor, he convinced him to change the floor, saying that as long as he didn't name the suspect, he wasn't falsely accusing Oswald. After that they had to keep modifying their story until it morphed in to the lunch room encounter.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Mon 16 Sep 2013, 7:49 pm

gordon gray wrote:..... Since we can eliminate all other TSBD employees, the PM must be Oswald. ......
Reading that brought this to mind, I think they are of similar cloth.:


.....It doesn't seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial, ....
It is a big world. The phrase, "to the exclusion of all others," is a gigantic (unreasonable, considering what is known and not assumed) leap to take.

Okay, I get it. There is nothing to discuss.... every other possibility has been ruled out. All witness statements have been deternined to be irrelevant, altered, pressured, or lies. All co-workers were inattentive to Oswald's presence as Baker rushed up the steps, and if not, anyone who did notice Oswald before of after Officer Baker and Roy Truly rushed past him, took their knowledge in silence to the grave. It must be accepted that they all had their reasons to actively participate in framing Oswald for the murder of the President of the United States, and or to forever remain silent. It probably never weighed on any of them that a consequence of their never revealing that they witnessed Oswald standing on the top step was that the actual assassin of President Kennedy was never pursued.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Goban Saor on Mon 16 Sep 2013, 8:49 pm

Tom Scully wrote:
Okay, I get it. There is nothing to discuss.... every other possibility has been ruled out. All witness statements have been deternined to be irrelevant, altered, pressured, or lies. All co-workers were inattentive to Oswald's presence as Baker rushed up the steps, and if not, anyone who did notice Oswald before of after Officer Baker and Roy Truly rushed past him, took their knowledge in silence to the grave. It must be accepted that they all had their reasons to actively participate in framing Oswald for the murder of the President of the United States, and or to forever remain silent. It probably never weighed on any of them that a consequence of their never revealing that they witnessed Oswald standing  on the top step was that the actual assassin of President Kennedy was never pursued.
‘Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.’ (Sherlock Holmes)

We’ve eliminated the possibility that Prayer Man could be a non-TSBD person.

We’ve eliminated the possibility that Prayer Man could be any TSBD person other than Oswald.

Therefore, Prayer Man must be Oswald.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Colin Crow on Mon 16 Sep 2013, 9:36 pm

Hello to all. I am a regular poster at Duncan's "bear pit" but have been a keen follower of this forum for some time. I too am most interested in the findings posted by Sean and congratulate him for his resiliency. I hope I can contribute something to this group.

Regards to all 

Colin

Colin Crow

Posts : 214
Join date : 2013-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:13 am

Tom Scully wrote:
gordon gray wrote:..... Since we can eliminate all other TSBD employees, the PM must be Oswald. ......
Reading that brought this to mind, I think they are of similar cloth.:


.....It doesn't seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial, ....
It is a big world. The phrase, "to the exclusion of all others," is a gigantic (unreasonable, considering what is known and not assumed) leap to take.

Okay, I get it. There is nothing to discuss.... every other possibility has been ruled out. All witness statements have been deternined to be irrelevant, altered, pressured, or lies. All co-workers were inattentive to Oswald's presence as Baker rushed up the steps, and if not, anyone who did notice Oswald before of after Officer Baker and Roy Truly rushed past him, took their knowledge in silence to the grave. It must be accepted that they all had their reasons to actively participate in framing Oswald for the murder of the President of the United States, and or to forever remain silent. It probably never weighed on any of them that a consequence of their never revealing that they witnessed Oswald standing  on the top step was that the actual assassin of President Kennedy was never pursued.
I think you mistake my point. I am not stating categorically that Oswald was PM, merely that the evidence that it is he, is compelling.  If we accept that PM is not a woman and he is a TSBD employee, then it is almost  certainly Oswald. It could be a stranger who took up that position to view the motorcade. But he is in a poor position to do that, and as everyone else in the area around the front entrance is a TSBD employee, it seems odd that no one recalled him. On the other hand if they had just witnessed the president being shot and the ensuing chaos, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that fellow employees would fail to notice Oswald, someone they had very little interaction with, standing behind them. Further if PM is Oswald then Baker's affidavit is false, he couldn't have encountered him on the 3rd/4th floor.

I




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:30 am

I hate quoting this utter clown but he's finally come out the woodwork to put his imbecilic spin on matters:

David Von Pein said:

"As for "Prayer Man" -- I haven't the slightest idea who that person is. But one person I know it is NOT is Lee Harvey Oswald. There's no possibility that Oswald was on the Depository steps at 12:30. If he had been outside the building on those steps, he would have said he was there when questioned by the police (and the press)...."


Complete baloney.  Sean nailed this days ago and it something that I have been banging the drum about for years.  Three people were arrested over the weekend of 11/22.  Lee Harvey Oswald, Buell Wesley Frazier and Joe Molina.  Two of these people would ultimately be released without charge but not before they were threatened with charges in a conspiracy to murder the President.


Who the hell knows how this three way was used against each of them while they were surrounded by Dallas' finest, the FBI and the Secret Service.  "This person said you knew about it."  "This person said you brought your rifle into work this morning."  "This person said you were the mastermind."  "This person said you paid them money." "This person said you're a communist and lived in Russia."


If the arrests of Molina and Frazier were part of the chess game in marginalising what Oswald knew and how they really questioned him then I can begin to understand his "patsy" comment in the hallway a little better.  


Let's not forget that Oswald, according to the man himself during his midnight press conference, hadn't been spoken to about the assassination of the President until a reporter in the hallway asked him a question about it.


Now, do we really believe that Fritz and Co. had Oswald in custody for more than TEN hours and did not ask him anything about the murder of JFK UNLESS they had a ulterior motive to not ask him any questions about the murder of the president?  For all intents and purposes the only questions they asked him over the first day were about the murder of J.D. Tippit AND SO how could the DA in all conscience arraign Oswald for the murder of JFK less than an hour later when they hadn't asked him one question about it?

And, let's not forget there are serious question marks over the arraignment itself.

This is why he was denied a lawyer, not because he would spill the beans because he had no beans to spill, but because the lawyer would have been onto how the DPD and FBI were setting the suspect up by the way in which they controlled the information they had and the way they were more than likely using Frazier and Molina against him.


Oswald didn't shout he was outside because he had no cause to.  For all we know he probably thought he was marked as a co-conspirator by authorities and not the actual murderer the same way Frazier and Molina were told they could be charged as co-conspirators.


Oswald, Frazier and Molina were simply used against each other.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:41 am

Colin Crow wrote:Hello to all. I am a regular poster at Duncan's "bear pit" but have been a keen follower of this forum for some time. I too am most interested in the findings posted by Sean and congratulate him for his resiliency. I hope I can contribute something to this group.

Regards to all 

Colin
Hi Colin,

Good to see you finally here.  I know you have lots to contribute.

Lee

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by beowulf on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 3:32 am

Let's not forget that Oswald, according to the man himself during his midnight press conference, hadn't been spoken to about the assassination of the President until a reporter in the hallway asked him a question about it.

Fritz and his gang were talking to Oswald about JFK assassination from the first interrogation on the 22nd, I think what what LHO meant was no one had spoken to him about filing charges against him for Kennedy's murder until the reporter's question (and as you point out, formal charges weren't filed until an hour later).

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 3:48 am

beowulf wrote:Let's not forget that Oswald, according to the man himself during his midnight press conference, hadn't been spoken to about the assassination of the President until a reporter in the hallway asked him a question about it.

Fritz and his gang were talking to Oswald about JFK assassination from the first interrogation on the 22nd, I think what what LHO meant was no one had spoken to him about filing charges against him for Kennedy's murder until the reporter's question (and as you point out, formal charges weren't filed until an hour later).
I take your point Beowulf.

Can I ask about the legal aspect of arraigning a suspect who has had no access to a lawyer in 1963?  He was allegedly charged with two murders within the space of five hours, although as I mentioned in my post there are question marks over when exactly or even if he was arraigned for the murder of JFK, but had not spoken to a soul or had anybody present during his questioning over three days.

If, and I know if was never going to happen, but let's say if this went to trial in 1964 how would his denial of counsel have been perceived by the court?

Also, why would the reporters know Oswald had been charged with the assassination well over an hour before Oswald was arraigned?


Last edited by Lee Farley on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 6:05 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by beowulf on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 5:14 am

The Supreme Court has broadened the legal rights of suspects since then (the famous Miranda warning only dates from 1966), so its difficult to say what rules they were breaking. Two points:

1. The police did offer to get him a lawyer, in fact, Oswald refused to see members of the Dallas bar who came down to the police station. First thing they would do is tell him (and his wife) to stop talking to the cops. Oswald still could have gotten Abt or any other lawyer to come in permanently, but  for someone under arrest even a temporary lawyer beats no lawyer. Once he refused these offers of legal assistance, the cops figured (and a judge might agree) its on him if he keeps talking.

2. Holmes's belief that Oswald would never confess is relevant because the police denying right to counsel (which is debatable even happened, see above) is in of itself never grounds to dismiss case. It simply means whatever defendant confessed to may not be used against him in trial. If suspect never incriminates himself, at trial,  it wouldn't really matter.

The press knew he was going to be charged because either the police or DA's office told them. Wouldn't matter if it was by off the record leak  or by live televised press conference, Oswald was cut off from watching or reading the news.

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Colin Crow on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:31 pm

Lee Farley wrote:
Colin Crow wrote:Hello to all. I am a regular poster at Duncan's "bear pit" but have been a keen follower of this forum for some time. I too am most interested in the findings posted by Sean and congratulate him for his resiliency. I hope I can contribute something to this group.

Regards to all 

Colin
Hi Colin,

Good to see you finally here.  I know you have lots to contribute.

Lee
Many thanks Lee. I must admit the noise to signal ratio in Duncan's forum is becoming tiresome.

I think it was you who posted the Eisenberg memo regarding suspicions of Jack Dougherty. Can you tell how you came across it? Is the original available online?

Colin Crow

Posts : 214
Join date : 2013-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Stan Dane on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:49 pm

Lee Farley wrote:I hate quoting this utter clown but he's finally come out the woodwork to put his imbecilic spin on matters:

David Von Pein said:

"As for "Prayer Man" -- I haven't the slightest idea who that person is. But one person I know it is NOT is Lee Harvey Oswald. There's no possibility that Oswald was on the Depository steps at 12:30. If he had been outside the building on those steps, he would have said he was there when questioned by the police (and the press)...."
To complete this fun exchange:
 
David Von Pein
 
"As for 'Prayer Man' -- I haven't the slightest idea who that person is. But one person I know it is NOT is Lee Harvey Oswald. There's no possibility that Oswald was on the Depository steps at 12:30. If he had been outside the building on those steps, he would have said he was there when questioned by the police (and the press)...."
 
Sean Murphy
 
"Okay, David. So it's not Frazier. And you rule out its being Oswald. Can you offer us a single name, coupled with supporting evidence, as to who it might possibly be? Even one candidate? Or are you all out of ideas like the rest of the Lone Nut brotherhood?"
 
David Von Pein
 
"It could be anybody, Sean…."
 
David says he doesn't have the slightest idea who PM is, but he knows it's NOT LHO! After Sean backs his hiney into a corner, he bleats that it could be...anybody.

I'll take that as a small "win" for today.
 
:: Hoisting a glass of Jameson to Sean Murphy ::
 
Keep up

the great work
Sean

And also
Greg

and Lee

and all

the rest
of you

fine blokes

here
and

there

(Sorry...I couldn't resist.)

Stan Dane

Posts : 2331
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 5:28 pm

beowulf wrote:The Supreme Court has broadened the legal rights of suspects since then (the famous Miranda warning only dates from 1966), so its difficult to say what rules they were breaking. Two points:

1. The police did offer to get him a lawyer, in fact, Oswald refused to see members of the Dallas bar who came down to the police station.

Regarding point 1. above Beowulf, I know this is the part of the official story but from memory I'm sure there was something far more dodgy going on when Dallas Bar representatives turned up at City Hall.

It has been a while since I've studied this part of the case and I see that Greg has bumped one of his older posts where he went through this so I'll get back up to speed.

Thanks for your insights on the other things.  Looks like I boxed myself in concerning portions of Oswald's midnight press conference.  Great to have people around me here to widen my perspective.  We can all very easily become too narrowly focused when looking at the evidence.

I would reiterate though that we do not know what went on behind closed doors and a reliance upon the interrogation notes as written should come with caveat emptor attached.  As Sean has pointed out Fritz's notes are very suspect.


Last edited by Lee Farley on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by greg parker on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 5:40 pm

Nichols (Dallas Bar) did see Oswald.

Nichols was like every other lawyer in Dallas: in the thrall of Wade and preferring to protect big business than innocent victims and other low-life scum. 

Then there was the DCLU who didn't see Oswald because they thought he was lying and the cops were always up front and honest with them.

The DCLU and dallas Bar were complicit in ensuring Oswald was denied his rights - the DCLU by being complicit in the phony arraignment.

I did the bump because of the mention of the arraignments and hoped to get comments from members.


Last edited by greg parker on Wed 18 Sep 2013, 9:43 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3450
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Guest on Tue 17 Sep 2013, 6:03 pm

Tom Scully wrote:
gordon gray wrote:..... Since we can eliminate all other TSBD employees, the PM must be Oswald. ......
Reading that brought this to mind, I think they are of similar cloth.:


.....It doesn't seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial, ....
It is a big world. The phrase, "to the exclusion of all others," is a gigantic (unreasonable, considering what is known and not assumed) leap to take.

Okay, I get it. There is nothing to discuss.... every other possibility has been ruled out. All witness statements have been deternined to be irrelevant, altered, pressured, or lies. All co-workers were inattentive to Oswald's presence as Baker rushed up the steps, and if not, anyone who did notice Oswald before of after Officer Baker and Roy Truly rushed past him, took their knowledge in silence to the grave. It must be accepted that they all had their reasons to actively participate in framing Oswald for the murder of the President of the United States, and or to forever remain silent. It probably never weighed on any of them that a consequence of their never revealing that they witnessed Oswald standing  on the top step was that the actual assassin of President Kennedy was never pursued.
Tom,

Can you please add a bit more clarity to your post?

I've read it a number of times and seem to be missing your point.

Regards

Lee

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by James DiEugenio on Wed 18 Sep 2013, 10:47 am

I think he is trying to say:  Why did no one say Oswald was on the front steps?

James DiEugenio

Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Colin Crow on Wed 18 Sep 2013, 11:14 am

Why did no one report seeing PM (Oswald?) on the front steps of the TSBD.

1. Whether he was noticed is dependant on how long he was there to be noticed. From the PM position it could be surmised that he recently took up the position, coming through the glass door just as the motorcade was approaching. The eastern side of the steps was packed and the western corner at the top vacant. It was a free spot the would allow some view ableit limited. So one factor might be that he only took up position a few seconds before the shooting. There is evidence from Baker's testimony that at least one person had already moved into the lobby as he ran up the steps. This could have been PM and therefore the time for PM "outside" may have been a minute or less.

2. He interacted with no one. Many on the steps remember conversations with others, especially just after the shots. See above. If PM came out late and entered before Baker reached the lobby it is doubtful he said anything to anyone.

3. He was not noticed because the position he took up on the stairs was not in the immediate line of sight of those who were predominately focussed on the motorcade. Many on the lower steps may have had line of sight issues given the height of the steps and others higher up blocking their view.

4. The assumption that those on the stairs would notice someone is proven false by the fact that Frazier did not see Truly or Baker run up the stairs. Molina did not see Baker. Shelley and Lovelady did see Baker and Truly but had had already moved from the steps towards the SW corner of the TSBD.

Colin Crow

Posts : 214
Join date : 2013-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by beowulf on Wed 18 Sep 2013, 12:04 pm

The assumption that those on the stairs would notice someone is proven false by the fact that Frazier did not see Truly or Baker run up the stairs. Molina did not see Baker. Shelley and Lovelady did see Baker and Truly but had had already moved from the steps towards the SW corner of the TSBD.

Frazier, Molina and Shelley were reportedly threatened with prosecution. Lovelady had been court martialed out of the service and still had some charges over his head. I wouldn't be surprised if Truly was threatened with prosecution (Fritz surely said something like, "Oswald said you had a rifle in your office 2 days ago").

If the cops did coach them on what to say (to be sure, any of them could be testifying honestly) who can blame them for cooperating? When the cops threaten you with prison or the electric chair but say you can avoid prosecution (even if you're ultimately acquitted, who has "murder trial" on their bucket list?) so long as you keep your mouth shut, you're some kind of idiot not to keep your mouth shut. Especially when the guy you're helping to railroad is already dead.

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by greg parker on Wed 18 Sep 2013, 1:36 pm

beofwulf wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Truly was threatened with prosecution
Truly needed no coaxing, coaching, threats or bribes.

He was the "inside man".

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3450
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ed forum and Deep Politics forum

Post by Sponsored content Today at 12:55 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum