Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mock trial for LHO: NOT GUILTY
148 views
Skip to first unread message
burgundy
Jun 21, 2013, 11:47:16 PM6/21/13
to
David Von Pein
Jun 22, 2013, 1:30:00 PM6/22/13
to
Wrong. The verdict was most certainly NOT "Not Guilty". Just look at this comical farce (archived in the addendums at my site below). Hilarious....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/oswald-mock-trial-june-21-2013.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/oswald-mock-trial-june-21-2013.html
Anthony Marsh
Jun 22, 2013, 1:41:17 PM6/22/13
to
On 6/21/2013 11:47 PM, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>
>
Well, there you go folks. The WC defenders will have to eat crow. They
wanted a trial and said ANY jury would find Oswald guilty. Not so fast.
There's a silly little thing called REASONABLE DOUBT. Most WC defenders
have never heard of it. Even though 70% of the public thinks that it was
a conspiracy, the WC defenders delude themselves by saying 100% of them
believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy.
> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>
>
Well, there you go folks. The WC defenders will have to eat crow. They
wanted a trial and said ANY jury would find Oswald guilty. Not so fast.
There's a silly little thing called REASONABLE DOUBT. Most WC defenders
have never heard of it. Even though 70% of the public thinks that it was
a conspiracy, the WC defenders delude themselves by saying 100% of them
believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy.
claviger
Jun 22, 2013, 1:44:07 PM6/22/13
to
burgandy,
Thank you for being a typical CT. You ignore the fact 9 out of 12 voted guilty, but ignoring facts is what being a CT is all about. Actually the 9-3 vote is a relative victory for LNs since national polls consistently report 75-80% of the public believes a conspiracy was involved. This indicates a majority polled must believe LHO took his package of curtain rods to work but somebody stole them, which made him so mad he went home, got a pistol, shot a policemen, then went to a movie to cool off and think about where to get more curtain rods cheap. For a CT this somehow all makes sense and rejoice in the verdict, as if it makes the mountain of evidence disappear and exonerates LHO. Yes and O.J. was not guilty either.
Somewhere LHO is either laughing or fuming. He's laughing at how gullible CTs are, but furious they think he lacked the cojones to do this ambush. Therefore LHO, the scrawny little klutz is given a rating of PPP by this jury. He's nothing more than a Poor Pathetic Patsy, definitely not the menacing macho US version of Che he longed to be.
So the mock trial came to the insulting verdict LHO was too much of a weeny to do any harm. What a putdown. Did the 3 geniuses on the jury explain how the "insurance shot" from the GK missed the entire Limousine? Surely they want to be interviewed now that they are celebrity jurors. As Forrest Gump used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Thank you for being a typical CT. You ignore the fact 9 out of 12 voted guilty, but ignoring facts is what being a CT is all about. Actually the 9-3 vote is a relative victory for LNs since national polls consistently report 75-80% of the public believes a conspiracy was involved. This indicates a majority polled must believe LHO took his package of curtain rods to work but somebody stole them, which made him so mad he went home, got a pistol, shot a policemen, then went to a movie to cool off and think about where to get more curtain rods cheap. For a CT this somehow all makes sense and rejoice in the verdict, as if it makes the mountain of evidence disappear and exonerates LHO. Yes and O.J. was not guilty either.
Somewhere LHO is either laughing or fuming. He's laughing at how gullible CTs are, but furious they think he lacked the cojones to do this ambush. Therefore LHO, the scrawny little klutz is given a rating of PPP by this jury. He's nothing more than a Poor Pathetic Patsy, definitely not the menacing macho US version of Che he longed to be.
So the mock trial came to the insulting verdict LHO was too much of a weeny to do any harm. What a putdown. Did the 3 geniuses on the jury explain how the "insurance shot" from the GK missed the entire Limousine? Surely they want to be interviewed now that they are celebrity jurors. As Forrest Gump used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
John Fiorentino
Jun 22, 2013, 9:02:33 PM6/22/13
to
David said:
"Now, why on Earth Gary Mack and Bob McClelland were asked to serve on
that jury is a mystery. There was virtually no chance of getting anything
but a hung jury with those two men sitting in the jury box. Given their
past history and beliefs concerning the Kennedy murder case, Mack's going
to vote the defendant guilty and McClelland is going vote not guilty. So
the jury's hung right there."
I say...................
I agree neither of these two men should have been a juror, but if I had to
bet "Gary Mack" voted "not guilty."
Gary Mack, (real name - Larry Dunkel) has gone through quite a
metamorphosis over the years.
Yes, "Mack" is my favorite *Mustela.*
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f95ddddb-800f-4cdc...@googlegroups.com...
"Now, why on Earth Gary Mack and Bob McClelland were asked to serve on
that jury is a mystery. There was virtually no chance of getting anything
but a hung jury with those two men sitting in the jury box. Given their
past history and beliefs concerning the Kennedy murder case, Mack's going
to vote the defendant guilty and McClelland is going vote not guilty. So
the jury's hung right there."
I say...................
I agree neither of these two men should have been a juror, but if I had to
bet "Gary Mack" voted "not guilty."
Gary Mack, (real name - Larry Dunkel) has gone through quite a
metamorphosis over the years.
Yes, "Mack" is my favorite *Mustela.*
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f95ddddb-800f-4cdc...@googlegroups.com...
Bud
Jun 22, 2013, 9:05:22 PM6/22/13
to
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/21/2013 11:47 PM, burgundy wrote:
>
> > http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well, there you go folks.
Well, here it comes folks, Tony is going to spin, distort and
> On 6/21/2013 11:47 PM, burgundy wrote:
>
> > http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well, there you go folks.
misrepresent information.
> The WC defenders will have to eat crow. They
>
> wanted a trial
Oswald was killed. It is the conspiracy hobbyists that struggle with that
concept.
>and said ANY jury would find Oswald guilty.
found guilty by a Dallas jury. It would have been a simple case of either
believing Oswald`s desperate defense or the cops he attacked when he was
apprehended. Anyone that has a clue should know they weren`t going to side
with this commie weirdo.
> Not so fast.
>
> There's a silly little thing called REASONABLE DOUBT.
don`t understand. Is it really reasonable to believe that what is in
evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent?
> Most WC defenders
>
> have never heard of it.
as the favorite catch phrase conspiracy types try to pass off as an
argument.
> Even though 70% of the public thinks that it was
>
> a conspiracy,
what they know about this event from those flawed polls.
> the WC defenders delude themselves by saying 100% of them
>
> believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy.
Bud
Jun 22, 2013, 9:05:49 PM6/22/13
to
On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:47:16 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
How does it help you that when people are sat down and delivered the
facts of this case that three quarters of them conclude Oswald killed
Kennedy?
> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
How does it help you that when people are sat down and delivered the
facts of this case that three quarters of them conclude Oswald killed
Kennedy?
burgundy
Jun 23, 2013, 4:29:04 PM6/23/13
to
On Friday, June 21, 2013 10:47:16 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
"Stupid is ads stupid does." "Burgandy" is spelled "Burgundy."
> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
"Stupid is ads stupid does." "Burgandy" is spelled "Burgundy."
David Von Pein
Jun 23, 2013, 4:32:24 PM6/23/13
to
Subject: Mock LHO Trial
Date: 6/22/2013 4:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Dave, I wish you would do research first before coming to a conclusion.
At the beginning (which you missed), the presiding judge instructed all of us to disregard everything we may have learned or heard about the assassination and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense....which is what real trials do.
Based on that, I voted Not Guilty. The prosecution showed a very weak case and the defense put up enough reasonable doubt that the decision was easy. It didn't matter that history says every major investigation concluded Oswald killed JFK, the evidence presented to us didn't convince me Oswald was in that window with a rifle.
Gary
======================
[End E-Mail from Gary Mack.]
======================
Gee, when the lawyers prosecuting Oswald can't even get Gary Mack to vote Guilty, it must have been a really lousy job of prosecuting indeed.
My apologies to Gary Mack for jumping the gun. But knowing what Gary's opinion is concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder case, it just never occurred to me for even half a second that Mr. Mack would have been one of the three people who voted Not Guilty at the mock trial. I'm very surprised.
If I had been in Gary's place on that jury, I doubt very much that I would have been able to vote Oswald "Not Guilty" (unless perhaps the prosecutor didn't show up at all). But, then too, with the strong opinion that I hold about Oswald killing President Kennedy, I would have asked to be removed from the jury before the first witness ever opened his mouth.
Date: 6/22/2013 4:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Dave, I wish you would do research first before coming to a conclusion.
At the beginning (which you missed), the presiding judge instructed all of us to disregard everything we may have learned or heard about the assassination and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense....which is what real trials do.
Based on that, I voted Not Guilty. The prosecution showed a very weak case and the defense put up enough reasonable doubt that the decision was easy. It didn't matter that history says every major investigation concluded Oswald killed JFK, the evidence presented to us didn't convince me Oswald was in that window with a rifle.
Gary
======================
[End E-Mail from Gary Mack.]
======================
Gee, when the lawyers prosecuting Oswald can't even get Gary Mack to vote Guilty, it must have been a really lousy job of prosecuting indeed.
My apologies to Gary Mack for jumping the gun. But knowing what Gary's opinion is concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder case, it just never occurred to me for even half a second that Mr. Mack would have been one of the three people who voted Not Guilty at the mock trial. I'm very surprised.
If I had been in Gary's place on that jury, I doubt very much that I would have been able to vote Oswald "Not Guilty" (unless perhaps the prosecutor didn't show up at all). But, then too, with the strong opinion that I hold about Oswald killing President Kennedy, I would have asked to be removed from the jury before the first witness ever opened his mouth.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 23, 2013, 4:33:15 PM6/23/13
to
On 6/22/2013 1:44 PM, claviger wrote:
> burgandy,
>
> Thank you for being a typical CT. You ignore the fact 9 out of 12 voted guilty, but ignoring facts is what being a CT is all about. Actually the 9-3 vote is a relative victory for LNs since national polls consistently report 75-80% of the public believes a conspiracy was involved. This indicates a majority polled must believe LHO took his package of curtain rods to work but somebody stole them, which made him so mad he went home, got a pistol, shot a policemen, then went to a movie to cool off and think about where to get more curtain rods cheap. For a CT this somehow all makes sense and rejoice in the verdict, as if it makes the mountain of evidence disappear and exonerates LHO. Yes and O.J. was not guilty either.
>
So you're another WC dedender who doesn't know what reasonable doubt means.
> burgandy,
>
> Thank you for being a typical CT. You ignore the fact 9 out of 12 voted guilty, but ignoring facts is what being a CT is all about. Actually the 9-3 vote is a relative victory for LNs since national polls consistently report 75-80% of the public believes a conspiracy was involved. This indicates a majority polled must believe LHO took his package of curtain rods to work but somebody stole them, which made him so mad he went home, got a pistol, shot a policemen, then went to a movie to cool off and think about where to get more curtain rods cheap. For a CT this somehow all makes sense and rejoice in the verdict, as if it makes the mountain of evidence disappear and exonerates LHO. Yes and O.J. was not guilty either.
>
Just admit that you lost and move on.
> Somewhere LHO is either laughing or fuming. He's laughing at how gullible CTs are, but furious they think he lacked the cojones to do this ambush. Therefore LHO, the scrawny little klutz is given a rating of PPP by this jury. He's nothing more than a Poor Pathetic Patsy, definitely not the menacing macho US version of Che he longed to be.
>
> So the mock trial came to the insulting verdict LHO was too much of a weeny to do any harm. What a putdown. Did the 3 geniuses on the jury explain how the "insurance shot" from the GK missed the entire Limousine? Surely they want to be interviewed now that they are celebrity jurors. As Forrest Gump used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Jun 23, 2013, 4:34:16 PM6/23/13
to
On 6/22/2013 1:30 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Wrong. The verdict was most certainly NOT "Not Guilty". Just look at this comical farce (archived in the addendums at my site below). Hilarious....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/oswald-mock-trial-june-21-2013.html
>
So some WC defender had to tell the "judge" that a hung jury does not
> Wrong. The verdict was most certainly NOT "Not Guilty". Just look at this comical farce (archived in the addendums at my site below). Hilarious....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/oswald-mock-trial-june-21-2013.html
>
equal Not Guilty?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 23, 2013, 4:34:22 PM6/23/13
to
On 6/22/2013 9:05 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/21/2013 11:47 PM, burgundy wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, there you go folks.
>
> Well, here it comes folks, Tony is going to spin, distort and
> misrepresent information.
>
>> The WC defenders will have to eat crow. They
>>
>> wanted a trial
>
> Actually it has been well know by LNers that no trial was possible after
> Oswald was killed. It is the conspiracy hobbyists that struggle with that
> concept.
>
Wow, did you learn that in law school? We are SOOO impressed.
> On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/21/2013 11:47 PM, burgundy wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, there you go folks.
>
> Well, here it comes folks, Tony is going to spin, distort and
> misrepresent information.
>
>> The WC defenders will have to eat crow. They
>>
>> wanted a trial
>
> Actually it has been well know by LNers that no trial was possible after
> Oswald was killed. It is the conspiracy hobbyists that struggle with that
> concept.
>
>> and said ANY jury would find Oswald guilty.
>
> I see no doubt that had Oswald not been killed he would have been easily
> found guilty by a Dallas jury. It would have been a simple case of either
> believing Oswald`s desperate defense or the cops he attacked when he was
> apprehended. Anyone that has a clue should know they weren`t going to side
> with this commie weirdo.
>
because he had been murdered and they felt sympathy for him?
>> Not so fast.
>>
>> There's a silly little thing called REASONABLE DOUBT.
>
> Yes there is, but that is another concept that the conspiracy hobbyists
> don`t understand. Is it really reasonable to believe that what is in
> evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent?
>
>> Most WC defenders
>>
>> have never heard of it.
>
> We`ve heard it incessantly from the hobbyists. Second only to "cui bono"
> as the favorite catch phrase conspiracy types try to pass off as an
> argument.
>
>> Even though 70% of the public thinks that it was
>>
>> a conspiracy,
>
> You`ll never be able to tell what the public thinks about this event or
> what they know about this event from those flawed polls.
>
these flawed juries.
John Fiorentino
Jun 23, 2013, 4:38:39 PM6/23/13
to
Bud:
I'm about as "lone-nut" as you can get, and have been for years.
But, I was also involved in the law for many years, and I can tell you that
the case against Oswald (provided he had a good defense attorney) would have
been far from a cinch.
John F.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:6739f8c4-ee5c-4f5f...@googlegroups.com...
I'm about as "lone-nut" as you can get, and have been for years.
But, I was also involved in the law for many years, and I can tell you that
the case against Oswald (provided he had a good defense attorney) would have
been far from a cinch.
John F.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:6739f8c4-ee5c-4f5f...@googlegroups.com...
Bud
Jun 24, 2013, 12:48:48 AM6/24/13
to
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:38:39 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Bud:
>
>
>
> I'm about as "lone-nut" as you can get, and have been for years.
>
>
>
> But, I was also involved in the law for many years, and I can tell you that
>
> the case against Oswald (provided he had a good defense attorney) would have
>
> been far from a cinch.
Yah, I know you keep saying that. You just don`t have any interest in
> Bud:
>
>
>
> I'm about as "lone-nut" as you can get, and have been for years.
>
>
>
> But, I was also involved in the law for many years, and I can tell you that
>
> the case against Oswald (provided he had a good defense attorney) would have
>
> been far from a cinch.
supporting it.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 12:53:00 AM6/24/13
to
rape case involving a black man accused of raping a white woman. If you
watched anything about the Zimmerman case you can see why lawyers want to
challenge potential jurors.
John Fiorentino
Jun 24, 2013, 12:53:11 AM6/24/13
to
Oh, did I hit it on the head or what!!!!
Congrats................Mr. "Mack"
news:72ae0460-d3a2-4e96...@googlegroups.com...
Congrats................Mr. "Mack"
news:72ae0460-d3a2-4e96...@googlegroups.com...
Bud
Jun 24, 2013, 12:55:01 AM6/24/13
to
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:34:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/22/2013 9:05 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 6/21/2013 11:47 PM, burgundy wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Well, there you go folks.
>
> >
>
> > Well, here it comes folks, Tony is going to spin, distort and
>
> > misrepresent information.
>
> >
>
> >> The WC defenders will have to eat crow. They
>
> >>
>
> >> wanted a trial
>
> >
>
> > Actually it has been well know by LNers that no trial was possible after
>
> > Oswald was killed. It is the conspiracy hobbyists that struggle with that
>
> > concept.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Wow, did you learn that in law school?
Common knowledge. Pretty much unknown in conspiracy hobbyist circles.
> On 6/22/2013 9:05 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 6/21/2013 11:47 PM, burgundy wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Well, there you go folks.
>
> >
>
> > Well, here it comes folks, Tony is going to spin, distort and
>
> > misrepresent information.
>
> >
>
> >> The WC defenders will have to eat crow. They
>
> >>
>
> >> wanted a trial
>
> >
>
> > Actually it has been well know by LNers that no trial was possible after
>
> > Oswald was killed. It is the conspiracy hobbyists that struggle with that
>
> > concept.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Wow, did you learn that in law school?
> We are SOOO impressed.
>
>
>
> >> and said ANY jury would find Oswald guilty.
>
> >
>
> > I see no doubt that had Oswald not been killed he would have been easily
>
> > found guilty by a Dallas jury. It would have been a simple case of either
>
> > believing Oswald`s desperate defense or the cops he attacked when he was
>
> > apprehended. Anyone that has a clue should know they weren`t going to side
>
> > with this commie weirdo.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Oh, I see.
> So the only reason this jury did not find him guilty was
>
> because he had been murdered and they felt sympathy for him?
> >> Not so fast.
>
> >>
>
> >> There's a silly little thing called REASONABLE DOUBT.
>
> >
>
> > Yes there is, but that is another concept that the conspiracy hobbyists
>
> > don`t understand. Is it really reasonable to believe that what is in
>
> > evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent?
>
> >
>
>
>
> What is in evidence?
> It creates reasonable doubt.
Then explain how all the indications of Oswald`s guilt can exist and him
be innocent.
> >> Most WC defenders
>
> >>
>
> >> have never heard of it.
>
> >
>
> > We`ve heard it incessantly from the hobbyists. Second only to "cui bono"
>
> > as the favorite catch phrase conspiracy types try to pass off as an
>
> > argument.
>
> >
>
> >> Even though 70% of the public thinks that it was
>
> >>
>
> >> a conspiracy,
>
> >
>
> > You`ll never be able to tell what the public thinks about this event or
>
> > what they know about this event from those flawed polls.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ok, blame the polls.
> You'll never be able to tell what the truth is from
>
> these flawed juries.
David Von Pein
Jun 24, 2013, 1:01:26 AM6/24/13
to
TONY MARSH ASKED:
So some WC defender had to tell the "judge" that a hung jury does not
equal Not Guilty?
DVP REPLIES:
I don't know if it was a "WC defender", but yes, the judge (who IS a real
judge in Texas, Martin Hoffman) had to be reminded that "hung jury" does
not mean "Not Guilty". Unbelievable. But a fitting ending to such a
laughable proceeding.
So some WC defender had to tell the "judge" that a hung jury does not
equal Not Guilty?
I don't know if it was a "WC defender", but yes, the judge (who IS a real
judge in Texas, Martin Hoffman) had to be reminded that "hung jury" does
not mean "Not Guilty". Unbelievable. But a fitting ending to such a
laughable proceeding.
Chad Anthony
Jun 24, 2013, 1:05:39 AM6/24/13
to
Sounds like the whole thing was a joke.A hung jury is far from an
acquital.How can anyone take seriously a 2-3 hr mock trial that in reality
would have taken 2-3 weeks.
acquital.How can anyone take seriously a 2-3 hr mock trial that in reality
would have taken 2-3 weeks.
Marcus Hanson
Jun 24, 2013, 2:00:30 AM6/24/13
to
I did not see the trial.
Was there a Jesse Curry character making the claim "We don't have any
proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able
to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
I believe Oswald killed Kennedy.I also believe that if the above statement
had been made at a real trial in 1964,rather than in an interview five
years later,it would been like gold to Oswald's defence.
Was there a Jesse Curry character making the claim "We don't have any
proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able
to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
I believe Oswald killed Kennedy.I also believe that if the above statement
had been made at a real trial in 1964,rather than in an interview five
years later,it would been like gold to Oswald's defence.
David Von Pein
Jun 24, 2013, 10:58:07 AM6/24/13
to
Jesse Curry's silly statement about not being able to put Oswald in the window is wrong--and always has been wrong. Curry decided to throw Howard Brennan under the bus because he became a conspiracy advocate in the late 1960s to sell a book. And Curry also evidently decided to toss aside ALL of the many items of evidence that hang Oswald too -- gun, bullets, shells, prints, paper bag, Oswald's flight, etc.
I'll stick with the statement Curry made to the press on November 23rd ---- "I think this is the man [Oswald] that killed the President." -- J.E. Curry; 11/23/63
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SrQa9U_ApI
I'll stick with the statement Curry made to the press on November 23rd ---- "I think this is the man [Oswald] that killed the President." -- J.E. Curry; 11/23/63
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SrQa9U_ApI
Bud
Jun 24, 2013, 10:58:50 AM6/24/13
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 10:58:58 AM6/24/13
to
a kook. Influenced by the conspiracy believers. And only heard shots
from the grassy knoll because he was so close and heard echoes.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 11:00:27 AM6/24/13
to
What kind of judge was it, a beauty pageant judge?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 11:00:40 AM6/24/13
to
On 6/24/2013 12:53 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Oh, did I hit it on the head or what!!!!
>
> Congrats................Mr. "Mack"
>
> John F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:72ae0460-d3a2-4e96...@googlegroups.com...
> Subject: Mock LHO Trial
> Date: 6/22/2013 4:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> From: Gary Mack
> To: David Von Pein
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Dave, I wish you would do research first before coming to a conclusion.
>
> At the beginning (which you missed), the presiding judge instructed all
> of us to disregard everything we may have learned or heard about the
> assassination and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented
> by the prosecution and defense....which is what real trials do.
>
> Based on that, I voted Not Guilty. The prosecution showed a very weak
> case and the defense put up enough reasonable doubt that the decision
> was easy. It didn't matter that history says every major investigation
> concluded Oswald killed JFK, the evidence presented to us didn't
> convince me Oswald was in that window with a rifle.
>
> Gary
>
What would you expect when they were only given 2 hours to present their
> Oh, did I hit it on the head or what!!!!
>
> Congrats................Mr. "Mack"
>
> John F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:72ae0460-d3a2-4e96...@googlegroups.com...
> Subject: Mock LHO Trial
> Date: 6/22/2013 4:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> From: Gary Mack
> To: David Von Pein
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Dave, I wish you would do research first before coming to a conclusion.
>
> At the beginning (which you missed), the presiding judge instructed all
> of us to disregard everything we may have learned or heard about the
> assassination and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented
> by the prosecution and defense....which is what real trials do.
>
> Based on that, I voted Not Guilty. The prosecution showed a very weak
> case and the defense put up enough reasonable doubt that the decision
> was easy. It didn't matter that history says every major investigation
> concluded Oswald killed JFK, the evidence presented to us didn't
> convince me Oswald was in that window with a rifle.
>
> Gary
>
case and they didn't have any physical evidence?
John Fiorentino
Jun 24, 2013, 11:00:50 AM6/24/13
to
2-3 weeks!!!!
That's funny.
That trial would have been the spectacle of the century!
It would be perhaps the longest murder trial in history!
The longest criminal case in US History last ALMOST 2 YEARS!!!
John F.
"Chad Anthony" <timetravel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bce4252-0fa9-4619...@googlegroups.com...
That's funny.
That trial would have been the spectacle of the century!
It would be perhaps the longest murder trial in history!
The longest criminal case in US History last ALMOST 2 YEARS!!!
John F.
"Chad Anthony" <timetravel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bce4252-0fa9-4619...@googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Jun 24, 2013, 11:01:05 AM6/24/13
to
It wasn't very well done, but the premise was silly with an original time
limit of 2 hrs.
It last much longer (although certainly not long enough) and the
"prosecution" was like the nit-wits at the OJ trial.
John F.
"Marcus Hanson" <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:702197d3-b71f-49f5...@googlegroups.com...
limit of 2 hrs.
It last much longer (although certainly not long enough) and the
"prosecution" was like the nit-wits at the OJ trial.
John F.
"Marcus Hanson" <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:702197d3-b71f-49f5...@googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 8:40:12 PM6/24/13
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 8:40:18 PM6/24/13
to
Talk about throwing people under the bus. Who's next? Are you going to
claim that Posner is a conspiracy believer because he hired Mark Lane?
Or that Mark Fuhrman is a conspiracy believer because he doesn't agree
with YOUR pet SBT? Or that Bugliosi is a conspiracy believer because he
puts the SBT at Z-210.You're such a purist that no one can possibly
agree with you.
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2013, 8:42:34 PM6/24/13
to
> I'm about as "lone-nut" as you can get, and have been for years.
>
>
>
> But, I was also involved in the law for many years, and I can tell you that
>
> the case against Oswald (provided he had a good defense attorney) would have
>
> been far from a cinch.
>
Is that because of the facts of the case or because of the notoriety of the event?
>
>
>
> But, I was also involved in the law for many years, and I can tell you that
>
> the case against Oswald (provided he had a good defense attorney) would have
>
> been far from a cinch.
>
As you may know, Vincent Bugliosi has stated that, I'm paraphrasing, "John Smith" instead of JFK that it would have been an open and shut case.
It seems to me that if you substitute Lee Smith and John Smith for Oswald and Kennedy that a jury would have found Lee Smith guilty in about an hour.
Jean Davison
Jun 24, 2013, 8:42:47 PM6/24/13
to
"We have been able to place this man in the building, on the floor at the time the assassination occurred. We have been able to establish the fact that he was at the window that the shots were fired from." (WC, XXIV, 780)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0399b.htm
Jean
John Fiorentino
Jun 24, 2013, 9:14:41 PM6/24/13
to
Sorry, that went over my head.
John F.
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cca8181e-df85-49c8...@googlegroups.com...
John F.
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cca8181e-df85-49c8...@googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Jun 24, 2013, 9:16:01 PM6/24/13
to
District in Dallas County.
So he handles "civil" cases, not criminal cases like murder trials. But
still.
Here's his website:
http://www.judgemartinhoffman.com/
David Von Pein
Jun 24, 2013, 9:16:37 PM6/24/13
to
Yeah, John, I agree. I laughed too when I read that comment about the real
trial of Oswald lasting only "2 to 3 weeks". It would have lasted for
months. The closing arguments ALONE probably would have gone on for a week
or two. It certainly would have been bigger and lengthier than the OJ
Simpson trial, and that one lasted over a year (including jury selection).
trial of Oswald lasting only "2 to 3 weeks". It would have lasted for
months. The closing arguments ALONE probably would have gone on for a week
or two. It certainly would have been bigger and lengthier than the OJ
Simpson trial, and that one lasted over a year (including jury selection).
BT George
Jun 24, 2013, 11:20:26 PM6/24/13
to
trials rarely exceed weeks in time even when high profile. For sure this
would be the biggest trial here ever & thus probably the longest ever, but
would still prob. last far short of the OJ trial/farce. (This assumes a
STATE trial as would have been the case back when the assassination
happened. If Federal as per today it would likely go longer.)
BT
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 11:20:39 PM6/24/13
to
unqualified. As I said before it was intended to be a mockery.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 24, 2013, 11:30:44 PM6/24/13
to
time to be turned to the dark side by all the conspiracy kooks.
John Fiorentino
Jun 25, 2013, 2:23:35 PM6/25/13
to
Too bad Curry's remarks aren't accurate!
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51c903e8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51c903e8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
curtj...@hotmail.com
Jun 25, 2013, 2:23:47 PM6/25/13
to
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:44:07 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> burgandy,
>
>
>
> Thank you for being a typical CT. You ignore the fact 9 out of 12 voted guilty, but ignoring facts is what being a CT is all about. Actually the 9-3 vote is a relative victory for LNs since national polls consistently report 75-80% of the public believes a conspiracy was involved. This indicates a majority polled must believe LHO took his package of curtain rods to work but somebody stole them, which made him so mad he went home, got a pistol, shot a policemen, then went to a movie to cool off and think about where to get more curtain rods cheap. For a CT this somehow all makes sense and rejoice in the verdict, as if it makes the mountain of evidence disappear and exonerates LHO. Yes and O.J. was not guilty either.
>
>
This CT would have been unhappy if they voted 12-0 for acquittal because the truth wouldn't haven't convicted and it wouldn't have told the true story of the nature of his person and being in the middle of something very unclear. They would have let him off because of the lunch sack/paper bag, the rifle tied to him, and where he could or could not have been during the shooting. And yes, O.J. was very guilty.
>
> Somewhere LHO is either laughing or fuming. He's laughing at how gullible CTs are, but furious they think he lacked the cojones to do this ambush. Therefore LHO, the scrawny little klutz is given a rating of PPP by this jury. He's nothing more than a Poor Pathetic Patsy, definitely not the menacing macho US version of Che he longed to be.
>
>
He's not laughing, he's dead. He was aleady talking too much. Now his doppleganger might have had some musements.
>
> So the mock trial came to the insulting verdict LHO was too much of a weeny to do any harm. What a putdown. Did the 3 geniuses on the jury explain how the "insurance shot" from the GK missed the entire Limousine? Surely they want to be interviewed now that they are celebrity jurors. As Forrest Gump used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
It would be ridiculous to the sophisticated researcher and would have no real relevance to the real case.
CJ
> burgandy,
>
>
>
> Thank you for being a typical CT. You ignore the fact 9 out of 12 voted guilty, but ignoring facts is what being a CT is all about. Actually the 9-3 vote is a relative victory for LNs since national polls consistently report 75-80% of the public believes a conspiracy was involved. This indicates a majority polled must believe LHO took his package of curtain rods to work but somebody stole them, which made him so mad he went home, got a pistol, shot a policemen, then went to a movie to cool off and think about where to get more curtain rods cheap. For a CT this somehow all makes sense and rejoice in the verdict, as if it makes the mountain of evidence disappear and exonerates LHO. Yes and O.J. was not guilty either.
>
>
This CT would have been unhappy if they voted 12-0 for acquittal because the truth wouldn't haven't convicted and it wouldn't have told the true story of the nature of his person and being in the middle of something very unclear. They would have let him off because of the lunch sack/paper bag, the rifle tied to him, and where he could or could not have been during the shooting. And yes, O.J. was very guilty.
>
> Somewhere LHO is either laughing or fuming. He's laughing at how gullible CTs are, but furious they think he lacked the cojones to do this ambush. Therefore LHO, the scrawny little klutz is given a rating of PPP by this jury. He's nothing more than a Poor Pathetic Patsy, definitely not the menacing macho US version of Che he longed to be.
>
>
He's not laughing, he's dead. He was aleady talking too much. Now his doppleganger might have had some musements.
>
> So the mock trial came to the insulting verdict LHO was too much of a weeny to do any harm. What a putdown. Did the 3 geniuses on the jury explain how the "insurance shot" from the GK missed the entire Limousine? Surely they want to be interviewed now that they are celebrity jurors. As Forrest Gump used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
It would be ridiculous to the sophisticated researcher and would have no real relevance to the real case.
CJ
Bud
Jun 25, 2013, 9:00:54 PM6/25/13
to
0 new messages