yeuhd wrote: > On Jan 30, 11:49 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote: >> yeuhd wrote: >>> On Jan 29, 11:19 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> I even marked it with a big red "X" for yoy yeuhd>>> >>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm >>> The blurry, unreadable letter you posted? It apparently refers to a >>> well-known red herring: photographs that surveillance by the CIA station >>> in Mexico City took of an unidentified individual who visited the Soviet >>> and Cuban Embassies in October and November 1963. By Nov. 23, 1963, the >>> CIA had determined that the man in the photo was clearly not Oswald. On >>> that same day, an FBI agent took one of the photos to Marguerite Oswald, >>> but she was unable to identify the person as her son. >> You mean the man she thought was Jack Ruby? You want to adopt Marguerite >> as a reliable witness?
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. That Marguerite Oswald > would be unable to recognize a photograph of her own son? Or that the > photo was in fact of her son, and she didn't recognize him? What is > your point?
My point is that you should not be citing Marguerite for the time of the day.
> Or is it just a snide remark for the sake of making another snide > remark?
> Tom wrote: > > On Jan 30, 3:21 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > >> On 30 Jan 2008 14:12:15 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"
> >> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> They get into the habit of attacking, and have trouble > >>> accepting limits to it. > >>> Martin > >>> "Tom" <thomaspinks...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >>>news:74a4a2c1-3b47-498e-8848-7b669ea52ba5@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>> To All, > >>>> The general tone of many of the post here is not furthering the case > >>>> much, instead it seems that the debate that should be underway is > >>>> often sidetracked, often on purpose. > >> Indeed, Tom, it does seem that way! Some are not willing to discuss > >> the issues that have been raised. :-)
> >>> If John wishes to place Tony in > >>>> "time out" that is his business, however, to then make a public > >>>> declaration of same is polemic to say the least. Tony can be hard to > >>>> take at times, but, he is often correct in his evaluation of the > >>>> evidence. After all these years of reading this group my take on Tony > >>>> is he simply wants people to state the evidence fairly and without > >>>> over-simplification which results in blind alleys and failed research. > >>>> None of us here is perfect, although some would claim that title, > >>>> perhaps everyone ought to take a deep breath and try to remember why > >>>> this group exist in the first place. Debates can get tough, so wear a > >>>> protective cup and move on, the truth will win out. We all need to > >>>> hold that close to our hearts and take stock of how far we have come, > >>>> and the task that remains. We owe this to ourselves, our history and > >>>> our country. I'll stand with Tony any day of the week, even when I > >>>> think he may be wrong, because I'm pretty sure he is compelled to seek > >>>> the truth. That is never easy. > >> Tony has a great deal of knowledge and experience in this case, and > >> can often make insightful contributions. He also likes to niggle and > >> often confuses or stalls discussions by repeating his incorrect take > >> on what someone said over and over ... even after it has been directly > >> addressed and clarified for him time and time again.. It is a huge > >> time waster. It's hard not to believe, imo, that sometimes this is > >> just on purpose for no reason other than to niggle and annoy.
> >> Hey, you're missing some real winter up here ... first time in years, > >> it seems!
> >> Barb :-)
> >>>> Regards to all, > >>>> Tom Pinkston > >>>> McKinney,Texas- Hide quoted text - > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > Hi Barb,
> > Yes indeed, I remember several ice storms living out there on the edge of > > the gorge wondering who in the world left the freezer door open and why! > > As far as Tony goes I know he can be a pain, but I know you would agree he > > is not the only one, but, he does seem to be the only CTer exiled by John. > > I could be dead wrong on this, maybe there are others who have been > > banished. I have wanted to remind Tony what Fredrick II said about "he who > > defends everything, defends nothing" but I sort of doubt he'd appreciate > > that either. Anyway, life goes on and so shall we. Marta says tell Barb > > Hi...so HI!
> For the record, I do not defend Judyth. Nor do I defend the NAA.
"Nonsense". You are one of the three chief defenders of Judyth, and anyone doubting that need only do a member specific search for the words "Judyth" and/or "Cancun" on your posts.
> >> >> The general tone of many of the post here is not furthering the case > >> >> much, instead it seems that the debate that should be underway is > >> >> often sidetracked, often on purpose.
> >> Indeed, Tom, it does seem that way! Some are not willing to discuss > >> the issues that have been raised. :-)
> >> >If John wishes to place Tony in > >> >> "time out" that is his business, however, to then make a public > >> >> declaration of same is polemic to say the least. Tony can be hard to > >> >> take at times, but, he is often correct in his evaluation of the > >> >> evidence. After all these years of reading this group my take on Tony > >> >> is he simply wants people to state the evidence fairly and without > >> >> over-simplification which results in blind alleys and failed research. > >> >> None of us here is perfect, although some would claim that title, > >> >> perhaps everyone ought to take a deep breath and try to remember why > >> >> this group exist in the first place. Debates can get tough, so wear a > >> >> protective cup and move on, the truth will win out. We all need to > >> >> hold that close to our hearts and take stock of how far we have come, > >> >> and the task that remains. We owe this to ourselves, our history and > >> >> our country. I'll stand with Tony any day of the week, even when I > >> >> think he may be wrong, because I'm pretty sure he is compelled to seek > >> >> the truth. That is never easy.
> >> Tony has a great deal of knowledge and experience in this case, and > >> can often make insightful contributions. He also likes to niggle and > >> often confuses or stalls discussions by repeating his incorrect take > >> on what someone said over and over ... even after it has been directly > >> addressed and clarified for him time and time again.. It is a huge > >> time waster. It's hard not to believe, imo, that sometimes this is > >> just on purpose for no reason other than to niggle and annoy.
> >> Hey, you're missing some real winter up here ... first time in years, > >> it seems!
> >> Barb :-)
> >> >> Regards to all,
> >> >> Tom Pinkston > >> >> McKinney,Texas- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >Hi Barb,
> >Yes indeed, I remember several ice storms living out there on the edge of > >the gorge wondering who in the world left the freezer door open and why! > >As far as Tony goes I know he can be a pain, but I know you would agree he > >is not the only one, but, he does seem to be the only CTer exiled by John. > >I could be dead wrong on this, maybe there are others who have been > >banished. I have wanted to remind Tony what Fredrick II said about "he who > >defends everything, defends nothing" but I sort of doubt he'd appreciate > >that either. Anyway, life goes on and so shall we. Marta says tell Barb > >Hi...so HI!
> >Tom
> Hiya Tom!
> Oh, there's LOTS of freezer doors open all over the area ... it's been > amazing. Our waterfall froze last week ... it looks so neat when that > happens.
> Say hey back to Marta for me. And, say, when is that wedding?
> On Tony, will just leave you with this thought ... if Tony had been > banished, he wouldn't have dozens of posts appearing here everyday > .... many, if not most, nothing but carps at or about other people or > the moderators and the moderation process. :-)
> As you know, it takes a unanimous vote of the moderators to reject a > post. When that happens, the person is notified that their post is > being rejected ... and why. Often, the person is told that if they > just change or eliminate a word, their post can go up. Most appreciate > and respond to that positively.
> Sending posts around for votes and then writing to the poster is time > consuming ... and the idea of a newsgroup is to get posts up, not > eliminate them. But over the years, there have been a couple of > posters who deluged the process with inappropriate post after > inappropriate post. Those people (I don't think there has been more > than 1 or 2) were notified that any further such obviously > inappropriate submissions would be deleted without a rejection letter, > but that all acceptable posts would still be posted. No one, to my > knowledge has ever been "banished" from the group. And, as far as I > know, not even Tony has ever achieved the "delete without > notification" status. And, again, if someone does reach that status, > they are notified it is going to to start happening and asked to shape > up *first*.
> Bests, > Barb :-)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Barb,
Thanks for the clarification. Had no idea the rules were so deliberate. Who knows, maybe Tony will reconsider his approach to this whole process, I hope so for everyones sake.
So your waterfall froze. Dang. We have not had that experience, instead my back fence was blown down due to 50 mph+ straightline winds which have come at us from both North and South, in the same day! Life on the lower plains, joy.
She recognized that it wasn't her son. She didn't know who it was. Then she saw a photo the next day of Jack Ruby, and thought it looked like the photo she had been shown.
> > The blurry, unreadable letter you posted? It apparently refers to a > > well-known red herring: photographs that surveillance by the CIA station > > in Mexico City took of an unidentified individual who visited the Soviet > > and Cuban Embassies in October and November 1963. By Nov. 23, 1963, the > > CIA had determined that the man in the photo was clearly not Oswald. On > > that same day, an FBI agent took one of the photos to Marguerite Oswald, > > but she was unable to identify the person as her son.
> You mean the man she thought was Jack Ruby? You want to adopt Marguerite > as a reliable witness?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. That Marguerite Oswald would be unable to recognize a photograph of her own son? Or that the photo was in fact of her son, and she didn't recognize him? What is your point?
Or is it just a snide remark for the sake of making another snide remark?
j_keven_jd wrote: > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Tom wrote: >>> On Jan 30, 3:21 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>>> On 30 Jan 2008 14:12:15 -0500, "Martin Shackelford" >>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> They get into the habit of attacking, and have trouble >>>>> accepting limits to it. >>>>> Martin >>>>> "Tom" <thomaspinks...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:74a4a2c1-3b47-498e-8848-7b669ea52ba5@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> To All, >>>>>> The general tone of many of the post here is not furthering the case >>>>>> much, instead it seems that the debate that should be underway is >>>>>> often sidetracked, often on purpose. >>>> Indeed, Tom, it does seem that way! Some are not willing to discuss >>>> the issues that have been raised. :-) >>>>> If John wishes to place Tony in >>>>>> "time out" that is his business, however, to then make a public >>>>>> declaration of same is polemic to say the least. Tony can be hard to >>>>>> take at times, but, he is often correct in his evaluation of the >>>>>> evidence. After all these years of reading this group my take on Tony >>>>>> is he simply wants people to state the evidence fairly and without >>>>>> over-simplification which results in blind alleys and failed research. >>>>>> None of us here is perfect, although some would claim that title, >>>>>> perhaps everyone ought to take a deep breath and try to remember why >>>>>> this group exist in the first place. Debates can get tough, so wear a >>>>>> protective cup and move on, the truth will win out. We all need to >>>>>> hold that close to our hearts and take stock of how far we have come, >>>>>> and the task that remains. We owe this to ourselves, our history and >>>>>> our country. I'll stand with Tony any day of the week, even when I >>>>>> think he may be wrong, because I'm pretty sure he is compelled to seek >>>>>> the truth. That is never easy. >>>> Tony has a great deal of knowledge and experience in this case, and >>>> can often make insightful contributions. He also likes to niggle and >>>> often confuses or stalls discussions by repeating his incorrect take >>>> on what someone said over and over ... even after it has been directly >>>> addressed and clarified for him time and time again.. It is a huge >>>> time waster. It's hard not to believe, imo, that sometimes this is >>>> just on purpose for no reason other than to niggle and annoy. >>>> Hey, you're missing some real winter up here ... first time in years, >>>> it seems! >>>> Barb :-) >>>>>> Regards to all, >>>>>> Tom Pinkston >>>>>> McKinney,Texas- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Hi Barb, >>> Yes indeed, I remember several ice storms living out there on the edge of >>> the gorge wondering who in the world left the freezer door open and why! >>> As far as Tony goes I know he can be a pain, but I know you would agree he >>> is not the only one, but, he does seem to be the only CTer exiled by John. >>> I could be dead wrong on this, maybe there are others who have been >>> banished. I have wanted to remind Tony what Fredrick II said about "he who >>> defends everything, defends nothing" but I sort of doubt he'd appreciate >>> that either. Anyway, life goes on and so shall we. Marta says tell Barb >>> Hi...so HI! >> For the record, I do not defend Judyth. Nor do I defend the NAA.
> "Nonsense". You are one of the three chief defenders of Judyth, and
Nonsense. I said a long time ago that we someone told me about her story I instantly said it was nonsense. And you seem to have missed my reply to Martin where I rebutted all of his points supporting Judyth. I know you can't understand the concept, but my point is always that while it may be fun to debunk some wacky theory, you should not misrepresent the evidence to do so. Same with Badge Man. Same with Files. Same with Judyth.
> anyone doubting that need only do a member specific search for the words > "Judyth" and/or "Cancun" on your posts.
Why not do a member specific search for the exact phrase "fine hotel in Cancun" or CANCUN AND ISLAND?
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator*
On Jan 29, 2:36 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
> > Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
> > a) Have no idea what you're on about &
> > b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit > > Mexico City in September 1963 &
> > c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your > > website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
> > Well, always happy to help! :-)
> > Regards,
> > Tim Brennan > > Sydney, Australia > > *Newsgroup Commentator* > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- > > 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
> So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides > which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
> > 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
> Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his > NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said he > was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN > IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE > CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
> Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
> > 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
> Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
> > 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
> No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
> > 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
> No, wrong. HSCA concluded that Oswald visited what is generally known as > the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September-October 1963, tomnln. That's > because he did, tomnln.
> > 6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS".
> Who cares what she said? Her account is not worthy of belief. She is > mistaken.
> > Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO?
> Oh, yes, tomnln. I'm <snicker> quaking in my boots about your worthless > argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City, tomnln.
> That's because he WAS in Mexico City, tomnln.
> Say, let's add a few more to those, like Duran, who say Lee Harvey > Oswald was in Mexico City, tomnln.
> 7 Kostikov (KGB) says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian > Embassy, tomnln.
> 8 Nechiporenko says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy > in Mexico City, tomnln.
> 9 Yatskov says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy in > Mexico City, tomnln.
> 10 Lee Harvey Oswald says he went to Mexico City, tomnln.
> That's in both the WC volumes and the HSCA volumes, tomnln.
> Do you need me to supply you with the links, tomnln?
> Once again your case flops in a heap when confronted with your > precious *evidence/testimony*, tomnln.
> Now isn't that right, tomnln?
> :-)
> Concerned Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described Oswald as; 5 ft. 3 inches? Blond hair? Approximately 119 pounds?
THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan 29, 2:36 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
> > Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
> > a) Have no idea what you're on about &
> > b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit > > Mexico City in September 1963 &
> > c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your > > website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
> > Well, always happy to help! :-)
> > Regards,
> > Tim Brennan > > Sydney, Australia > > *Newsgroup Commentator* > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- > > 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
> So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides > which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
> > 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
> Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his > NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said he > was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN > IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE > CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
> Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
> > 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
> Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
> > 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
> No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
> > 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
> No, wrong. HSCA concluded that Oswald visited what is generally known as > the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September-October 1963, tomnln. That's > because he did, tomnln.
> > 6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS".
> Who cares what she said? Her account is not worthy of belief. She is > mistaken.
> > Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO?
> Oh, yes, tomnln. I'm <snicker> quaking in my boots about your worthless > argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City, tomnln.
> That's because he WAS in Mexico City, tomnln.
> Say, let's add a few more to those, like Duran, who say Lee Harvey > Oswald was in Mexico City, tomnln.
> 7 Kostikov (KGB) says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian > Embassy, tomnln.
> 8 Nechiporenko says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy > in Mexico City, tomnln.
> 9 Yatskov says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy in > Mexico City, tomnln.
> 10 Lee Harvey Oswald says he went to Mexico City, tomnln.
> That's in both the WC volumes and the HSCA volumes, tomnln.
> Do you need me to supply you with the links, tomnln?
> Once again your case flops in a heap when confronted with your > precious *evidence/testimony*, tomnln.
> Now isn't that right, tomnln?
> :-)
> Concerned Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described Oswald as; 5 ft. 3 inches? Blond hair? Approximately 119 pounds?
THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > support your assertion?
> Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> Where have you gone, tomnln?
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator*
>> On Jan 25, 4:49 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:6f34244b-ae6b-4912-850a-cc66ae384fca@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> TOP POST >>> Hi tomnln, >>> Say, YOU SAID; >>> *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies* >>> Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I: >>> a) Have no idea what you're on about & >>> b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit >>> Mexico City in September 1963 & >>> c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your >>> website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln. >>> Well, always happy to help! :-) >>> Regards, >>> Tim Brennan >>> Sydney, Australia >>> *Newsgroup Commentator* >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- >>> 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN" >> So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides >> which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
>>> 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND". >> Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his >> NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said he >> was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN >> IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE >> CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
>> Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
>>> 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM". >> Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
>>> 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD". >> No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
>>> 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD" >> No, wrong. HSCA concluded that Oswald visited what is generally known as >> the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September-October 1963, tomnln. That's >> because he did, tomnln.
>>> 6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS". >> Who cares what she said? Her account is not worthy of belief. She is >> mistaken.
>>> Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO? >> Oh, yes, tomnln. I'm <snicker> quaking in my boots about your worthless >> argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> That's because he WAS in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> Say, let's add a few more to those, like Duran, who say Lee Harvey >> Oswald was in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> 7 Kostikov (KGB) says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian >> Embassy, tomnln.
>> 8 Nechiporenko says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy >> in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> 9 Yatskov says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy in >> Mexico City, tomnln.
>> 10 Lee Harvey Oswald says he went to Mexico City, tomnln.
>> That's in both the WC volumes and the HSCA volumes, tomnln.
>> Do you need me to supply you with the links, tomnln?
>> Once again your case flops in a heap when confronted with your >> precious *evidence/testimony*, tomnln.
>> Now isn't that right, tomnln?
>> :-)
>> Concerned Regards,
>> Tim Brennan >> Sydney, Australia >> *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
I wouldn't think so, tomnln. Y'see, you said that Duran FIRST said that Oswald was not the person that she served at the CUBCON.
We both know, from CE 2121 that that's simply not the case, tomnln.
Unless you can come up with your document proving that she INITIALLY said what you claim she said then I don't think you can make your case, tomnln. You've already had one go and that flopped in an awful heap.
Simple as that really.
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator*
On Feb 3, 2:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > support your assertion?
> Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> Where have you gone, tomnln?
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator* > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- > Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described > Oswald as; > 5 ft. 3 inches? > Blond hair? > Approximately 119 pounds?
> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"? > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > support your assertion?
> Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> Where have you gone, tomnln?
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator*
>> On Jan 25, 4:49 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:6f34244b-ae6b-4912-850a-cc66ae384fca@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> TOP POST >>> Hi tomnln, >>> Say, YOU SAID; >>> *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies* >>> Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I: >>> a) Have no idea what you're on about & >>> b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit >>> Mexico City in September 1963 & >>> c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your >>> website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln. >>> Well, always happy to help! :-) >>> Regards, >>> Tim Brennan >>> Sydney, Australia >>> *Newsgroup Commentator* >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- >>> 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN" >> So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides >> which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
>>> 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND". >> Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his >> NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said >> he >> was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN >> IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE >> CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
>> Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
>>> 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM". >> Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
>>> 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD". >> No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
>>> 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD" >> No, wrong. HSCA concluded that Oswald visited what is generally known as >> the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September-October 1963, tomnln. >> That's >> because he did, tomnln.
>>> 6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS". >> Who cares what she said? Her account is not worthy of belief. She is >> mistaken.
>>> Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO? >> Oh, yes, tomnln. I'm <snicker> quaking in my boots about your worthless >> argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> That's because he WAS in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> Say, let's add a few more to those, like Duran, who say Lee Harvey >> Oswald was in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> 7 Kostikov (KGB) says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian >> Embassy, tomnln.
>> 8 Nechiporenko says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy >> in Mexico City, tomnln.
>> 9 Yatskov says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy in >> Mexico City, tomnln.
>> 10 Lee Harvey Oswald says he went to Mexico City, tomnln.
>> That's in both the WC volumes and the HSCA volumes, tomnln.
>> Do you need me to supply you with the links, tomnln?
>> Once again your case flops in a heap when confronted with your >> precious *evidence/testimony*, tomnln.
>> Now isn't that right, tomnln?
>> :-)
>> Concerned Regards,
>> Tim Brennan >> Sydney, Australia >> *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
On Feb 2, 10:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Approximately 119 pounds?
> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"? > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
While you're waiting for Tim to reply, how about addressing the "Tampering with Evidence" reply *I* gave you several days ago.
On Jan 26, 12:51 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message > > Seriously, you have a very poor understanding of the rules of evidence > > and the rules of criminal procedure. You write, > Rules of Evidence "Ensure" Chain of Possession for the SAME piece of > evidence. > In their First Executive Session Transcripts we see that the WC "Suspended" > the Rules of Evidence. > They also "Suspended" the Adversary Procedure". > (Making it a Kangaroo Court) > It's YOU who has a Poor Understanding of theb rules of evidence. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > "Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons. > > #1. He was innocent. > > #2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly." > > (Why the quotation marks around "tampered"?) > Because it's a "Felony by the authorities". > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Let's look at item #1 on your page. You claim that the issue of > > "destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office" would somehow, all by > > itself, cause the entire case against Oswald to be dismissed. > > Specifically, how would this dismissal happen? Under what Texas rule of > > evidence or criminal procedure would this dismissal happen? No, we're not > > talking about the Warren Commission any more, we are talking about your > > allegation about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial*, where there > > is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of evidence or criminal > > procedure. > Are you suggesting that the authorities "Knew IN Advance" that there would > be no Trial? > The FBI took possession of the evidence on Friday night.
Oswald's letter to Hosty was destroyed after Oswald's death. So yes, when the Dallas FBI office destroyed the letter, the authorities DID know that there would be no trial of Oswald.
> Considering that Oswald was Paid by CIA/FBI, the latter is MOST probable.http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm > No matter what the letter contained, Destruction of Evidence is a > Felony!!!!!
What is the article number of the Texas statute re destruction of evidence? I assume you have read it and are familiar with its contents. And remember, this is trial is in a Texas court, not a federal court. So, what is that article number?
> When a suspect has a Police Record, They ALWAYS introduce it in Court > Trials.
Completely false. Evidence introduced at trial must be relevant to the issues at trial. I quoted for you, above, the Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) that generally prohibits "pattern" or "propensity" evidence. A defendant's criminal record is almost never allowed to be introduced as evidence at trial. Ask any criminal defense lawyer or prosecutor. You are perhaps confusing trial with sentencing, at which point a criminal record *can* be introduced as evidence.
> > Let's look at another of your "issues": #3 "Altering Walker back yard > > photo (3 times)." Again, how would the Walker photos be relevant at trial? > > We are talking about Oswald on trial for the murders of JFK and Tippit, > > not for the attempt on the life of Walker. It would be another example of > > "pattern" or "propensity" evidence if the prosecution tried to introduce > > it. And once again, the last thing the defense would want to bring up at > > trial would be *anything* to do with the Walker shooting. > > If the evidence is inadmissible, the alleged "altering" of the evidence is > > irrelevant. > Apparently you FORGOT it was the Warren Commission that made the Walker back > yard Photo "EVIDENCE".
But we're not talking about the Warren Commission now, are we? You alleged about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial* -- where there is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of criminal procedure or the rules of evidence.
> > But just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow the prosecution > > is able to get past the inadmissibility of irrelevant or > > pattern/propensity evidence, and attempts to have the Walker photos > > entered in evidence. The defense can object that the photos were altered, > > and offer evidence to that claim. At worst, the judge can rule the Walker > > photos as inadmissible. The whole case isn't dismissed. > The Walker photo was Altered by the authorities. (THREE Times) > ALL the judge can do is "CASE DISMESSED". > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you still haven't established how the Walker photos would be admissible *at trial*. We're talking about Oswald's trial, which would be held under the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal procedure. You have not established the relevancy of the Walker photos to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, they are inadmissible. And if they are inadmissible, any allegation of their alteration is irrelevant.
> > #5 "Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate." Assuming this is even > > true, how would the radio debate be relevant at trial? Unless Oswald > > chatted about his plans to shoot JFK, it wouldn't. > AGAIN; > The Warren Commission MADE it "Evidence". > Altering Evidence is a Felony.
But as you yourself said, the Warren Commission was *not* operating under the rules of evidence or the rules of criminal procedure. Oswald's trial *would* be operating under those rules. You still haven't established how Oswald's radio debate would be admissible *at trial*. You have not established the relevancy of the radio debate to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, a recording or transcript of the radio debate is inadmissible. And if it is inadmissible, any allegation of its alteration is irrelevant.
I wouldn't think so, tomnln. Y'see, you said that Duran FIRST said that Oswald was not the person that she served at the CUBCON.
We both know, from CE 2121 that that's simply not the case, tomnln.
Unless you can come up with your document proving that she INITIALLY said what you claim she said then I don't think you can make your case, tomnln. You've already had one go and that flopped in an awful heap.
Simple as that really.
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator*
On Feb 3, 2:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > support your assertion?
> Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> Where have you gone, tomnln?
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator* > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- > Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described > Oswald as; > 5 ft. 3 inches? > Blond hair? > Approximately 119 pounds?
> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
> j_keven_jd wrote: > > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Tom wrote: > >>> On Jan 30, 3:21 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 30 Jan 2008 14:12:15 -0500, "Martin Shackelford" > >>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>>> They get into the habit of attacking, and have trouble > >>>>> accepting limits to it. > >>>>> Martin > >>>>> "Tom" <thomaspinks...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >>>>>news:74a4a2c1-3b47-498e-8848-7b669ea52ba5@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>> To All, > >>>>>> The general tone of many of the post here is not furthering the case > >>>>>> much, instead it seems that the debate that should be underway is > >>>>>> often sidetracked, often on purpose. > >>>> Indeed, Tom, it does seem that way! Some are not willing to discuss > >>>> the issues that have been raised. :-) > >>>>> If John wishes to place Tony in > >>>>>> "time out" that is his business, however, to then make a public > >>>>>> declaration of same is polemic to say the least. Tony can be hard to > >>>>>> take at times, but, he is often correct in his evaluation of the > >>>>>> evidence. After all these years of reading this group my take on Tony > >>>>>> is he simply wants people to state the evidence fairly and without > >>>>>> over-simplification which results in blind alleys and failed research. > >>>>>> None of us here is perfect, although some would claim that title, > >>>>>> perhaps everyone ought to take a deep breath and try to remember why > >>>>>> this group exist in the first place. Debates can get tough, so wear a > >>>>>> protective cup and move on, the truth will win out. We all need to > >>>>>> hold that close to our hearts and take stock of how far we have come, > >>>>>> and the task that remains. We owe this to ourselves, our history and > >>>>>> our country. I'll stand with Tony any day of the week, even when I > >>>>>> think he may be wrong, because I'm pretty sure he is compelled to seek > >>>>>> the truth. That is never easy. > >>>> Tony has a great deal of knowledge and experience in this case, and > >>>> can often make insightful contributions. He also likes to niggle and > >>>> often confuses or stalls discussions by repeating his incorrect take > >>>> on what someone said over and over ... even after it has been directly > >>>> addressed and clarified for him time and time again.. It is a huge > >>>> time waster. It's hard not to believe, imo, that sometimes this is > >>>> just on purpose for no reason other than to niggle and annoy. > >>>> Hey, you're missing some real winter up here ... first time in years, > >>>> it seems! > >>>> Barb :-) > >>>>>> Regards to all, > >>>>>> Tom Pinkston > >>>>>> McKinney,Texas- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> Hi Barb, > >>> Yes indeed, I remember several ice storms living out there on the edge of > >>> the gorge wondering who in the world left the freezer door open and why! > >>> As far as Tony goes I know he can be a pain, but I know you would agree he > >>> is not the only one, but, he does seem to be the only CTer exiled by John. > >>> I could be dead wrong on this, maybe there are others who have been > >>> banished. I have wanted to remind Tony what Fredrick II said about "he who > >>> defends everything, defends nothing" but I sort of doubt he'd appreciate > >>> that either. Anyway, life goes on and so shall we. Marta says tell Barb > >>> Hi...so HI! > >> For the record, I do not defend Judyth. Nor do I defend the NAA.
> > "Nonsense". You are one of the three chief defenders of Judyth, and
> Nonsense. I said a long time ago that we someone told me about her story I > instantly said it was nonsense. And you seem to have missed my reply to > Martin where I rebutted all of his points supporting Judyth.
You write as if an appeal to consistency supports your position. You post so much on both sides of a position that consistency is the last thing anybody would ever accuse you of.
I know you
> can't understand the concept, but my point is always that while it may be > fun to debunk some wacky theory, you should not misrepresent the evidence > to do so.
Like your nonsense about Cancun and the Kennedy letter?
Same with Badge Man. Same with Files. Same with Judyth.
> > anyone doubting that need only do a member specific search for the words > > "Judyth" and/or "Cancun" on your posts.
> Why not do a member specific search for the exact phrase "fine hotel in > Cancun" or CANCUN AND ISLAND?
Judyth wrote that LHO told her that she would go to Cancun, that he would be there, that they would stay in a fine hotel. It is obvious to anybody what that means. Your hyperbole to the contrary has convinced nobody, and belies the revisionist claims you are making now.
> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"? > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----------------------------------------------------------------
While you're waiting for Tim to reply, how about addressing the "Tampering with Evidence" reply *I* gave you several days ago.
On Jan 26, 12:51 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message > > Seriously, you have a very poor understanding of the rules of evidence > > and the rules of criminal procedure. You write, > Rules of Evidence "Ensure" Chain of Possession for the SAME piece of > evidence. > In their First Executive Session Transcripts we see that the WC > "Suspended" > the Rules of Evidence. > They also "Suspended" the Adversary Procedure". > (Making it a Kangaroo Court) > It's YOU who has a Poor Understanding of theb rules of evidence. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > "Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons. > > #1. He was innocent. > > #2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly." > > (Why the quotation marks around "tampered"?) > Because it's a "Felony by the authorities". > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Let's look at item #1 on your page. You claim that the issue of > > "destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office" would somehow, all by > > itself, cause the entire case against Oswald to be dismissed. > > Specifically, how would this dismissal happen? Under what Texas rule of > > evidence or criminal procedure would this dismissal happen? No, we're > > not > > talking about the Warren Commission any more, we are talking about your > > allegation about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial*, where > > there > > is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of evidence or criminal > > procedure. > Are you suggesting that the authorities "Knew IN Advance" that there would > be no Trial? > The FBI took possession of the evidence on Friday night.
Oswald's letter to Hosty was destroyed after Oswald's death. So yes, when the Dallas FBI office destroyed the letter, the authorities DID know that there would be no trial of Oswald.
> Considering that Oswald was Paid by CIA/FBI, the latter is MOST > probable.http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm > No matter what the letter contained, Destruction of Evidence is a > Felony!!!!!
What is the article number of the Texas statute re destruction of evidence? I assume you have read it and are familiar with its contents. And remember, this is trial is in a Texas court, not a federal court. So, what is that article number?
> When a suspect has a Police Record, They ALWAYS introduce it in Court > Trials.
Completely false. Evidence introduced at trial must be relevant to the issues at trial. I quoted for you, above, the Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) that generally prohibits "pattern" or "propensity" evidence. A defendant's criminal record is almost never allowed to be introduced as evidence at trial. Ask any criminal defense lawyer or prosecutor. You are perhaps confusing trial with sentencing, at which point a criminal record *can* be introduced as evidence.
> > Let's look at another of your "issues": #3 "Altering Walker back yard > > photo (3 times)." Again, how would the Walker photos be relevant at > > trial? > > We are talking about Oswald on trial for the murders of JFK and Tippit, > > not for the attempt on the life of Walker. It would be another example > > of > > "pattern" or "propensity" evidence if the prosecution tried to introduce > > it. And once again, the last thing the defense would want to bring up at > > trial would be *anything* to do with the Walker shooting. > > If the evidence is inadmissible, the alleged "altering" of the evidence > > is > > irrelevant. > Apparently you FORGOT it was the Warren Commission that made the Walker > back > yard Photo "EVIDENCE".
But we're not talking about the Warren Commission now, are we? You alleged about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial* -- where there is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of criminal procedure or the rules of evidence.
> > But just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow the > > prosecution > > is able to get past the inadmissibility of irrelevant or > > pattern/propensity evidence, and attempts to have the Walker photos > > entered in evidence. The defense can object that the photos were > > altered, > > and offer evidence to that claim. At worst, the judge can rule the > > Walker > > photos as inadmissible. The whole case isn't dismissed. > The Walker photo was Altered by the authorities. (THREE Times) > ALL the judge can do is "CASE DISMESSED". > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you still haven't established how the Walker photos would be admissible *at trial*. We're talking about Oswald's trial, which would be held under the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal procedure. You have not established the relevancy of the Walker photos to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, they are inadmissible. And if they are inadmissible, any allegation of their alteration is irrelevant.
> > #5 "Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate." Assuming this is even > > true, how would the radio debate be relevant at trial? Unless Oswald > > chatted about his plans to shoot JFK, it wouldn't. > AGAIN; > The Warren Commission MADE it "Evidence". > Altering Evidence is a Felony.
But as you yourself said, the Warren Commission was *not* operating under the rules of evidence or the rules of criminal procedure. Oswald's trial *would* be operating under those rules. You still haven't established how Oswald's radio debate would be admissible *at trial*. You have not established the relevancy of the radio debate to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, a recording or transcript of the radio debate is inadmissible. And if it is inadmissible, any allegation of its alteration is irrelevant.
> On Feb 2, 10:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Approximately 119 pounds?
> > THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
> While you're waiting for Tim to reply, how about addressing the > "Tampering with Evidence" reply *I* gave you several days ago.
> On Jan 26, 12:51 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message > > > Seriously, you have a very poor understanding of the rules of evidence > > > and the rules of criminal procedure. You write, > > Rules of Evidence "Ensure" Chain of Possession for the SAME piece of > > evidence. > > In their First Executive Session Transcripts we see that the WC "Suspended" > > the Rules of Evidence. > > They also "Suspended" the Adversary Procedure". > > (Making it a Kangaroo Court) > > It's YOU who has a Poor Understanding of theb rules of evidence. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > "Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons. > > > #1. He was innocent. > > > #2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly." > > > (Why the quotation marks around "tampered"?) > > Because it's a "Felony by the authorities". > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Let's look at item #1 on your page. You claim that the issue of > > > "destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office" would somehow, all by > > > itself, cause the entire case against Oswald to be dismissed. > > > Specifically, how would this dismissal happen? Under what Texas rule of > > > evidence or criminal procedure would this dismissal happen? No, we're not > > > talking about the Warren Commission any more, we are talking about your > > > allegation about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial*, where there > > > is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of evidence or criminal > > > procedure. > > Are you suggesting that the authorities "Knew IN Advance" that there would > > be no Trial? > > The FBI took possession of the evidence on Friday night.
> Oswald's letter to Hosty was destroyed after Oswald's death. So yes, > when the Dallas FBI office destroyed the letter, the authorities DID > know that there would be no trial of Oswald.
> > Considering that Oswald was Paid by CIA/FBI, the latter is MOST probable.http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm > > No matter what the letter contained, Destruction of Evidence is a > > Felony!!!!!
> What is the article number of the Texas statute re destruction of > evidence? I assume you have read it and are familiar with its contents. > And remember, this is trial is in a Texas court, not a federal court. So, > what is that article number?
> > When a suspect has a Police Record, They ALWAYS introduce it in Court > > Trials.
> Completely false. Evidence introduced at trial must be relevant to the > issues at trial. I quoted for you, above, the Federal Rule of Evidence > 404(b) that generally prohibits "pattern" or "propensity" evidence. A > defendant's criminal record is almost never allowed to be introduced as > evidence at trial. Ask any criminal defense lawyer or prosecutor.
It's not this black and white. Criminal records and past crimes are often introduced for other reasons, such as impeachment of credibility or to show modus operandi. It is also important to recognize that Chief Justice Warren didn't even create the advisory committee to begin work on the Federal Rules of Evidence until 1965, and the rules were not promulgated until 1975. There was federal case law concerning the inadmissabiity of propensity evidence prior to 1963, and LHO would have been entitled to rely upon it if necessary. Regardless of that, given the differences in the mindset of the populace in the pre-Vietnam/Watergate era, LHO may not have been able to sell the alteration theory, or if the photos were introduced to connect him to the rifle, the jurors may have made propensity assumptions even if specifically instructed not to do so.
You are
> perhaps confusing trial with sentencing, at which point a criminal record > *can* be introduced as evidence.
In the highly charged atmosphere of a trial for the assassination of the beloved President, its not hard to imagine any court allowing a lot of lattitude regarding LHO's criminal record. It would be admissable for other reasons such as impeachment of credibility and motive, and even if there were errors leading to appeal, appellate courts can find all kinds of ways to skirt the issue. Appellate Judges also had a different mindset in the pre-Vietnam/Watergate era, and if LHO had not been killed, that would even be more so.
> > > Let's look at another of your "issues": #3 "Altering Walker back yard > > > photo (3 times)." Again, how would the Walker photos be relevant at trial?
Issues of alteration would be useful and admissable were LHO to put on a patsy defense, and the photographs would be useful to the prosecution to tie LHO to the gun, and to show motive.
> > > We are talking about Oswald on trial for the murders of JFK and Tippit, > > > not for the attempt on the life of Walker. It would be another example of > > > "pattern" or "propensity" evidence if the prosecution tried to introduce > > > it.
Couldn't introduce it to show propensity, but could for other purposes, and jurors probably would have inferred propensity anyway. But if alteration of the pictures and many other legend producing items of evidence could have been established, and the jurors convinced, maybe a different story.
And once again, the last thing the defense would want to bring up at
> > > trial would be *anything* to do with the Walker shooting.
If LHO was going to present a patsy defense, and could show that the Walker shooting allegations were part of a legend manufactured to implicate LHO, only an incompetent defense attorney would fail to introduce that evidence.
> > > If the evidence is inadmissible, the alleged "altering" of the evidence is > > > irrelevant.
Alteration of evidence could make an item that is not otherwise directly relevant to any issue other than a patsy defense relevant for that reason alone.
> > Apparently you FORGOT it was the Warren Commission that made the Walker back > > yard Photo "EVIDENCE".
> But we're not talking about the Warren Commission now, are we? You > alleged about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial* -- where > there is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of criminal > procedure or the rules of evidence.
> > > But just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow the prosecution > > > is able to get past the inadmissibility of irrelevant or > > > pattern/propensity evidence, and attempts to have the Walker photos > > > entered in evidence. The defense can object that the photos were altered, > > > and offer evidence to that claim.
If the prosecution failed to do so, the defense would be introducing the photos themselves, if they could be shown to have been altered.
At worst, the judge can rule the Walker
> > > photos as inadmissible. The whole case isn't dismissed.
That wouldn't have happened.
> > The Walker photo was Altered by the authorities. (THREE Times) > > ALL the judge can do is "CASE DISMESSED".
> But you still haven't established how the Walker photos would be > admissible *at trial*. We're talking about Oswald's trial, which would > be held under the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal > procedure. You have not established the relevancy of the Walker photos > to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, > they are inadmissible. And if they are inadmissible, any allegation of > their alteration is irrelevant.
The photos would have been in evidence one way or the other.
> > > #5 "Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate." Assuming this is even > > > true, how would the radio debate be relevant at trial?
Definitely relevant to any patsy defense, and definitely relevant to motive.
Unless Oswald
> > > chatted about his plans to shoot JFK, it wouldn't. > > AGAIN; > > The Warren Commission MADE it "Evidence". > > Altering Evidence is a Felony.
> But as you yourself said, the Warren Commission was *not* operating under > the rules of evidence or the rules of criminal procedure. Oswald's trial > *would* be operating under those rules. You still haven't established how > Oswald's radio debate would be admissible *at trial*. You have not > established the relevancy of the radio debate to Oswald's trial for the > murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, a recording or transcript of > the radio debate is inadmissible. And if it is inadmissible, any > allegation of its alteration is irrelevant.
Alteration would be relevant in a patsy defense regardless of whether the recording or transcript was useful to the prosecution or defense for any other reason.
In my estimation, LHO would have been convicted regardless of whether or not he was innocent in that pre-Vietnam/Watergate era. Evidence manipulation would have went on even if LHO had lived, and an outraged public (including jurors and judges) would have likely been willing to overlook a certain amount of irregularities for the sake of punishing the assassin of their beloved president. I can't imagine how LHO would be able to escape execution, but if he somehow did, then his survival could have presented some real problems as public attitudes began to change during the Vietnam War and Watergate. Solution to that would have been for LHO to befall an accident in prison, or another inmate may have killed LHO as their own claim to
...
> > Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > > support your assertion?
> > Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> > Where have you gone, tomnln?
> > Regards,
> > Tim Brennan > > Sydney, Australia > > *Newsgroup Commentator*
> >> On Jan 25, 4:49 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>news:6f34244b-ae6b-4912-850a-cc66ae384fca@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>> TOP POST > >>> Hi tomnln, > >>> Say, YOU SAID; > >>> *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies* > >>> Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I: > >>> a) Have no idea what you're on about & > >>> b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit > >>> Mexico City in September 1963 & > >>> c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your > >>> website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln. > >>> Well, always happy to help! :-) > >>> Regards, > >>> Tim Brennan > >>> Sydney, Australia > >>> *Newsgroup Commentator* > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN" > >> So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides > >> which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
> >>> 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND". > >> Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his > >> NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said he > >> was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN > >> IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE > >> CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
> >> Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
> >>> 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM". > >> Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
> >>> 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD". > >> No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
> >>> 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD" > >> No, wrong. HSCA concluded that Oswald visited what is generally known as > >> the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September-October 1963, tomnln. That's > >> because he did, tomnln.
> >>> 6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS". > >> Who cares what she said? Her account is not worthy of belief. She is > >> mistaken.
> >>> Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO? > >> Oh, yes, tomnln. I'm <snicker> quaking in my boots about your worthless > >> argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City, tomnln.
> >> That's because he WAS in Mexico City, tomnln.
> >> Say, let's add a few more to those, like Duran, who say Lee Harvey > >> Oswald was in Mexico City, tomnln.
> >> 7 Kostikov (KGB) says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian > >> Embassy, tomnln.
> >> 8 Nechiporenko says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy > >> in Mexico City, tomnln.
> >> 9 Yatskov says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy in > >> Mexico City, tomnln.
> >> 10 Lee Harvey Oswald says he went to Mexico City, tomnln.
> >> That's in both the WC volumes and the HSCA volumes, tomnln.
> >> Do you need me to supply you with the links, tomnln?
> >> Once again your case flops in a heap when confronted with your > >> precious *evidence/testimony*, tomnln.
> >> Now isn't that right, tomnln?
> >> :-)
> >> Concerned Regards,
> >> Tim Brennan > >> Sydney, Australia > >> *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> SPAM. Daily. Allowed by the moderators.- Hide quoted text -
There's the official records proving that Duran said Oswald was 5 ft. 3 inches. There's the official records proving that Duran said Oswald had Blond Hair. There's the official records proving that Duran said Oswald was 119 pounds.
Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't support your assertion?
Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
Where have you gone, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described Oswald as; 5 ft. 3 inches? Blond hair? Approximately 119 pounds?
THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan 29, 2:36 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > *IF, you're American I'm sure you they are Felonies*
> > Let me just say, tomnln, as an Australian, that I:
> > a) Have no idea what you're on about &
> > b) Think it's time that you concede that Lee Harvey Oswald DID visit > > Mexico City in September 1963 &
> > c) Think the decent thing to do would be for you to admit that your > > website ignores evidence/testimony, tomnln.
> > Well, always happy to help! :-)
> > Regards,
> > Tim Brennan > > Sydney, Australia > > *Newsgroup Commentator* > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- > > 1 Mirabal said "SMALL MAN"
> So? Oswald was 5' 9" tomnln. That is a relatively small man. Besides > which, Mirabel said it WAS Oswald, tomnln.
> > 2 Duran said "5'3 & BLOND".
> Duran said it was Oswald, tomnln. On a number of occasions. She used his > NOPD mugshot, as supplied to her by the HSCA, to identify him. She said he > was maybe a bit blonder, but so what? SHE UNSWERVINGLY SAID THAT THE MAN > IN THE NOPD MUGSHOT, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, WAS THE MAN THAT SHE MET AT THE > CUBAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY, tomnln.
> Now, what bit out of that don't you understand, tomnln?
> > 3 Azcue said "NOT HIM".
> Yeah? Well one out of three ain't good, tomnln.
> > 4 Church Report said "NOT OSWALD".
> No, wrong. Yeud has posted the link on that one, tomnln.
> > 5 HSCA said "NOT OSWALD"
> No, wrong. HSCA concluded that Oswald visited what is generally known as > the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September-October 1963, tomnln. That's > because he did, tomnln.
> > 6 Sylvia Odio said "OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS".
> Who cares what she said? Her account is not worthy of belief. She is > mistaken.
> > Are you Afraid to lose this one TOO?
> Oh, yes, tomnln. I'm <snicker> quaking in my boots about your worthless > argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City, tomnln.
> That's because he WAS in Mexico City, tomnln.
> Say, let's add a few more to those, like Duran, who say Lee Harvey > Oswald was in Mexico City, tomnln.
> 7 Kostikov (KGB) says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian > Embassy, tomnln.
> 8 Nechiporenko says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy > in Mexico City, tomnln.
> 9 Yatskov says Oswald was the guy he met at the Russian Embassy in > Mexico City, tomnln.
> 10 Lee Harvey Oswald says he went to Mexico City, tomnln.
> That's in both the WC volumes and the HSCA volumes, tomnln.
> Do you need me to supply you with the links, tomnln?
> Once again your case flops in a heap when confronted with your > precious *evidence/testimony*, tomnln.
> Now isn't that right, tomnln?
> :-)
> Concerned Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
I wouldn't think so, tomnln. Y'see, you said that Duran FIRST said that Oswald was not the person that she served at the CUBCON.
We both know, from CE 2121 that that's simply not the case, tomnln.
Unless you can come up with your document proving that she INITIALLY said what you claim she said then I don't think you can make your case, tomnln. You've already had one go and that flopped in an awful heap.
Simple as that really.
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator*
On Feb 3, 2:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > support your assertion?
> Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> Where have you gone, tomnln?
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator* > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- > Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described > Oswald as; > 5 ft. 3 inches? > Blond hair? > Approximately 119 pounds?
> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
Let's examine just one of the items listed in your "Case Dismissed" page, which claims that,
"Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
"#1. He was innocent.
"#2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."
You claim that "JFK's brain missing. CASE DISMISSED."
Well, no. JFK's brain was not missing, and would have been available if needed for Oswald's trial, presumably held in 1964. The HSCA did extensive investigation on this question and established the chain of custody:
"The evidence indicates, therefore, that soon after the autopsy of President Kennedy [November 22-23, 1963], all autopsy-related material was transferred from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the Executive Office Building where they were maintained in the custody of Bouck [Robert I. Bouck, Special Agent in Charge of the Protective Research Division, U.S. Secret Service] and under the control of Admiral Burkley [JFK's personal physician]. Specifically, this material included the autopsy photographs, and the tissue sections of organs and brain. The Secret Service maintained custody of all this material at all times until its transfer to the National Archives in [April] 1965."
What happened to the autopsy materials after April 22, 1965, remains speculative; the HSCA wrote, "The circumstantial evidence would seem to indicate that Robert Kennedy then decided to retain possession of all physical specimen evidence and transferred only the autopsy photographs and X-rays to the Government."
"Consequently, although the committee has not been able to uncover any direct evidence of the fact of the missing materials, circumstantial evidence tends to show that Robert Kennedy either destroyed these materials or otherwise rendered them inaccessible."
Legally, JFK's brain and all the other tissue samples belonged to the Kennedy family, specifically Jacqueline Kennedy, on whose behalf Robert Kennedy is believed to have acted as attorney.
In any case, the chain of custody of all the autopsy materials, including JFK's brain, is known from November 1963 to April 1965, and the materials would have been available for Oswald's trial.
Nah, I asked you for proof of your assertion that Mrs Duran INITIALLY said that the Oswald she served in the Cuban Embassy was not the same Oswald who was arrested for the murder of JFK.
I don't think trotting out her HSCA testimony, a document in which she asserts, multiple times, that the Oswald she served in the Cuban Embassy WAS the same Oswald who was arrested for the murder of JFK really helps your cause very much, tomnln.
In fact, it positively hinders it, LOL!
You're clutching at straws, tomnln.
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator*
On Feb 3, 4:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't think so, tomnln. Y'see, you said that Duran FIRST said > that Oswald was not the person that she served at the CUBCON.
> We both know, from CE 2121 that that's simply not the case, tomnln.
> Unless you can come up with your document proving that she INITIALLY > said what you claim she said then I don't think you can make your > case, tomnln. You've already had one go and that flopped in an awful > heap.
> Simple as that really.
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator*
> On Feb 3, 2:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > > support your assertion?
> > Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> > Where have you gone, tomnln?
> > Regards,
> > Tim Brennan > > Sydney, Australia > > *Newsgroup Commentator* > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described > > Oswald as; > > 5 ft. 3 inches? > > Blond hair? > > Approximately 119 pounds?
> > THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
Let's examine just one of the items listed in your "Case Dismissed" page, which claims that,
"Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
"#1. He was innocent.
"#2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."
You claim that "JFK's brain missing. CASE DISMISSED."
Well, no. JFK's brain was not missing, and would have been available if needed for Oswald's trial, presumably held in 1964. The HSCA did extensive investigation on this question and established the chain of custody:
"The evidence indicates, therefore, that soon after the autopsy of President Kennedy [November 22-23, 1963], all autopsy-related material was transferred from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the Executive Office Building where they were maintained in the custody of Bouck [Robert I. Bouck, Special Agent in Charge of the Protective Research Division, U.S. Secret Service] and under the control of Admiral Burkley [JFK's personal physician]. Specifically, this material included the autopsy photographs, and the tissue sections of organs and brain. The Secret Service maintained custody of all this material at all times until its transfer to the National Archives in [April] 1965."
What happened to the autopsy materials after April 22, 1965, remains speculative; the HSCA wrote, "The circumstantial evidence would seem to indicate that Robert Kennedy then decided to retain possession of all physical specimen evidence and transferred only the autopsy photographs and X-rays to the Government."
"Consequently, although the committee has not been able to uncover any direct evidence of the fact of the missing materials, circumstantial evidence tends to show that Robert Kennedy either destroyed these materials or otherwise rendered them inaccessible."
Legally, JFK's brain and all the other tissue samples belonged to the Kennedy family, specifically Jacqueline Kennedy, on whose behalf Robert Kennedy is believed to have acted as attorney.
In any case, the chain of custody of all the autopsy materials, including JFK's brain, is known from November 1963 to April 1965, and the materials would have been available for Oswald's trial.
Nah, I asked you for proof of your assertion that Mrs Duran INITIALLY said that the Oswald she served in the Cuban Embassy was not the same Oswald who was arrested for the murder of JFK.
I don't think trotting out her HSCA testimony, a document in which she asserts, multiple times, that the Oswald she served in the Cuban Embassy WAS the same Oswald who was arrested for the murder of JFK really helps your cause very much, tomnln.
In fact, it positively hinders it, LOL!
You're clutching at straws, tomnln.
Regards,
Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia *Newsgroup Commentator*
On Feb 3, 4:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't think so, tomnln. Y'see, you said that Duran FIRST said > that Oswald was not the person that she served at the CUBCON.
> We both know, from CE 2121 that that's simply not the case, tomnln.
> Unless you can come up with your document proving that she INITIALLY > said what you claim she said then I don't think you can make your > case, tomnln. You've already had one go and that flopped in an awful > heap.
> Simple as that really.
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup Commentator*
> On Feb 3, 2:40 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Yoo hoo! tomnln! How come you said Mrs Duran said Oswald was 5' 3" > > right from the start but when you posted your document it didn't > > support your assertion?
> > Say, you're not hiding, are you tomnln?
> > Where have you gone, tomnln?
> > Regards,
> > Tim Brennan > > Sydney, Australia > > *Newsgroup Commentator* > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Will you concede Defeat if I give Citations that Sylvia Duran described > > Oswald as; > > 5 ft. 3 inches? > > Blond hair? > > Approximately 119 pounds?
> > THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
You present the dissenting opinions of one person, Douglas P. Horne, as if they were fact.
Mr. Horne is not a doctor, much less a pathologist. And Mr. Horne, in his dissent, does not address the issue of whether JFK's brain itself -- not slides, tissue samples, X-rays, or the like -- was in the custody of the Secret Service in the Executive Office Building from November 1963 to April 1965.
Contra Mr. Horne, all three of the Bethesda autopsy pathologists examined the JFK autopsy photographs and X-rays in the National Archives in 1967, and all three declared that they were authentic.
yeuhd wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:38 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote: >> NOW, You Deliver or RUN from the authorities Tampering with Evidence>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
> Let's examine just one of the items listed in your "Case Dismissed" > page, which claims that,
> "Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
> "#1. He was innocent.
> "#2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."
> You claim that "JFK's brain missing. CASE DISMISSED."
> Well, no. JFK's brain was not missing, and would have been available > if needed for Oswald's trial, presumably held in 1964. The HSCA did > extensive investigation on this question and established the chain of > custody:
> "The evidence indicates, therefore, that soon after the autopsy of > President Kennedy [November 22-23, 1963], all autopsy-related material > was transferred from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the Executive Office > Building where they were maintained in the custody of Bouck [Robert I. > Bouck, Special Agent in Charge of the Protective Research Division, > U.S. Secret Service] and under the control of Admiral Burkley [JFK's > personal physician]. Specifically, this material included the autopsy > photographs, and the tissue sections of organs and brain. The Secret > Service maintained custody of all this material at all times until its > transfer to the National Archives in [April] 1965."
> What happened to the autopsy materials after April 22, 1965, remains > speculative; the HSCA wrote, "The circumstantial evidence would seem > to indicate that Robert Kennedy then decided to retain possession of > all physical specimen evidence and transferred only the autopsy > photographs and X-rays to the Government."
> "Consequently, although the committee has not been able to uncover any > direct evidence of the fact of the missing materials, circumstantial > evidence tends to show that Robert Kennedy either destroyed these > materials or otherwise rendered them inaccessible."
> Legally, JFK's brain and all the other tissue samples belonged to the > Kennedy family, specifically Jacqueline Kennedy, on whose behalf > Robert Kennedy is believed to have acted as attorney.
> In any case, the chain of custody of all the autopsy materials, > including JFK's brain, is known from November 1963 to April 1965, and > the materials would have been available for Oswald's trial.
Nonsense. The government would not make everything available at trial.
