Trial in London?
Peter Fokes
"Groden declined a request by the defense to testify at the trial in
London and thus avoided being cross-examined."
Who was on trial?
Was this a REAL trial or a play trial on TV?
PF
Chad Zimmerman
Chad
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:nc5t331mar4j7f0ge...@4ax.com...
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>The play trial, Peter. If you weren't aware, it was a British production.
>
>Chad
Thought so. Fictional trial.
Oswald's dead.
PF
John Fiorentino
shouldn't and to me didn't matter where it was "staged."
I use several pieces of testimony in my book. The 2 most interesting are
relating to the "brain was missing".............(we won't go there)...and
observations of Cecil Kirk, which I subsequently found out was most probably
orchestrated by Blakey to fit his 4 shot debacle.
John F.
"Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:463e9e4e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Peter Fokes
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Yes, you may say "play" BUT the witnesses were placed under oath. It
>shouldn't and to me didn't matter where it was "staged."
And did they go to jail if they LIED? No.
Could they be convicted of perjury? No.
Was the accused present? NO
Do they hold trials to convict DEAD people? NO.
It was a FICTIONAL TRIAL years after the event. We have plenty of
direct testimony from 1964.
>
>I use several pieces of testimony in my book. The 2 most interesting are
>relating to the "brain was missing".............(we won't go there)...and
>observations of Cecil Kirk, which I subsequently found out was most probably
>orchestrated by Blakey to fit his 4 shot debacle.
As long as you prefaced your use of testimony from this trial as "from
a fictional recreation of a hypothetical trial of Oswald" then your
readers can decide what value to give such testimony.
I would assign it a value of ZERO.
Chow for now :-)
>
>John F.
>
PF
Herbert Blenner
Obviously the WC critics were on trial.
David Von Pein
I think that's going way overboard, Peter.
It certainly doesn't have the VALUE (per se) of a REAL trial, no. Nobody
can deny that fact. But I also, by the same token, have no real reason to
think that the 21 witnesses who were called to the stand would tell a
string of deliberate lies or would skew the truth in any fashion (and,
yes, that includes Tilson, O'Connor, Wecht, and all of Spence's other
pro-CT witnesses).
One thing to remember: Those witnesses weren't forced to appear at the
Mock Trial in England. They weren't served with a subpoena. They were
called by the producers of the LWT program and asked to testify. They were
under no obligation to take that witness stand at all.
Marina Oswald, Bob Groden, and no doubt several other people did refuse to
appear. So, you'd have to ask yourself WHY any witness would VOLUNTEER to
take the witness stand and then tell a bunch of LIES, when they could
easily have avoided being in that situation in the first place by simply
refusing to appear?
Chad Zimmerman
> On 7 May 2007 00:24:01 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net>
> wrote:
>
>>The play trial, Peter. If you weren't aware, it was a British production.
>>
>>Chad
>
> Thought so. Fictional trial.
With non-fictional witnesses being asked non-fictional questions. Yes, the
trial holds no bearing on the case, but few tout it as so.
>
> Oswald's dead.
Yes, Peter...he sure is. But many of the witnesses were not.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> On 7 May 2007 11:27:26 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, you may say "play" BUT the witnesses were placed under oath. It
>>shouldn't and to me didn't matter where it was "staged."
>
> And did they go to jail if they LIED? No.
Big deal, Peter. So what? What is important is their statements...just
like earlier statements made to journalists were important.
>
> Could they be convicted of perjury? No.
>
> Was the accused present? NO
>
> Do they hold trials to convict DEAD people? NO.
>
> It was a FICTIONAL TRIAL years after the event. We have plenty of
> direct testimony from 1964.
Yep, we sure do. The point of using their statements is because they
freely gave them and it was recorded...forever to be part of the
historical record, regardless of whether or not it was part of an actual
judicial record.
Most people cite their testimony, not the outcome of the *trial*...which
is all you really have to complain about.
>
>
>>
>>I use several pieces of testimony in my book. The 2 most interesting are
>>relating to the "brain was missing".............(we won't go there)...and
>>observations of Cecil Kirk, which I subsequently found out was most
>>probably
>>orchestrated by Blakey to fit his 4 shot debacle.
>
> As long as you prefaced your use of testimony from this trial as "from
> a fictional recreation of a hypothetical trial of Oswald" then your
> readers can decide what value to give such testimony.
What about "Mrs. Paine said..."? Who cares what the setting was, Peter.
The fact is that they were interviewed and that is part of the historical
record now...regardless whether someone was on trial for their life.
Chad
John Fiorentino
Peter:
>
> You can assign it any value you want. Just do me one favor. If you have
> access to it. View Spence's grilling of Ruth Paine, and tell me honestly
> if
> you think it was "staged."
>
> John F.
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:jbhu33tkmu3ab4mgl...@4ax.com...
David Von Pein
In my opinion, Ruth Paine's testimony (vs. Gerry Spence) was tremendous
stuff. Nothing phony about it at all. No way. (The part when Ruth starts
to break down a little bit into tears when she tells of her anger toward
Lee Oswald because Lee had used her typewriter without permission is a
highlight -- "That offended me deeply," said Ruth.)
Ruth is a person who always wore the effects and emotion of the
assassination right on her sleeve...for everyone to see. And she wasn't
(isn't) ashamed of that; nor should she be.
She handled herself exceedingly well at that '86 Mock Trial. In fact, she
probably could (should!) have gotten a little testier and angrier at Mr.
Spence when he started throwing up questions to her as if she "worked for
the CIA", etc.
Ruth simply laughed, which she was also berated for by Spence. But,
overall, a good (or at least a little better) picture of Lee Harvey Oswald
came out of Ruth Paine's mock-trial testimony, IMO.
These words possibly were the best spoken at that Docu-Trial in
London...and they were spoken by Mrs. Paine:
"I do think for the historical record it's important that people
understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that people can kill a
President without that being something that shows on them in advance."
John Fiorentino
Nice post............I also give credit to Spence who made her squirm a
few times.
Actually, I think it was the highlight of his defense of LHO.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178604881....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...