> > On May 14, 5:06?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,

> > > ?Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 13, 9:07?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <03f3290d-9591-4383-afbb-d581bc607...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > ? ? ? ?Earlier you wrote:

> > > > > > > > >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it
> > > > > > > > >> >should be
> > > > > > > > >> >quite
> > > > > > > > >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that
> > > > > > > > >> >Lee
> > > > > > > > >> >got
> > > > > > > > >> >his
> > > > > > > > >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he
> > > > > > > > >> >really
> > > > > > > > >> >did,
> > > > > > > > >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases
> > > > > > > > >> >during
> > > > > > > > >> >the
> > > > > > > > >> >time period must have been documented the same way.

> > > > > > > > >> >That should be quite easy to prove.

> > > > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?From the US Code, Title 38, on LINE OF DUTY AND
> > > > > > MISCONDUCT:

> > > > > > QUOTE

> > > > > > (a) An injury or disease incurred during active military, naval, or
> > > > > > air
> > > > > > service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > result of the veteran?s own misconduct when the person on whose
> > > > > > account
> > > > > > benefits are claimed was, at the time the injury was suffered or
> > > > > > disease
> > > > > > contracted, in active military, naval, or air service, whether on
> > > > > > active
> > > > > > duty or on authorized leave, unless such injury or disease was a
> > > > > > result
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the person?s own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs.
> > > > > > ?***
> > > > > > Venereal disease shall not be presumed to be due to willful
> > > > > > misconduct if
> > > > > > the person in service complies with the regulations of the
> > > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > service department requiring the person to report and receive
> > > > > > treatment
> > > > > > for such disease.***

> > > > > Thank you Jean. This is what I was practically begging John to post.
> > > > >,
> > > > > When I made my video presentation in this subject, I left out the "in
> > > > > line
> > > > > of duty" part after reading Zaid's article, but I could never find
> > > > > documentation that solidly resolved the issue.

> > > > > But this does exactly. Thanks again.

> > > > > Robert Harris-

> > > > ? ? ? ? ? ?You're welcome. ?However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> > > > this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> > > > "in the line of duty" ?meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> > > > consort with prostitutes. ?Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that
> > > > wrong?

> > > Of course they, and I were wrong.

> >            Good for you, Robert.

> > > I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> > > rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> > > debate.

> >           John presented evidence on this issue at least 15 years ago,
> > when he pointed out that Oswald's accident with a pistol was also ruled
> > "in the line of duty" and cited a WC document that explained why.  See the
> > first post here:

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
> > caef62497/ea27d604cdc7803b?hl=en&q=oswald+%22in+the+line+of+duty%22+group:a ­lt.
> > assassination.jfk

> I understand that, but a ruling by a judge is not necessarily the same
> thing as a medical report.

> As I told you before, I omitted the "in line of duty" argument in my video
> presentations, because I had doubts that it actually meant what it
> appeared to mean. I was never certain however, and I look at ALL evidence
> with a healthy amount of skepticism.

> What you probably don't realize is that you and your buds suffer pretty
> much the same flaws that the most radical of the conspiracy people do. You
> blithely accept anything that seems to support you and auto-reject
> anything which does not.

> I think if you ask any good scientist or criminologist, they will tell you
> that objectivity is critical to any good analysis.

> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
> same, Jean?