Ric in the Courtroom
eca...@tx.rr.com
"But, let's be fair about this. Let's give Ed a
chance to show he's not an ideologue. Ok, Ed,
if the evidence the government would be forced
to release showed the shot to Kennedy's throat
was an entrance wound, would this new information
have any effect on your SBT, and if so, how?"
RIC OFF-------------------------
Ric I hope you don't have too many
courtroom experiences in your life.. You
*think* you know how courts, juries,
verdicts work.. From what I've seen you
don't. You are once again making an
*ASSUMPTION*
(shades of your imaginary 80 eye witnesses
to a second shooter) I see nothing that
would indicate the "government would be
forced to release evidence that the shot
to Kennedy's throat was an entry wound."
That brief myth was caused by the frantic
scene at PH when attending physicians
initially mistakenly thought the neck
wound was an entry wound.. No time to
analyze the as yet unseen back wound..
That myth went kaput Ric.. You'd know that
if you had done some homework.
1) Oswald would have been convicted..
In fact he was even without testifying
in the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.. He
was defender by the superb and
previously unbeaten Gary Spence but
none other than Vincent Bugliosi..
2) Your quote here displays just how
completely lost you are on the "public"
and juries.. Good grief ricland, the
public's knowledge as a whole on
11-22-63 is dreadfully lacking.. On the
other hand, a jury would be well
informed.. Example: Most (not all) JFK
researchers finally come to understand
Oswald was guilty of killing Kennedy:
ON:---------------
"Indeed, as any number of polls show today,
75% of people survey don't believe Oz was
a lone gunman."
OFF---------------
3) Finally your facts" that you seem to
use as pertinent evidence also reveal
that you are nowhere near qualifying to
render a final verdict..
Do some HOMEWORK
that will enable you to exchange
meaningful dialog.. Again, recognize
you have much to learn.
Regards, Ed Cage 0353Mar1607
On Mar 14, 8:42 pm, "garylloyd" <ricland...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 7:48 pm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
> > Direct answers: Oswald would have been
> > convicted 4 decades ago, he WAS
> > convicted two decades ago (Trial of
> > LHO), and he would be convicted today.
>
> > **************
> > The evidence PATTERN convicts him.
> > **************
> > Regards, Ed Cage
> > 1845Mar1407
>
> Ok, I think I know what you're talking about. The Gerry Spence thing
> was a simulated trial, right?
>
> And you're representing that as evidence LHO would have been convicted
> in the 60s had he lived?
>
> You're kidding, right ...?
>
> First, no Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Second, no subpoena power.
>
> Third, no real witnesses.
>
> Taking LHO's absence first, a LHO on the stand would have been
> devastating for the government were he truly innocent. The defense
> would have turned him loose and invited the government to try and trip
> him up. And if he were innocent, LHO would have no reservation about
> letting it all hang out. We'd have learned things we've only been
> guessing at for the past 45 years.
>
> And one point here you fail to grasp: Oswald was not convicted of
> anything. He was a suspect. He was innocent until proven guilty.
> That's the presumption. That presumption remains no matter the verdict
> of the Warren Commission. That presumption is what separates us from
> Russian.
>
> In other words, the criminal justice arena is far difference from a
> blue ribbon investigating Committee. The member of the WC were hand-
> picked by Johnson. There were no Mark Lanes on the Commission. Mark
> Lane would have presented an entirely different case.
>
> Mark Lane is a superb attorney. He at one time dedicated his life to
> vindicating LHO. He was not paid for this. Therefore, your assertion
> that the case would be a slam dunk is little more than braggadocio.
> At this date, some of the best attorneys in the Country would
> vociferously disagree with you. You're obviously not understanding how
> things change in a courtroom.
>
> There is a massive amount of evidence that thousands of attorneys
> across the country find troubling about this case. They''ve written
> tens of books about this. Your assertion that none of them has a leg
> to stand on is pure internet braggadacio, as I said.
>
> The case would be a enormously competitive one. Serious doubt would be
> cast on almost ever item of government evidence. Testimony by people
> like Beverly Oliver would shoot the single bullet theory dead in the
> water. The 79 other grassy knoll witnesses would bury it at sea. Your
> hair-splitting rebuttal of these things would simply not be as
> persuasive as you seem to think. You'll not have the luxury of
> discrediting 80 people with the wonderful deductive logic you use
> here. That's not how things work in a courtroom. You'd have to counter
> witnesses like Oliver, Hollard, Arnold, Clemons, et. al., with people
> just as honest-seeming or these people would rip your SBT theory to
> shreds.
>
> But who would you counter them with? Where are you 80 witnesses?
>
> Again, understand the difference between a courtroom and a forum.
>
> Then there's the matter of archived and redacted information. This
> wouldn't have worked. All the FBI, CIA, Dallas PD data that we still
> haven't seen would be laid bare. You have no idea what this data says.
> It's safe to assume, however, that since it's been locked away, it is
> not helpful to SBT or anything else about the case against LHO.
>
> Again, understand the difference between a courtroom and a forum.
>
> And what about David Ferrie? Do you honestly believe his death during
> the Garrison trial was just a coincidence?
>
> Tens of thousands of lawyers around the globe think LHO is innocent.
> These men understand what would happen with the evidence during trial
> far better than you. In addition, I'm sure there are many pro-Warren
> Commission lawyers who'd also agree that at this point in time, LHO
> would walk -- and they believe this NOT because they think he's
> innocent, but because they are experienced enough to know that current
> questions about the evidence would cause massive problems for the
> government.
>
> In fact, I'd go so far as saying if Earl Warren were alive today and
> ask if it would be a slam dunk win he'd say "Hell no!"
>
> So, please, Ed, stop confusing the question. The question is whether
> he'd win in court, not if he's innocent.
>
> There's a difference.
>
> ricland
cdddraftsman
and luthier . The two faries who's idea's about JFK's
Assassination are Homo Driven pranks that aren't
funny . These are the true proportions :
Grassy Knoll Minority :
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4ccrpcp
3 Shots Only :
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2u7odb6
> > ricland- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
luthie...@yahoo.com
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
RICLAND
This may be entirely correct, Ed, but it still doesn't get you a cigar.
The same mistake by 18 doctors is not swept under the rug quite as
easily as that in open court. Granted, the WC can simply dismiss the
massive misidentification by saying it was a mistake, but this wouldn't
fly in court. The defense would hammer these doctors to death. They'd be
on their knees begging him to stop. The jury would not believe so many
doctors could make the same mistake.
And I remind you again, ED, it's not jury that's the operative body here.
> 1) Oswald would have been convicted..
> In fact he was even without testifying
> in the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.. He
> was defender by the superb and
> previously unbeaten Gary Spence but
> none other than Vincent Bugliosi..
Question: If Oswald showed he was a CIA operative, would he still be
convicted?
> 2) Your quote here displays just how
> completely lost you are on the "public"
> and juries.. Good grief ricland, the
> public's knowledge as a whole on
> 11-22-63 is dreadfully lacking.. On the
> other hand, a jury would be well
> informed.. Example: Most (not all) JFK
> researchers finally come to understand
> Oswald was guilty of killing Kennedy:
And here you completely lose it, Ed. The jury would be the most informed
jury in history. The jury would no more details about the case than any
jury before it. The jury would now every significant detail about LHO's
life (save the CIA stuff). They would know his wife's name, the branch
of military he served in, where he worked, etc, etc, etc.
Honestly, Ed, get a grip, man.
ricland
aeffects
Ben Holmes
says...
As, I might point out, yours has been proven to be.
>> > On the
>> > other hand, a jury would be well
>> > informed.. Example: Most (not all) JFK
>> > researchers finally come to understand
>> > Oswald was guilty of killing Kennedy:
It's nonsense like this that is truly funny!
Trolls who can't answer the evidence ... presented by *CT'ers*... yet they try
to argue that the more knowledge you gain on this case, the more likely you'd be
a LNT'er. It's more than just silly - it's a flat out lie.
*MOST* "JFK Researchers" are not LNT'ers... they're CT'ers.
This can be *proven* quite simply. Look at the publishing record. *Real*
researchers publish... it's that simple.
I suspect that it wouldn't be too hard to name 10 CT'er books to every *one*
LNT'er book.
Ben Holmes
If Ric had done his homework, he'd have already called you a liar, Eddie
There was *NO* medical opinion based on an examination of that neck wound that
declared it anything *OTHER* than an entrance wound. If they *had* looked at
the back wound - the *first* thing they would have noted is that the back wound
was *larger* than the neck wound - presuming that they would connect those two
wounds (and that's not at all a given), this would merely lend more evidence to
their presumption that the neck wound was an entrance.
So Eddie, you're simply a liar when you suggest that had they looked at the back
wound, they would have come to a different conclusion. Any emergency room
doctor knows that bullets leave small holes going in, and larger holes coming
out.
That's simply a fact.
The doctors at Parkland were bamboozled into changing their opinion because they
were led to believe that a real autopsy - TO INCLUDE A COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF
THE NECK WOUND was conducted. They were lied to. No examination of the neck
wound was permitted at Bethesda.
So Eddie lies when he speaks of "myth"... it's the *ONLY* medical opinion based
on a primary examination of that wound. Or, for that matter... *ANY*
examination of the neck.
And when you lie, Eddie... it's only going to get pointed out.
David Von Pein
Spoken by a kook named Benjamin who seems to think that the throat
wound was actually MEASURED BY SOMEBODY at Parkland before the trach
was performed right through that bullet hole.
Who measured it, Ben?
Answer -- Nobody did.
But, Ben (being the kook he is) seems to think he KNOWS that the hole
in John Kennedy's throat was positively smaller than the back
wound....even though he can't possibly know that, since the wound in
the throat was never measured by anybody, and was observed for a very
short period of time by doctors who were busy doing other things as
well.
Ben's tactic is known as Kook Logic. And he has applied for a patent
on it. It's pending as we speak.
>>> "No examination of the neck wound was permitted at Bethesda." <<<
More kookshit from a kook named Ben. The throat wound was positively
examined by Humes, et al, at the autopsy. But it wasn't KNOWN to be
anything but a PROBABLE TRACH INCISION by the Bethesda doctors. Not a
bullet hole. But it definitely WAS examined. Let's listen to James J.
Humes re. this matter that Ben has just misrepresented (as per usual):
DR. HUMES -- "When examining the wounds in the base of the President's
neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland
Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and
bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at
the time of the postmortem examination."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
And I want to know what person ordered "NO NECK-WOUND EXAMINATION",
per Ben's beliefs? Burkley? McHugh? Who?
Ben won't be able to tell me...because he doesn't know. And he's a
kook. And as I just showed above, the neck wound was examined at the
autopsy.
eca...@tx.rr.com
about misquoting me.. I'm consistently
seeing spins and misinterpretations (unintentional) by you that are
due to
you quickly scanning my replies rather
than reading them.. For example I said,
CAGE ON:-----------------
"..the public's knowledge as a whole on
11-22-63 is dreadfully lacking.. On the
other hand, a jury would be well informed.."
Then you respond:
RIC ON:-----------
"Actually, the jury would be one of the
most informed juries of all time. <SNIP EXAMPLES> They would know all
these things,
Ed, more the reason why your claim they
would be "dreadfully lacking" in knowledge
is nothing short of bizarre."
RIC OFF-----------
I said no such thing Ric.
I said, "the public's knowledge as a whole
on 11-22-63 is dreadfully lacking" NOT the
JURY.When you just skim over my post then misquote you do a disservice
to both of us
as well as any 3rd party observer.. Please
try to be more careful quoting me and
others..
UNFORTUNATELY I BELIEVE you are also making
the same reckless mistakes when you read the evidence.. Ric as far as
I know Baxter,
Carrico, and Perry were the primary Doctors
at Parkland Hospital attending to Kennedy..
Each of them, assuming they didn't commit perjury under oath,
acknowledged that the
neck wound they saw could have been either
an exit or entry wound..
RIC ON:------------------------
The three officers who made a "mistake"
about the rifle would be crucified. Then the
18 doctors who made a "mistake" about the
throat shot would drawn and quartered. After this the 50 people who
thought they heard
the shots from the grassy knoll would be
brought to the wall about their "mistake."
RIC OFF------------------------
Ric whar O whar dew ya git dis stuF?!?
Where and how did you come by the knowledge that "18 doctors who made
a mistake about
the throat shot" and WHO are these guys?
Did you skim read the evidence as well?
I know of no such evidence..
RE: (80 or 50) witnesses who thought they
heard shots from the grassy knoll.. Again
Ric, not trying to be cute, but I believe
you previously referenced "80 witnesses"
(now down to 50 I see), as saying there
were shots from the GK area and even offered "Beverley Oliver as a
witness who actually saw a GK gunman" (paraphrasing
both accounts).. To your credit you
apparently did some research as I suggested
and discovered Beverley Oliver was a fraud." Your words.. but correct
this time on BO
but only after I suggested you do some
research..
Allow me to also suggest you research:
1) Ric your "80-50 witnesses who thought
they heard shots from the GK".. Who are
these guys?
2) Then research your "18 doctors who made
a mistake about the throat shot" quote..
Who are these guys?
Ric again I hope you don't have too many courtroom experiences in your
life.. You
*think* you know how courts, juries,
verdicts work.. From what I've seen you
don't. You are once again making clearly *ASSUMPTIONS* that you have
no
documentation for.. I also see nothing
that would indicate the "government would
be forced to release evidence that the
shot to Kennedy's throat was an entry
wound." That brief myth was caused by the frantic scene at PH when
attending
physicians initially mistakenly thought
the neck wound was an entry wound.. No
time to analyze the as yet unseen back
wound.. That myth went kaput Ric..
AND GOD ONLY KNOWS where you got that "18 doctors who made a mistake
about the throat shot".. (More likely a bogus claim about the BOH)
which is another matter altogether..
Ric you would know these things if you had
done some proper research which doesn't
include believing what members of the
"There's Something Fishy Here" gang like
Ben Holmes et al post. These guys get drawn
& quartered on a daily basis primarily because of their lack of
evidence..
**********
The LN faction has an
evidence *pattern*
They don't and that's the
DIFFERENCE.
**********
RIC ON:---------------
"Indeed, as any number of polls show today,
75% of people survey don't believe Oz was
a lone gunman."
RIC OFF---------------
Ric I believe you now perhaps finally
understand the difference between what the public thinks and the
information a jury
would have.. Your more recent post indicates
you now understand that but your above post
was a irrelevant *stinker*
ADDITIONALLY I THINK you recklessly and incorrectly attributed a BOH
quote and mistakenly attributed it to your reference to "the 18
doctors who made a 'mistake'
about the throat shot." Am I right?
If so, the BOH is another issue altogether
Ric.. But be forewarned if you wish to
pursue that one you will have to explain
why the x-rays and autopsy photos and the
Z film are all in direct conflict with
that position..
Do some research Ric, try to quote others correctly, and stay away
from courtroom environments, that's clearly a weak area
for you at least in my view..
Regards, Ed Cage 0805Mar1707
On Mar 16, 11:48 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
aeffects
> First of all Ric please be very careful
> about misquoting me.. I'm consistently
> seeing spins and misinterpretations (unintentional) by you that are
> due to
> you quickly scanning my replies rather
> than reading them..
Eddie,
Listen up champ -- you've nothing on this USNET board 'worthy' of
quoting... you gott'a get past that image 'Fading Away', Ed! Stick
with what you profess knowledge of. You need credibility, Ed.....
David Von Pein
199 or more.
When was the last time you started up an essay thread of your own,
David Healy, regarding a specific aspect of this case (in some degree
of detail)? When? And what was its topic?
The LNers in here have brought up gobs of topics re. the case. But
what does Healy contribute...nothing but LNer putdowns and Ben-Kook
kiss-ups.
What a CT legacy you're leaving behind....4,000 "beef-stick" posts.
Yippee.
Bud
Nor was there a medical examination to determine it to be an
extrance at that time. What testing does Ben think was done to
determine this was an entry wound?
> If they *had* looked at
> the back wound - the *first* thing they would have noted is that the back wound
> was *larger* than the neck wound - presuming that they would connect those two
> wounds (and that's not at all a given), this would merely lend more evidence to
> their presumption that the neck wound was an entrance.
That might be an indicator, IF both wounds were measured at the
time. Were they?
> So Eddie, you're simply a liar when you suggest that had they looked at the back
> wound, they would have come to a different conclusion.
That isn`t what he said, idiot. He said they didn`t analyze with
that information considered.Why do you call people liars when you are
at fault?
> Any emergency room
> doctor knows that bullets leave small holes going in, and larger holes coming
> out.
Thats the problem with what people think they "know", it often
isn`t true. It would be safe to say that bullets that fragment do. It
would be safe to say that this bullet did not fragment. It would be
safe to say the the majority of the cases these doctors were familiar
with were caused by bullets that broke up, soft point ammo.
> That's simply a fact.
Then you can quote an expert stating as fact that bullets alway make
a smaller entry hole than an exit hole. I doubt that, there are other
considerations, a bullet can be tumbling before it enters, and
curvature of the body where the bullet enters or exits could play a
role in the size of the hole.
> The doctors at Parkland were bamboozled into changing their opinion because they
> were led to believe that a real autopsy - TO INCLUDE A COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF
> THE NECK WOUND was conducted. They were lied to. No examination of the neck
> wound was permitted at Bethesda.
Jean Davison produced documention that doctors are warned against
making pronouncements about entry and exits of bullets, because of the
way that information is used in courtrooms.
> So Eddie lies when he speaks of "myth"... it's the *ONLY* medical opinion based
> on a primary examination of that wound.
I`ve asked Ben more than once how the doctors at Parkland determined
this wound to be an entry. He ducked the question every time.
> Or, for that matter... *ANY*
> examination of the neck.
You rule all observations after the trach null and void, so that
only leaves the Parkland doctor`s assessments, tempered by the
conditions they made their observations, and the testing they did or
didn`t do to support their conclusions.
> And when you lie, Eddie... it's only going to get pointed out.
>
>
> >This may be entirely correct, Ed, but it still doesn't get you a cigar.
> >
> >The same mistake by 18 doctors is not swept under the rug quite as
> >easily as that in open court.
Ricland thinks 18 doctors at Parkland declared the neck wound an
entrance wound?
aeffects
> Ed's got more credibility in just one post than you (Healy) have in
> 199 or more.
>
> When was the last time you started up an essay thread of your own,
> David Healy, regarding a specific aspect of this case (in some degree
> of detail)? When? And what was its topic?
Von Pein one comment: the Zapruder film. It's questionable! You dig?
That help your case any? btw, Eddie is a hack! Plain and simple....
and you're quickly approaching his status.... you're wilting David...
> The LNers in here have brought up gobs of topics re. the case. But
> what does Healy contribute...nothing but LNer putdowns and Ben-Kook
> kiss-ups.
>
> What a CT legacy you're leaving behind....4,000 "beef-stick" posts.
ROTFLMFAO -- proving conspiracy, that enough? yep I'd say we did our
job, that and of course exposing latter day WCR adorists for what they
really are, intentional and misinformed gullibilites (that a real
word?).... carry-on troop!
> Yippee.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:44 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Ed's got more credibility in just one post than you (Healy) have in
> > 199 or more.
> >
> > When was the last time you started up an essay thread of your own,
> > David Healy, regarding a specific aspect of this case (in some degree
> > of detail)? When? And what was its topic?
>
> Von Pein one comment: the Zapruder film. It's questionable! You dig?
So is your sanity.
aeffects
> aeffects wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 6:44 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Ed's got more credibility in just one post than you (Healy) have in
> > > 199 or more.
>
> > > When was the last time you started up an essay thread of your own,
> > > David Healy, regarding a specific aspect of this case (in some degree
> > > of detail)? When? And what was its topic?
>
> > Von Pein one comment: the Zapruder film. It's questionable! You dig?
>
> So is your sanity.
Dudster, there's a litigator in the room.... show us your stuff! DVP
NEEDS you!
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Mar 17, 7:20 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > aeffects wrote:
> > > On Mar 17, 6:44 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Ed's got more credibility in just one post than you (Healy) have in
> > > > 199 or more.
> >
> > > > When was the last time you started up an essay thread of your own,
> > > > David Healy, regarding a specific aspect of this case (in some degree
> > > > of detail)? When? And what was its topic?
> >
> > > Von Pein one comment: the Zapruder film. It's questionable! You dig?
> >
> > So is your sanity.
>
> Dudster, there's a litigator in the room....
Is that like a caiman? A little gator?
> show us your stuff! DVP
> NEEDS you!
You need rehab.
eca...@tx.rr.com
LN faction a "liar, coward, gutless
coward," or even "child molestor" ..Why
not Cut and Paste the "lie" you say I
told in here?
Ed
-----------------
First of all Ric please be very careful
about misquoting me.. I'm consistently
seeing spins and misinterpretations
(unintentional) by you that are
due to
you quickly scanning my replies rather
CAGE ON:-----------------
"..the public's knowledge as a whole on
11-22-63 is dreadfully lacking.. On the
other hand, a jury would be well informed.."
Ric again I hope you don't have too many
courtroom experiences in your
life.. You
*think* you know how courts, juries,
verdicts work.. From what I've seen you
don't. You are once again making clearly
*ASSUMPTIONS* that you have
no
documentation for.. I also see nothing
that would indicate the "government would
be forced to release evidence that the
shot to Kennedy's throat was an entry
wound." That brief myth was caused by
the frantic scene at PH when
attending
physicians initially mistakenly thought
the neck wound was an entry wound.. No
time to analyze the as yet unseen back
wound.. That myth went kaput Ric..
AND GOD ONLY KNOWS where you got that
"18 doctors who made a mistake
about the throat shot".. (More likely
a bogus claim about the BOH)
which is another matter altogether..
Ric you would know these things if you had
done some proper research which doesn't
include believing what members of the
"There's Something Fishy Here" gang like
Ben Holmes et al post. These guys get drawn
& quartered on a daily basis primarily
because of their lack of
evidence..
**********
The LN faction has an
evidence *pattern*
They don't and that's the
DIFFERENCE.
**********
RIC ON:---------------
"Indeed, as any number of polls show today,
75% of people survey don't believe Oz was
a lone gunman."
Regards, Ed Cage
> On Mar 17, 12:39 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <ctidnSoYvb3UV2fYnZ2dnUVZ_oOkn...@comcast.com>, RICLAND says...
> >ricland- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Wasted post #239 in a row for The Healy-meister I see.
You've not "proven" conspiracy (least of all YOU, via say-nothing
posts like your last 239).
The Z-Film is "questionable" because kooks want to believe it's
questionable...no other reason. And there's no reason for FAKING that
film and then LEAVING IN the very thing that most CTers think points
to multiple shooters -- the rear head snap! If that's not hilarity at
its most ironic (and moronic)...what would be?
You dig, (kook)?
(Give me some of that crabmeat, Dean!)