1998 INTERVIEW WITH ANNA K. NELSON OF THE ARRB
David Von Pein
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/anna-nelson-of-arrb-october-1998.html
"In truth, Jim Garrison, and hence the Oliver Stone movie, has
been discredited by these documents [released by the ARRB]. If you
read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it
on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think
you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson; October 10, 1998
aeffects
<snip the nutter-troll lunacy>
no advertising shithead......
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
> been discredited by these documents [released by the ARRB]. If you
> read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it
> on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think
> you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson; October 10, 1998
"You can discard that conspiracy"? Garrison did not come close to
solving the case, but he did enter into the public record eyewitness
accounts that refuted the WC version of events. In regards to LHO
being a lone nut, the wounds to JFK, and the description of what was
seen in the Z film by people who saw it. And the WC thesis that Ruby
spontaneously shot LHO was refuted, too.
Garrison was onto the CIA-Syndicate-Cuban assassination attempts
against Castro, and LHO's part in them. And if LHO knew Bannister,
how could he have been a lone nut? LHO was sheep-dipped to perfection
to infiltrate left wing organizations and be a government informant.
So he could not have been a lone nut. Garrison confirmed this and
entered this evidence into the public record.
Garrison did his part to refute the WC Report.
Aaron Hirshberg
David Von Pein
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/anna-nelson-of-arrb-october-1998.html
>>> ""You can discard that conspiracy" [involving Clay Shaw]?" <<<
Yes, of course.
>>> "Garrison did not come close to solving the case, but he did enter into the public record eyewitness accounts that refuted the WC version of events." <<<
Bullshit. He did no such thing. Not even close.
>>> "In regards to LHO being a lone nut, the wounds to JFK, and the description of what was seen in the Z film by people who saw it. And the WC thesis that Ruby spontaneously shot LHO was refuted, too." <<<
Bullshit.
You somehow think GARRISON proved that Ruby's murder of Oswald was not
spontaneous?
And you somehow think GARRISON proved that the wounds on JFK's body
indicated a multi-gun conspiracy?
And your comment about the Z-Film can only be greeted with shrugging
shoulders of bewilderment--plus an obligatory "WTF?"
You must be cracked.
>>> "Garrison was onto the CIA-Syndicate-Cuban assassination attempts against Castro, and LHO's part in them." <<<
LOL. You're cracked.
>>> "And if LHO knew Bannister [sic], how could he have been a lone nut?" <<<
There's no proof Oswald ever "knew" Guy Banister. And even if Oswald
DID know Banister--so what? You think that would give you Garrisonites
a free pass to tie BANISTER into the murder of President Kennedy?
You're crazy (and cracked).
>>> "LHO was sheep-dipped to perfection to infiltrate left wing organizations and be a government informant." <<<
Boy, you ARE a Garrisonite, aren't you? (The "sheep-dipped" phrase
proves that.)
You're cracked.
>>> "So he could not have been a lone nut. Garrison confirmed this and entered this evidence into the public record. Garrison did his part to refute the WC Report." <<<
Which is why the jury at Shaw's trial voted "Not Guilty" after
deliberating for less than one hour, right?
Earth to Aaron: The "evidence" entered into the public record by Jim
Garrison and his co-prosecutors was not even close to being good
enough to convict the defendant (Mr. Shaw).
And yet, somehow, you think that a "NOT GUILTY" verdict at the Shaw
trial means that the Warren Commission Report has been "refuted"?
You must have had lunch with Jim DiEugenio yesterday. And he must have
been feeding you his pro-Garrison crap for dessert.
Jim Garrison did no more to "refute the WC report" than my grandmother
or my cat.
Garrison utilized Clay Shaw as his personal "patsy", with Garrison
using Shaw as a reason for going after the Warren Commission in a
court of law. Garrison was despicable.
It's remarkable to see so many people still wanting to treat Garrison
like a savior and a person who somehow proved ANYTHING conspiratorial
with respect to the JFK assassination....when, in fact, Jim Garrison
did NOTHING to discredit the Warren Commission or the Warren Report.
In fact, if anything, Jim Garrison made the Warren Report's
conclusions EVEN STRONGER and MORE DEFINITIVE.
How so?
By proving to the world that the only way to take someone to trial on
a charge of conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy is to
severely distort and misrepresent the evidence in the case and to
place on trial an innocent man named Clay Laverne Shaw.
I mean, come on, Jim Garrison was actually silly enough to utter the
following totally-false and downright goofy remarks on national
television in 1968:
"They [the Warren Commission] concluded that Lee Oswald was the
lone assassin....and the evidence is clear that Oswald never fired a
shot....never fired a shot." -- J. Garrison; 1/31/68
"There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the
Book Depository. The only evidence available indicates that he did
NOT." -- J. Garrison; 1/31/68
"There was never an investigation. .... I'm not at all impressed
with the fact that they [the Warren Commission] could find no evidence
of a conspiracy. After going through their inquiry, I doubt if they
could find a streetcar if they had a transfer in their hands and it
was pointed out to them." -- J. Garrison; 1/31/68
And one year later, on February 28, 1969, at the end of Clay Shaw's
court trial in New Orleans, Garrison tried to convince a jury that Mr.
Shaw was guilty of conspiracy to murder the President of the United
States, even though Garrison only mentioned Shaw's name ONE TIME
during his final summation, when he told the jury: "You are here
sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw".
But, of course, the jury already knew that. (Duh.)
But in his CLOSING ARGUMENTS to the jury (i.e., his FINAL SALVO, his
LAST CHANCE to speak to those jurors), he didn't ONCE say to the jury
something like this:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this defendant, Clay L. Shaw,
has been proven guilty here in this New Orleans courtroom! There can
be no doubt about Mr. Shaw's guilt in this case! From that witness
stand, you heard witness after witness testifying to the fact that
this defendant, Clay Shaw, willingly participated in a plot to murder
President Kennedy in 1963! There can be no question, ladies and
gentlemen, that Clay Shaw is GUILTY OF THE CHARGE FOR WHICH HE IS ON
TRIAL TODAY--conspiracy to commit murder!"
Doesn't it even bother people like Jim DiEugenio and Aaron Hirshberg
that Jim Garrison didn't say anything remotely close to the kind of
remarks I just simulated above?
And the type of argument I simulated above is, of course, just exactly
the kind of remarks that ANY prosecutor would have made to a jury in
his CLOSING ARGUMENTS to that jury if that prosecutor had a STRONG
CASE TO SUPPORT THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT.
Don't people like James DiEugenio and Aaron Hirshberg and Joan Mellen
(et al) wonder why Mr. Garrison never ONCE told the jury in New
Orleans on February 28, 1969, that the man who was on trial in that
courtroom had been PROVEN GUILTY during the trial?!
If such a thing doesn't make the Garrison fans of the Earth squirm a
little bit in their own seats, then I'd have to ask: Why the hell not?
aeffects
Now THERE is the Dave Reitzes-pieces (aka David Von Pein) we've all
come to know and love.... ROTFLMFAO!
Now you just keep on trollin' dude.... the more things change the more
YOU stay the same.... predictable as the rising sun.
And, no advertising shithead.....
On Jan 27, 7:23 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/anna-nelson-of-arrb-october...