Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

JFK Assassination: What do you think ?

Discussion in 'The Stump' started by 36thID, Nov 24, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    152
    I'm still claiming victory.

    I'll give you guys a hint. The ONLY thing that can torpedo my theory is that John Elferink is not an American lawyer. So, there may be certain differences in how american lawyers bring people to trial that torpedo this. This I'm more than willing to accept.

    Anything else, and it's "Stawman" time for all of the doubters.

    BTW...the Warren Commission was as close to a 'strawman' as america had ever seen. Continueing to push that stupid 27 volume mess at anyone is ridiculous. The House Select committee on Assassinations is now the official 'view' of the U.S. Government. Get over it, fellas, and stop pushing Waren Commission nonsense.
     
  2. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    152
    Good God....you guys bit hard at that one. not good to joke around when serious issues are at stake, is it?
     
  3. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,380
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Location:
    Alabama
    By your own logic, since you offer the opinion of someone who is not licensed to practice law in the US, we cannot accept said opinion because the proposed barrister would never be able to present it in a court in the US. :D

    Right Wing? Opanapointer, right wing? We are talking about the same person, right? O-p-a-n-a-p-o-i-n-t-e-r? They one that posts here, in this forum and owns HyperWar? Right Wing?

    I think Lou has also posted decrying your theory. He and I have had some pleasant phone and email conversation. He is anything but right wing.

    There is much in Post 200 that is astounding to me and I am left to wonder the origin of some of the statements, presented as fact, that leave me scratching my head.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I am growing weary of this thread and feel it has served its limited usefulness. Volga, you have not presented much in the way of evidence - a lot of opinion and supposition, but very little evidence and most of that is from a discredited author and a foreign attorney.

    I'm not wishing to close the thread, but I expect to see comments with valid, supporting evidence with any additional posts.
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    He also told the police right afterwards something else as I believe was mentioned earlier in this thread and I seem to recall him saying other things at other time also as mentioned. What makes this a strawman is that none of us that are arguing against you have stated we believe the above at least from what I recall while you claimed we all did. What we do have to seem consensus on is that your beliefs as to why he did it are at best questionable if not complete fabrications.
    Was that in an Australian Court or a US court? I certainly doubt it would be the case in a US court of the time.

    Why do you think that? I believe at the time it was up to the accused or his lawyer to have read up on what is rights are. By the way also seem to recall that it's no longer necessary in at least some jurisdictions and/or under certain circumstances to read the accused his or her rights.
    Not really. By the way how a case is brought to trial can very considerably across the US. I'm not sure if this would have been a Grand Jury case or not but you can be very sure it would have gone to trial. It was also not the poinnt of the Warren commision to try Oswald as they couldn't. Whether or not they could get a conviction is an open question but I strongly suspect they would have. People have been convicted on less.
    What has this got to do with right wing politics. True guilt or innocence by the way is not necessarily what is determined in a court of law and since there never was and never will be a trial for Oswald then there is no proof either way.
    NO. If a case doesn't reach a court of law then legally no one has been proven guilty that doesn't mean that someone isn't guilty or that said someone is anonymous.
    A corpse doesn't have any rights.
    If they could do it for Ollie North I don't see them having any problem a few decades earlier doing it for Oswald. Note that the "little or no knowledge" of the case rule is a fairly modern one. Indeed I suspect the founding fathers when they said trial by a jury of ones peers considered that in many cases the suspect(s) would be known to those on the jury. Given the populations of the time it could hardly be otherwise.
    No. He is simply not proven guilty.
    That's debateable.
    Funny none of the rest of us even marginally consider him the core.
    Starwman. Where have we said we accept his excuses? We simplly don't find yours convincing
    I think it's well established that Jack Ruby wasn't the most stable of individuals.
    Why do you think that? Most certainly would on the otherhand lynchings weren't unknown in US history either.
    That's pure speculation on your part. No one knows exactly why Jack did it.
    Another strawman.
    You keep saying this but are a long way from proving it.
    What committal hearing?
    That's good since he's been pretty well discredited.
    I suggest you look in a mirror.

    Which is no more valid than any of your other claims. I.e. not at all.
    I'm beginning to think you don't know what a strawman is. Here are a couple of links:
    Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Fallacy: Straw Man
    straw man - definition and examples of straw man - informal logical fallacy
    Straw man - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    How so? Indeed this rather confirms my opinion expressed above.
    Really? Have you got a source for that?
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  5. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    152
    Slip, there is no reason to suppose that Jack Ruby did what he did for no reason at all.

    This man had spent most of his life trying to stay alive. It was this that drove him forward, as it does with all of us. For you to simply shrug your shoulders at the Ruby motivations, without even attempting to look into it, thats really not investigating the truth behind it at all.

    I offered a possible explanation that fits all the evidence available. Jack was part of Carlos Marcello's crime syndicate, a "bag man". He was trusted enough by Marcello to run money and other important items for the good of the syndicate. EVERY Mafia man wants to become 'made'. They often spend the greater majority of their lives trying to reach this exulted status in the 'mob'. There is no reason to suppose that Ruby WASN'T offered this very thing. It would most certainly explain why he was so set on eliminating Lee Oswald, a man that had frequented his nightclub, and associated with many of Jack's buddies, like Guy Bannister, or David Ferrie.

    If the man himself does not give a reasonable excuse, it's up to history to speculate. I told you that that particular post was MY THEORY, nothing more. I then had people asking me for 'transcripts' and 'proof' of the conversation, when it was speculative to begin with. All of which proves that those people didn't actually read the post at all. I certainly don't see anybody else speculating as to why Jack would give himself a certain death sentence to eliminate someone who was already in the hands of the justice system. Thats why his excuse makes no sense. A blaming it all on 'instability' really is sweeping it under a well worn carpet. We are only left with speculation, as the justice system did not do what Ruby wished them to do either, which was to get him out of his Dallas jail cell and protect him from harm.

    Thats what stinks about the whole mess created by the Dallas police. Time after time, witnesses were bought off, intimidated, or simply murdered.

    The probabilities of this happening to ALL of these people, particularly just before they were to appear before the various courts and tribunals, means something rotten yet again.

    Believing the Warren Commision also means you have to accept "the Magic Bullet". As a site devoted to military history, try and find a bullet that is in 'pristine' conditin after all the wounds and surfaces that bullet hit, is impossible. As Garrison said, 'The Magic Bullet' was "One of the grossest lies ever foisted on the American people.", with Senator Huey Long commenting "One pristine bullet, that dog don't hunt..."

    Garrison got a huge amount wrong. But the bits he got right were more than enough to put reasonable doubt into anybody that wasn't simply playing flag waver, and supporting the commission for the simple reason that it was the government view.

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations is now, like it or not, the view that your government takes. Accoustic testing confirmed more than three bullets. Where those bullets came from, and how they were delivered, it could not say. But the very fact that this Committee is a government sponsered board means that any findings can and do replace the findings of the sordid and flawed Warren Commission.

    My feelings that this site is very pro Right Wing are more than confirmed every time I sit here. I've no problem with that. But it does mean that sometimes, people simply tow the government line for the simple reason of not looking un-patriotic.

    Jack Ruby ensured that, until further documents are released, that this debate will have no possible conclusion other than the official one. But people like Garrison, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher et. al are citizens with the courage to stand up to their own government, and oppose the official view. Thank the corruption and incompetance of the Dallas Police Department for that. Who let Ruby in? Who gave him access to the basement, by the side door? Why was Roger Craig run out of town? Why did Department Chief Will Fritz deny Roger's presence when Garrison produced a photo clearly showing him there, standing next to other members of the force?

    When we can answer these questions, we may have some idea of what Ruby was really doing at the Police office. To say there were 'lots of people there' is quite true, but none of them were let in by the side door...the side door was controlled entry, strictly off limits to non-Police members....all except for Ruby.

    Pat acceptance of government excuses, unanswered questions, bullets that obviously could not have hit anyone.....Christ, are you people blind?

    Garrison's problem was that he bit off far more than he could chew. Before he got lost in one too many Gay bars, he has come the closest so far to explaining anything. He most certainly asked some very important and intelligent questions. To have him slagged off by the establishment as 'psychotic' is clearly character assassination. Look at his record. It's quite CLEAN, right up until the very time he started to question the Warren Commission. Another coincidence? Not on your nelly....

    I realise that historians should concentrate on what they can 'prove', rather than speculative. And this was Garrison's mistake. He assumed that other, more powerful people would want to ask the same questions. The shock of his career was to find just how many people ran for cover. The bravery of the man for standing up for his convictions should be acknowledged by the government, but all the government did was to obstruct him, right from the moment he arrested David Ferrie. Even for the Trial of Clay Shaw, the Attorney General managed to break every convention by offering his endorsement of Shaw, untroubled by the laws of perjury. And this sort of thing was happening all the time. Bugged offices, infiltration of his investigations, witnesses dropping like flies, often just before they were due to testify. David Ferrie's desperation for protection failed for the simple reason that Garrison didn't have the resources to protect him. The book tells of him calling Garrison's office, and asking over and over to protect him, while saying, rightly, that "From here on in I am a DEAD man..."

    Of course, none of this raises suspicians in the minds of you or our fellow rogues towing the Warren Commission line? And you wonder why I make accusations of right-wing one eyedness!!!

    Someday, somehow, someone will wake up one morning and realise that this case is not doing the good reputation of the wonderful United States of America any good at all. All that happens is more ammunition for our enemies. They can point to this case alone as an example of the so-called 'evils' of America and Americans. I want to play a part in putting a stop to all this, particularly as we are fighting a war against an enemy we can't see, can't get hold of. All our military and industrial accomplishments aren't going to be flushed down the toilet by people wishing to discredit our alliance.

    The sooner we have an open investigation, and an independant body, to achieve exactly this, the Kennedy Assassination will be an open wound, supperating, and offering more anti-
    american propaganda to those that wish to pull down our way of life, our freedom, and our role as a global Policeman for the good of mankind.

    I hope you understand my motivation. At least I give it a go. And I adopt my own views. You wanted me to demonstrate this, and not based on the Garrison point of view...and I have.

    Thanks for not putting me in the cooler. It shows we are actually on the same side, and both want the best for a country and people that we ALL should admire and respect.
     
  6. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    152
    Just for the record...somebody asked, LWD I think, "What is a committal hearing?"

    Before the state can prosecute a man in a court of law, it must demonstrate that it has enough evidence to do so. Committal hearings are held for every case, in both the United Staes, Australia, Canada, Great Britian, in fact any country with a similar legal system that we all have.

    The State must demonstrate, through evidence and testimony, that it has enough of both to continue with the prosecution to a formal trial, empanellment of jury, and conviction or freedom for the accused.

    The Warren Commission held no such hearing. It didn't have to, because this body was there to make 'recommendations' only, not to decide the guilt or innocense of the people concerned. The fact that it concentrated on the life, career, and actions of Lee Harvey Oswald meant that it's findings would be based solely on this information. Other avenues of investigation were not looked into at all, as demonstrated by prominent critics like Mark Lane. Lane, a civil lawyer, was to be the man of choice for defending Mr.Oswald, and his sterling work uncovered much that the commission simply ignored, or left as unexplained.

    Lane's work was to come up with a 'brief' for the defense, and one that should have been put to use. Oswald's untimely death meant that the Commission found itself in the role of the judge, something it was not supposed to do at all. The Warren Commission was NOT a court of law, and could not be taken as such even by the most strident supporter of it's 'view'. The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald was to be an entirely seperate hearing, if, and only if, the State Prosecutor could demonstrate that it had enough evidence.

    Considering the huge holes that were torn into the Commission's findings, it's actually quite reasonable to speculate that the case would not have reached trial stage at all. In fact, I'm not sure whether anyone before or since has adopted this idea. Everyone simply assumes that the Warren Commission findings were the same as a court of law would find...

    WRONG.

    Lee Harvey Oswald was unable to testify, so, any assumptions made by the Warren Commission concerning him are ALL speculative without his evidence. Too, the U.S. government continues to classify every document concerning Lee Harvey Oswald that it has on it's files as 'national security'. So really, Lee has gotten both ends of a bad stick. Unable to defend himself in a court of law, he is maligned for an unprosecuted crime that only a commission accuses him of.

    And the Warren Commission had no power to bring that sort of decision down against Lee, only make 'recommendations'.

    Whether he was involved in the assassination, or an innocent, or somewhere in between, cannot be decided by ANY Commission.

    Only a court of law, after a committal hearing, can do that.

    Look, instead of slagging me off, why not make some enquiries, as I did, and from an American lawyer or two? Then get back here and tell us what they say.

    Better that than sitting on our hienies and crying loudly 'yay' or 'nay'. Are we historians?....or are we just posters on the internet, trying to impress eachother about how knowledgeable we are, or trying to garner brownie points from 'like minded individuals'?

    In the words of the great American, Frederick Douglas, when asked near the end of his life by a young man what the young man should do with his life, the old man said it all, clearly, and in a single word...."AGITATE"
     
  7. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,576
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Hold on guys, it appears that Lee Harvey was indeed innocent. Yesterday a friend of mine met Elvis and JFK in Las Vegas in company of dozen stunners. ;)
     
  8. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    152
    Oh...one last thing. LWD states that "A corpse has no rights".

    I'm afraid it does. The right to a fair go from a body of people is one of them. Beg to differ on that.

    Further, this was no lynching from Ruby. Lynching is by a popular mob. What Ruby did was OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE....and murder.

    Thanks for your reply, Lwd. Please reply again to above post.

    As for that Opana fellow.....have a nice day, and say hello to the Charlie Daniels Band, long lost member of it that you are.

    Maybe he could come up with an appropriate lyric...say..."The Devil Went Down to Dallas". Next time you take a shot at me, brother rogue, don't leave the rifle where we can find it!
     
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    There are several ways to parse that sentence none of them make particular sense. Ruby certainly had reasons for doing what he did. Probably a mix of them of verying weights. He also mentioned a number of reasons. Whether those were the main or even the real reasons is an open question.
    Straw man.
    Well you are correct on the first part you offered a possible explanation. It hardly fits all the evidence available and indeed is very questionable, furthermore you are insisting that it is THE answer.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Where in the law does it state that a corpse has rights? It's an inanimate object.
    Lynching is usually by a mob, it is still murder and may be obstruction of justice as well. Of course this is beside the point which was that it is not unheard of in the US for individuals to take the law into their own hands even if the law would likely deal with the offender.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page