Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[HSienzant]

There are limits to the number of topics anyone can discuss simultaniously. Of course.

Straw man argument. Discuss them sequentially.​

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Really?

I am currently discussing five different topics on three different forums... easy peezy!

Hence the quality of your postings.

 

[HSienzant]

I’m NOT an ”international skeptic” since the concept of scientific skepticism have been hijacked by people having little or nothing to do with finding out the truth in a scietiffic manner, and everything to do with the opposite.

Well, how about some evidence?

To cover up the truth when it threatens their masters positions of power.

You should post the evidence for that,

Because it is YOU WHO MAKE THE CLAIM.

There are many ways to supress inconvinient truths.

Name them and cite...

Hank

 

[manifesto]

​

You should post the evidence for that,​

​

Hank

Hello Hank. If you quote my statement and then under the same quote ask for additional information that you need to evaluate the veracity said statement, like source, evidence, etc, I promise to do that.

But, if you are trying to play games quoting my statements with quotes from me that you have painted blue, you have to play them with someone else, preferebly from your age group and from your denomination.

Ok? Hank?

 

[manifesto]

Because you said you were familiar with the WC and its evidence.

Are you?

Yes, most of it. Why do you ask?

Because if YOU know what we are discussing, and I know what we are discussing, and given it has already been presented earlier in the conversation, is there a need to present it again?

I’m not a mind reader AND again, it’s not my place to figure out on what ’evidence’ you are making a claim.

Only you can know that. Only you can do that.

That is your place.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, most of it. Why do you ask?

I’m not a mind reader AND again, it’s not my place to figure out on what ’evidence’ you are making a claim.

Only you can know that. Only you can do that.

That is your place.

But I’m not making a claim.
I, and most people reading this, accept a consensus. You claim the consensus is wrong, ergo you need to show it is wrong.
The way you will convince me it is wrong is to offer a better theory to be considered.

 

[HSienzant]

Again, ask for sources in connection to the ongoing discussion and I provide it there and then. Allways.

Been asking since you got here. You pretty much just repeat the claims. And ignore the requests for evidence.​

Or, being badly beaten up by a gang of police officers believing/pretend to belive he killed one of their own.

You said that before. You offered no evidence. Where's your evidence for this claim? And it contradicts what the witnesses said. For example:

Mr. BREWER - I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was filled with police cars and policemen were on the fire exits and stacked around the alley, and they grabbed me, a couple of them and held and searched me and asked me what I was doing there, and I told them that there was a guy in the theatre that I was suspicious of, and he asked me if he was still there.
And I said, yes, I just seen him. And he asked me if I would point him out.
And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in from the front of the show, I guess, coming toward that way, and officers going from the back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?
Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name.
Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man?
Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back. ​

Oswald punched a police officer and pulled a gun on that officer. He was subdued. In Sweden, are police not allowed to use force to subdue a violent person armed with a weapon? Well, regardless, they are in America.​

Attempt?

Attempt.​

Well, if he is the only one beaten up with a black eye, his face been all over the news, wearing torn clothes, the only one NOT a tidy teenager, well ... I belive he had all the reasons to protest.

So the police should punch the other people in the eye to make the lineups more fair, because Oswald got punched in the eye after he tried to shoot McDonald in the theatre? Is that seriously your argument here?​

You wouldn’t? No defence lawyer and a travesty of line up and he should NOT complain?

You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence. Do it.

Of course they should be disregarded. If they violate the defendants right to a fair and unbiased witness confrontation, they are NOT to be used in order to incriminate him.

That's an IF you need to establish. You should,

Because it is YOU WHO MAKE THE CLAIM.

Oswald was beaten up with torn clothes, the three other guys were/looked like tidy teenagers and they too were employees at the police headquarters.

I’m not a mind reader AND again, it’s not my place to figure out on what ’evidence’ you are making a claim. Only you can know that. Only you can do that. That is your place.

Oswald had no defence lawyer in spite of requsting one in the very strange and brief press conference he was giving not knowing he was also a suspect in the assassination of JFK.

Oswald was offered the opportunity to have local defense counsel. He declined. This was covered in the recent past. He said he wanted John Abt, the counsel for the American Communist Party. Abt however was at his cabin in the woods for the weekend and unreachable. But Oswald declined local counsel when it was offered. Once by the former President of the Dallas Bar Association, who visited Oswald in his jail cell.
Louis Nichols testified to what transpired:

So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart. When I got there he was lying on a bunk, and then he stood up when I came in and then he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other, much as you and I are seated here, only actually, a little bit closer, and I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he really didn't know what it was all about, that he was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I under-stand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said some-thing about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague.
I had covered that point in detail, and I don't recall exactly, but in any event, our conversation was such that I informed him that I was there to see whether or not he had a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and he said--he asked me first did I know a lawyer in New York named John Abt, and I don't know if it is A-b-t, or A-p-t (spelling).
Mr. STERN. I believe it is A-b-t (spelling).
Mr. NICHOLS. I believe it is. In New York City, I said I didn't know him, and he said, "Well, I would like to have him to represent me," and at some period I believe prior to that, either in talking to the police, or talking to--must have been talking to either Captain King or the chief---I had been told that some effort had been made to get hold of Mr. Abt, and that he was in Connecticut at his home, and maybe, and I have forgotten who said who was trying to get ahold of him. At least, I did vaguely know that someone was trying to get ahold of him, but I told Mr. Oswald I didn't know him. He said, "Well, that is the man he would like to have represent him." Then he asked me if I knew any lawyers who were members of the American Civil Liberties Union, and he said, "Well, I am a member of that organization, and I would like to have somebody who is a member of that organization represent me." And I said, "I'm sorry, I don't know anybody who is a member of that organization."
Although, as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know are members. Two or three of them called me later. He said, "Well, if I can't get either one of those, and if I can----"
Mr. STERN. That is either----
Mr. NICHOLS. "Either Mr. Abt or someone who is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and if I can find a lawyer here who believes in anything I believe in, and believes as I believe, and believes in my innocence"-then paused a little bit, and went on a little bit and said, "as much as he can, I might let him represent me."
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
​

Mrs. Markham saw Oswald in the news before coming to the line up.Oswald being lynched in prime time national TV, Oswald on the cover of LIFE, etc, etc, ...

So Markham picked Oswald out of a lineup sometime after February of 1964? Clearly you're just throwing anything you can think of into the mix now.

And regarding the bolded line: Now you're making stuff up. Please cite for this. You said you would.

While you're searching for the proof of your claim, I will cite her actual testimony which contradicts your claim:

Mr. BALL. Before you went into this room were you shown a picture of anyone?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I was not.
Mr. BALL. Did you see any television?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I did not.
Mr. BALL. Did a police officer say anything to you before you went in there, to tell you--
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. That he thought "We had the right man," or something of that sort? Anything like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. No statement like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. ​

She did not recognize him as the killer of Tippit,

That's not what she said in her testimony.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure. ​

but she ”got the shills” when looking at him = Oswald had a black eye, was upset by the unfair composition of the line up. She was in a state of hysteria. Of course she ”got the shills”.

Nobody here is a shill.​

Ball: Was there a number two there? Lol.
Star witness = the only witness who allegedly did a positive ID of Oswald actually shooting Tippit.

So you admit the Warren Commission never called her that and she did witness the shooting and identify Oswald?​

I see nothing in your ”context” that in anyway give another meaning to my quote. Nothing.

I'm confident that others here saw the context and how you misused the quote by pretending it ended just when she started explaining what she meant.​

On the contrary, it is strengthening the case of hysteria, confusion and profound uncertainty she is conveying:

I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.​

Cold shills ≠ positive ID.

Quote out of context, as established previously. Repeating the false claim doesn't establish the false claim.​

Ask me to provide source, one at the time, and I do it.

Still asking. Still nothing.​

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And here in the post below we see Manifesto ignoring all the requests for evidence, and instead of posting the evidence, instead he's now making an issue out of the way I've been asking for the evidence.

He apparently thinks that will somehow remove his obligation to post the evidence or derail the conversation so we will all forget he hasn't met his obligation. It won't.

His obligation to post the evidence supporting his posts above is still unmet.

Hello Hank. If you quote my statement and then under the same quote ask for additional information that you need to evaluate the veracity said statement, like source, evidence, etc, I promise to do that.

You keep saying that. You don't follow through.​

But, if you are trying to play games quoting my statements with quotes from me that you have painted blue, you have to play them with someone else, preferebly from your age group and from your denomination.

Instead of me asking you to post your evidence, which hasn't worked in the past, I am trying something else. Showing you asking for the evidence. There is no game. Perhaps you will follow through when you see yourself asking for the evidence?​

Prediction: Manifesto will now use this issue as his pretend reason to NOT post his evidence: "Well, if you're going to continue to ask like that, and play that game, then forget about it."

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hello Hank. Please tell me, why is THAT funny?

If you don't get it, you won't get it.

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

You're here. Your claim is obviously false.

Next.

Now THAT is funny!

 

[bknight]

1. Scientific acoustic evidence of a shot from in front on the knoll being the fatal head shot.

The acoustic "evidence" has been found inaccurate, so no frontal shot can be deduced.

2. JFK’s head violently snaps back and to the left when hit by the fatal head shot = shot from in front to the right on the knoll.

Cite where you have experience with the movements of the body during a gun shot wound.

3. The majority of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza (ca 50) who was asked said that they heard shot/s came from in front on the knoll.

I have asked you three times for a citation of this assertion. Failing any citation this can only be described a bare assertion.

4. Some of these reported smelling ”gun powder” on the knoll and/or just below it when passing with the motorcade.

Again provide a citation

5. Some of these saw smoke gliding down the knoll just after hearing the shots.

Citation required.

6. There is a photograph showing smoke over the lower part of the knoll just after the shooting.

Citation required.

7. Almost everyone who observed JFK’s headwounds close up between Dealey Plaza and the mourge at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, ca 50 individuals (Harpers fragment included), reported a big gaping wound in the right back of the head —-> typical exit wound. Doctors, nurses, forensic photographers, x-ray technicians, SS agents and FBI agents, from three hospitals and two federal police agencies.

Citation required. And for a bonus, why didn't the x-rays and autopsy find a "big gaping wound in the right back of the head"?

8. Three forensic pathologists at the Methodist Hospital in Dallas, concluding that the ”Harpers fragment” was of cranial occipital bone and ca. 7-5 cm in size —-> exit wound in the back of the head —->

Did they have the whole skull to work with?

9. Dr.’s Clark and Perry at Parkland reporting what they believed was an entrance wound in the throught. Small, clean, round and punctuated —-> shot from in front. Before performing a tracheotomy over it.

Did these doctors do any pathological analysis or just try to save his life?

Shall I continue?

You haven't made any valid points yet so whether you continue or not make no matter.

 

[manifesto]

But I’m not making a claim.
I, and most people reading this, accept a consensus. You claim the consensus is wrong, ergo you need to show it is wrong.
The way you will convince me it is wrong is to offer a better theory to be considered.

”Most people”? Who are these?

 

[HSienzant]

3. The majority of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza (ca 50) who was asked said that they heard shot/s came from in front on the knoll.

The majority? Really? I think we need this question answered:

”Most people”? Who are these?

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. Scientific acoustic evidence of a shot from in front on the knoll being the fatal head shot.

Comprehensively and thoroughly scientifically debunked. See the National Academy of Science's debunking.

2. JFK’s head violently snaps back and to the left when hit by the fatal head shot = shot from in front to the right on the knoll.

Non-sequitur. You're claiming a shot from the front when the motion of the head is from a shot from behind. See the WCR.

3. The majority of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza (ca 50) who was asked said that they heard shot/s came from in front on the knoll.

CT nonsense. You'd have to be a to believe it. See the WCR.

4. Some of these reported smelling ”gun powder” on the knoll and/or just below it when passing with the motorcade.

CT nonsense. See the WCR.

5. Some of these saw smoke gliding down the knoll just after hearing the shots.

Now you just need evidence that JFK was shot with a civil war musket. See an idiotic CT website.

6. There is a photograph showing smoke over the lower part of the knoll just after the shooting.

No there isn't. See the WCR.

7. Almost everyone who observed JFK’s headwounds close up between Dealey Plaza and the mourge at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, ca 50 individuals (Harpers fragment included), reported a big gaping wound in the right back of the head —-> typical exit wound. Doctors, nurses, forensic photographers, x-ray technicians, SS agents and FBI agents, from three hospitals and two federal police agencies.

No they didn't. See the WCR.

8. Three forensic pathologists at the Methodist Hospital in Dallas, concluding that the ”Harpers fragment” was of cranial occipital bone and ca. 7-5 cm in size —-> exit wound in the back of the head —-> shot from in front.

No, JFK was shot from behind. See the WCR.

9. Dr.’s Clark and Perry at Parkland reporting what they believed was an entrance wound in the throught. Small, clean, round and punctuated —-> shot from in front. Before performing a tracheotomy over it.

No, see the WCR.

Shall I continue?

You may continue to be proved wrong.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The only consensus I see is that he ”was a suspect” in the assassination of JFK.

You mean that he was proven guilty. See the WCR.

That is the historically accurate way to portray him and that's the null hypothesis. That really twists CT knickers, doesn't it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hello Hank. Please tell me, why is THAT funny?

You don't get it? LOL.

 

[traxy]

What, if anything, has this to do with the height of car-6?

Are you still claiming the top of the windshield of car 6 was waist high? Or have you conceded that any of the cars in the motorcade was an appropriate height to be your white blob?

 

[manifesto]

Been asking since you got here. You pretty much just repeat the claims. And ignore the requests for evidence.​

No. I do not ignore requests for evidence. I ignore grown ups playing childish games.

You said that before. You offered no evidence. Where's your evidence for this claim? And it contradicts what the witnesses said. For example:

Mr. BREWER - I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was filled with police cars and policemen were on the fire exits and stacked around the alley, and they grabbed me, a couple of them and held and searched me and asked me what I was doing there, and I told them that there was a guy in the theatre that I was suspicious of, and he asked me if he was still there.
And I said, yes, I just seen him. And he asked me if I would point him out.
And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in from the front of the show, I guess, coming toward that way, and officers going from the back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?
Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name.
Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man?
Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back. ​

Oswald punched a police officer and pulled a gun on that officer. He was subdued. In Sweden, are police not allowed to use force to subdue a violent person armed with a weapon? Well, regardless, they are in America.​

”They were hitting him”? Why are you posting witness reports in support of my statement pretending it does the opposite?

I did NOT say Oswald did not fight back?

And, why are you always painting your alleged supporting evidence, blue? Does it magically make it more, true?

Attempt.​

”In an attempt to arrest him”? They did not arrest him? Only attempted to do that?

So the police should punch the other people in the eye to make the lineups more fair, because Oswald got punched in the eye after he tried to shoot McDonald in the theatre? Is that seriously your argument here?​

Maybe not, I guess that would have been Oswalds defence lawyers decision. Wait a minute, he didn’t have any? Maybe they should wait a day or two? Maybe try to hide it somehow?

What about the rest? Tidy teenagers working at the police headquarters. A mismatch so obvious that Oswald protested the travesty loud and clear while the witnesses were listening?

William Whaley: "He [Oswald] showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.”​

Is this justice? Texas justice a la DA Henry Wade? Heard of ”Innocence Project”?

​

That's an IF you need to establish. You should,

​

https://youtu.be/jxm87KO9bvg

Oswald was offered the opportunity to have local defense counsel. He declined. This was covered in the recent past. He said he wanted John Abt, the counsel for the American Communist Party. Abt however was at his cabin in the woods for the weekend and unreachable. But Oswald declined local counsel when it was offered. Once by the former President of the Dallas Bar Association, who visited Oswald in his jail cell.
Louis Nichols testified to what transpired:

So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart. When I got there he was lying on a bunk, and then he stood up when I came in and then he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other, much as you and I are seated here, only actually, a little bit closer, and I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he really didn't know what it was all about, that he was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I under-stand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said some-thing about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague.
I had covered that point in detail, and I don't recall exactly, but in any event, our conversation was such that I informed him that I was there to see whether or not he had a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and he said--he asked me first did I know a lawyer in New York named John Abt, and I don't know if it is A-b-t, or A-p-t (spelling).
Mr. STERN. I believe it is A-b-t (spelling).
Mr. NICHOLS. I believe it is. In New York City, I said I didn't know him, and he said, "Well, I would like to have him to represent me," and at some period I believe prior to that, either in talking to the police, or talking to--must have been talking to either Captain King or the chief---I had been told that some effort had been made to get hold of Mr. Abt, and that he was in Connecticut at his home, and maybe, and I have forgotten who said who was trying to get ahold of him. At least, I did vaguely know that someone was trying to get ahold of him, but I told Mr. Oswald I didn't know him. He said, "Well, that is the man he would like to have represent him." Then he asked me if I knew any lawyers who were members of the American Civil Liberties Union, and he said, "Well, I am a member of that organization, and I would like to have somebody who is a member of that organization represent me." And I said, "I'm sorry, I don't know anybody who is a member of that organization."
Although, as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know are members. Two or three of them called me later. He said, "Well, if I can't get either one of those, and if I can----"
Mr. STERN. That is either----
Mr. NICHOLS. "Either Mr. Abt or someone who is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and if I can find a lawyer here who believes in anything I believe in, and believes as I believe, and believes in my innocence"-then paused a little bit, and went on a little bit and said, "as much as he can, I might let him represent me."
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
​

Nichols gives a very shady impression and was per own admission very cozy with the DPD (had a brother in the Department) and Dallas authorities:

1. Already when beaten up and arrested in the Texas Theater Oswald demanded an attorney to represent him. Sgt Gerald Hill:

Mr. HILL .........he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his
attorney.

Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre?

Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights​

2. According to Capt. Fritz Oswald in his first interogation requested to be represented by John Abt OR by ACLU as a second choice.

3. Gregory Lee Olds, the President of the Dallas ACLU said in his testimony to the WC (volume 7 page 323) that he called Fritz at 10:30pm On Friday, the 22nd and asked him if Oswald had requested any counsel, to which Fritz answered that Oswald had not. Which of course was a lie since Fritz by his own admission to WC (above) said that Oswald made such a request at his first interogation shortly after being taken in to custody.

4. After Olds telephone call he and a couple of fellow ACLU lawyers went to DPD headquarters but were met with the same lie, that Oswald did not want any counsel except for Abt who was in New York not answering his phone. Strangely, Olds et.al didn’t demand to speak directly to Oswald, which he in a statement to WC seemed to regret:

"......I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald,
because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not."

Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him?

Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part.​

Which is a bit odd since Olds also were present at Oswalds midnight press conference saying that:

"someone come forward to give me legal assistance".​

and ...

"I was questioned by a judge. I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing."​

No one of the authorities present when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of JD Tippit remembered anything of what Oswald said during the procedure. Collective amnesia.

Oswald was requesting legal assistance from the moment of his arrest to the lynching of him in DPD’s basement. Preferably John Abt but as a second choice a lawyer from ACLU.

This, he was effectively denied.

Then the question arises, why deny the suspect legal counsel if he is, guilty?

So Markham picked Oswald out of a lineup sometime after February of 1964? Clearly you're just throwing anything you can think of into the mix now.

And regarding the bolded line: Now you're making stuff up. Please cite for this. You said you would. ​

Sorry, I made a mistake here.

While you're searching for the proof of your claim, I will cite her actual testimony which contradicts your claim:

Mr. BALL. Before you went into this room were you shown a picture of anyone?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I was not.
Mr. BALL. Did you see any television?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I did not.
Mr. BALL. Did a police officer say anything to you before you went in there, to tell you--
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. That he thought "We had the right man," or something of that sort? Anything like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. No statement like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. ​

As I said, I made a mistake.

That's not what she said in her testimony.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure. ​

A face that gave her the cold shills all over:

Mr. FRITZ. That first showup was for a lady who was an eye witness and we were trying to get that showup as soon as we could because she was beginning to faint and getting sick.
In fact, I had to leave the office and carry some ammonia across the hall,
they were about to send her to the hospital or something and we needed
that identification real quickly, and she got to feeling all right after
using this ammonia.​

Would you send anyone to the chair based on this ”positive ID”? Like DA Henry Wade?

”Was there a number two?”

Nobody here is a shill.​

Where did I say that? Quote.

So you admit the Warren Commission never called her that​

Where did I say that the Warren Commission called her their ”star witness”? Quote.

and she did witness the shooting and identify Oswald?

No, she did not on her own accord identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit. She got ’help’ ’kind of’ doing it.

I'm confident that others here saw the context and how you misused the quote by pretending it ended just when she started explaining what she meant.​

Well, what can I say? The dangers with intellectual inbreeding?

IF your context provide my quote with a different meaning, explain how this is so.

Quote out of context, as established previously. Repeating the false claim doesn't establish the false claim.​

A faulty claim, since my purpose is to provide evidence of her ”positive ID” of Oswald as the killer of JD Tippit, being anything but clear cut.

A travesty.

Still asking. Still nothing.​

Done.

Hank

Hello Hank.​

 

[manifesto]

If you don't get it, you won't get it.

Hank

Like a child, you mean? You are probably right.

 

[manifesto]

And here in the post below we see Manifesto ignoring all the requests for evidence, and instead of posting the evidence, instead he's now making an issue out of the way I've been asking for the evidence.

He apparently thinks that will somehow remove his obligation to post the evidence or derail the conversation so we will all forget he hasn't met his obligation. It won't.

His obligation to post the evidence supporting his posts above is still unmet.

You keep saying that. You don't follow through.​

Instead of me asking you to post your evidence, which hasn't worked in the past, I am trying something else. Showing you asking for the evidence. There is no game. Perhaps you will follow through when you see yourself asking for the evidence?​

Prediction: Manifesto will now use this issue as his pretend reason to NOT post his evidence: "Well, if you're going to continue to ask like that, and play that game, then forget about it."

Hank

What a silly little blue painted posting. Here is proof of the opposite: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12290622&postcount=2998

Lets see some sane and not blue paint all over place respons to my civilized post above.

You can do it.