Mock LHO trial today

[Jim DiEugenio]

Is this story carrying?

Does anyone know if anyone is picking it up?

I mean I heard a cheer go up in the court when the verdict came in.

Who advised the defense from our side?

[Charles Drago]

Who advised the defense from our side?

And therein lies the problem.

This "trial" is nothing other than the latest in a seemingly unending series of theatrics designed to prolong the "debate" of an issue settled decades ago -- a debate that nourishes the uncertainty upon which the Sponsors and Facilitators of JFK's murder depend for hegemonic and personal survival.

Yet we eagerly choose a "side" and hang on every word.

Fifty years later, and we're still playing Perry Mason games.

I continue to extol the effectiveness of art -- including theater -- as a weapon in our war against John Kennedy's murderers. See JFK for a prime example. Weaponized art attacks the mind and the heart and ultimately bends the will. See Triumph of the Will for a prime example.

Understand then that this "trial" is propaganda-as-theater, pure and simple. And the only effective counter is to expose it as such while refusing to act like soap opera junkies hanging on every word.

Any other response to this filth amounts to aid and comfort to the enemy.

And don't think for a nanosecond that such a production helps to educate the masses and move them toward understanding of the truth of conspiracy. The only lesson being taught here is of the "we can never really know" variety.

Do not include me in the "our" of "our side." My only "side" is the truth.

[Frankie Vegas]

Is this story carrying?

Does anyone know if anyone is picking it up?

I mean I heard a cheer go up in the court when the verdict came in.

Who advised the defense from our side?

I'm not sure who advised the defense, and I haven't seen the story from anywhere else.
But I will link here if I see it carried by any other site.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I wonder if its not carrying because Oswald was acquitted.

The Bugliosi/Spence farce actually did get some carry if you recall. Probably because the jury sided with Bugliosi.

Thanks Frankie. Those were some interesting clips on the newspaper's web site.

If the guy didn't have any advice from someone like say Groden, then he did some decent homework.

Watching Spence, I don't think he had any input from any critic. I mean, his cross examination of the HSCA guys, Petty and Kirk, was forlorn. Groden sure could have helped him, on the Z film, for example.

[Martin White]

How the hell, with what is known widely today, did they manage to get a 9-3 verdict in favour of guilty?

[Dawn Meredith]

How the hell, with what is known widely today, did they manage to get a 9-3 verdict in favour of guilty?

For one thing, according to an email I received from Gary Mack, there was no deliberation. (Imagine that!)
I concur with CD. This was bullshit from its inception. Expect more of the same as the 50th draws nearer.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

For those still interested in this charade:
(This was from Gary Mack)
Dawn.


Did you not attend the annual Bar convention? That's who came up with the idea to do a mock trial of Oswald, which was set in 1964 and, thus, limited to the information available at the time: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpa..._oswal.php

In my twenty eight years of practicing law I have observed that lawyers, judges, DAs etc. are quite lacking in any understanding of the true facts of this case. With a few of notable exceptions like Jim Lesar, Dr. Pepper, Brian Kizzai, Dr. Wecht.

I have made many attempts to interest my colleagues over the years, to no avail.
So it's no surprise that this "trial" resulted in a hung jury.

I will have no further comment on this mockery. For Jim D the defense atty is named in this article.

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

I saw who the defense lawyer was.

From the brief clips I saw, I thought he was fairly competent.

No deliberation?

Hmm.

[Gordon Gray]

Who advised the defense from our side?

And therein lies the problem.

This "trial" is nothing other than the latest in a seemingly unending series of theatrics designed to prolong the "debate" of an issue settled decades ago -- a debate that nourishes the uncertainty upon which the Sponsors and Facilitators of JFK's murder depend for hegemonic and personal survival.

Yet we eagerly choose a "side" and hang on every word.

Fifty years later, and we're still playing Perry Mason games.

I continue to extol the effectiveness of art -- including theater -- as a weapon in our war against John Kennedy's murderers. See JFK for a prime example. Weaponized art attacks the mind and the heart and ultimately bends the will. See Triumph of the Will for a prime example.

Understand then that this "trial" is propaganda-as-theater, pure and simple. And the only effective counter is to expose it as such while refusing to act like soap opera junkies hanging on every word.

Any other response to this filth amounts to aid and comfort to the enemy.

And don't think for a nanosecond that such a production helps to educate the masses and move them toward understanding of the truth of conspiracy. The only lesson being taught here is of the "we can never really know" variety.

Do not include me in the "our" of "our side." My only "side" is the truth.

I totally agree with you Charles about the power of art. A number of imaginative ways could be found to present the truth of this story. What about a movie about Lee Harvey Oswald that shows him in the light that most of us see him (I Lead Three Lives). If Kasantzakis could write a novel portraying Judas as a martyr why not a movie about Oswald? Just one idea. Of course the problem is getting the funding for any project that would reach a mass audience. that is in anyway controversial. It reminds me of the problem artists behind the iron curtain had getting their work past the Soviet censors. They had to rely on Deep Metaphor

[Phil Dragoo]

Dawn

Dunkel's appeal to the evidence available at the time is comparable to a trial of Copernicus limited to Ptolemy's epicycles

or of any given citizen of Salem, Massachusetts, under Judge Cotton Mather

or any witness subject to the circular claptrap of Arlen Specter

"Have you stopped beating your wife, Mr. Oswald?"

Garbage in, garbage out.

What we need--and need we remind the Hollow Men there remains no statute of limitations on murder--

--is a trial with the evidence of the hundreds of thousands of pages released under the FOIA suits of Weisberg et al,

and the magnificent crop from the ARRB (courtesy the "JFK Act" and Oliver Stone's epochal film)

But then, they would have to do what they cannot do,

address the evidence, address the arguments

None of the relics of the frame would be admissible

and Lee would be on the street

had he not been silenced

It's in black and white from CD Spirits Ltd

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4923[/ATTACH]