Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John McAdams part 1
#1
http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html

The first full scale study of the disinformation artists par excellence.

Part 2 is coming up.
Reply
#2
Looks like good stuff.

Jim, why do most of the CTKA articles not display a date, even if they aren't copyrighted? Sometimes I read old articles on the site, and I wonder what year they were written.
Reply
#3
Jeeze it must be 10 years ago that i tried to ask John M. a question.

I can't remember the question but i remember his answer cause i didn't think he was serious.

Basically he said he didn't like my question so he wasn't gonna answer it.
Reply
#4
Steve Minnerly Wrote:Jeeze it must be 10 years ago that i tried to ask John M. a question.

I can't remember the question but i remember his answer cause i didn't think he was serious.

Basically he said he didn't like my question so he wasn't gonna answer it.
Kind of fits doesn't it? No illumination. Keep people in darkness. He's just doing his job.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#5
Magda Hassan Wrote:He's just doing his job.

The Sergeant Friday of on-line JFK fora. "Just doin' my job, ma'am".
Reply
#6
Regarding the section on Miranda, here's what William Alexander told Posner. I don't know if it's true or not:

"In Texas, an oral statement under duress was no good. We had Miranda before the Supreme Court handed it down for the rest of the country. We had to inform that he did not have to make any statement, and that any he did make had to be voluntary, witnessed, reduced to writing, and could be used against him. So our questions for him were strictly to get information, but there was no way they could be used in court....Even if we gave him the proper warning, and then reduced his statement to writing, if he then refused to sign it in the presence of a witness, it was useless. That's how strict the Texas law was...That's why it was not important to record or transcribe the discussions."
Reply
#7
That was six years ago.

I am still waiting for the citation to case law.

Neither Bugliosi nor Alexander, who are both lawyers, produced it.

And if you see what Bugliosi left out about Alexander, sorry, but I don't trust him. In fact, I don't trust either one of them.

Especially when you consider who Alexander was working for.

ANd Bugliosi himself notes the discrepancy. Oswald asked for a respite from questioning. They didn't give it to him.

Where's the tough Texas law Alexander was talking about?

Further, when did they advise him of his right to remain silent? And when did they tell him they would furnish him a lawyer?

If they did not do any of this, and they did not, how was Texas law tougher than Miranda?
Reply
#8
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Steve Minnerly Wrote:Jeeze it must be 10 years ago that i tried to ask John M. a question.

I can't remember the question but i remember his answer cause i didn't think he was serious.

Basically he said he didn't like my question so he wasn't gonna answer it.
Kind of fits doesn't it? No illumination. Keep people in darkness. He's just doing his job.

I know that area of Alabama where hes from. Before i got married my wife was stationed in Anniston in the national guard and we use to take road trips around there during 1973. You could almost call it the Marianas Trench of the deep south. Its another world unto its own.

I suppose its changed today. I hope it has.
Reply
#9
When Brian told me he was born in Kennedy, Alabama I didn't believe it.

Then I looked up where it was.

And a big light went on in my head.
Reply
#10
I don't trust Alexander either, but I find it amazing he would make a claim like that and no one has either confirmed or debunked it since Case Closed.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part V/Conclusion Gil Jesus 0 396 05-03-2024, 02:07 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part IV / The X-Rays Gil Jesus 0 311 02-03-2024, 02:16 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Evidence of a Frontal Shot --Part III: The Autopsy Photos Gil Jesus 0 336 27-02-2024, 01:40 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part II / The Exit Wound Gil Jesus 0 374 14-02-2024, 01:31 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part I / The Entry Wound Gil Jesus 0 372 06-02-2024, 02:32 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Why the Government's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Part III Gil Jesus 0 514 10-12-2023, 12:08 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Why the Govenment's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Part II Gil Jesus 1 571 28-11-2023, 03:36 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Why the Government's case against Oswald is BS --- Part I Gil Jesus 1 594 15-11-2023, 04:55 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Another Look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part IV Gil Jesus 0 475 22-09-2023, 12:38 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Another Look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part III Gil Jesus 0 483 15-09-2023, 10:11 AM
Last Post: Gil Jesus

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)