Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency and GM Evica's writings

[Marcus Hanson]

Mr. Hanson,

On the alt.assassination.jfk site, you describe Lee Harvey Oswald as a "murderer."

( www.groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/marcus$20hanson/alt.assassination.jfk/2Wcl2POFL98/o-SJdGi4UG0J )

Further, and on the same page, you write the following:


I ... have slowly moved over the past 24 years from dedicated CT-er to almost-convinced LN-er.

That's right - ALMOST convinced.

If Oswald had gone to trial and I had been a juror,a good defence attorney MIGHT have caused "reasonable doubt". If he did,I would be obliged to say "Not Guilty".

Does that mean I believe that Oswald was innocent?

No : it means only that I respect the high standard of proof required by the law.

If the standard of proof at law was less exacting,as in a civil matter ,"on the balance of probabilities", I'd surely vote "Guilty".


Anyone with reasonable access to the legitimate evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators -- and that Lee Harvey Oswald did not murder JFK or J.D. Tippit -- is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Permit me to save you a bit of time: The Lone Nut lie will not be debated or otherwise entertained on Deep Politics Forum.

Anything else before you scurry back to your safe haven and "debate" Ralph Cinque?

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Hello Mr.Drago.

First , thank you for your reply about Mr.Evica's work.

Second - well , where do I begin ?

1)I know ,from reading other threads here , that you profile new members.
Had I wanted to hide my identity , I would have registered under another name.
No , I did not learn that from any intel handler : it's just common sense.

Do I have an entrenched opposition to conspiracies ?
No,of course not - that would be ridiculous.
You will note from my profile that I include Watergate as an area of interest - clearly a conspiracy which Nixon tried his best to hide.

2)As you correctly copied and pasted , I am an "almost convinced" LNer.
One area of doubt, is whether Lee Oswald worked for - or was led to believe he worked for - Senator Dodd.
Hence the questions in my thread.

Is there a problem with anyone having doubts?

I bet you would agree that the CIA have been less than forthcoming and should release all they know ?
You know who , among others , would agree with you ? The CT bete noire , Gerald Posner.

Posner also said that Mark Lane would likely have secured a "Not Guilty".

I remain utterly convinced , however , that Oswald DID kill Officer Tippit.
If that is correct , however , it does NOT conclusively prove that he killed President Kennedy.

3)You imply - nay , you STATE - that I am "cognitively impaired".

Now , this is your forum , so you can do as you choose , of course.

Still , to call a poster "cognitively impaired" is clearly in breach of your own rules , viz :

"This forum champions free speech"

and

"Firstly, all members, including DPF moderators and founders, should receive identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement."

and

"Secondly, our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and thoroughly refuted if appropriate, without name-calling or member abuse"


You state : "The Lone Nut lie will not be debated or otherwise entertained on Deep Politics Forum".

That is hardly consistent with the "free speech" clause in the Rules of Engagement , is it ?

But it does not really matter , for I did not raise any LN arguments in THIS forum.
Nor was that my intention. Mostly , I joined to ask about Sen.Dodd's committee and to read , with accessible links , what the various researchers opine on all facets of the case , that's all.

Whilst respecting the work of all responsible researchers , CT or LN , I am nobody's "disciple" nor am I part of any JFK "clique". Never have been , never will be.

Maybe you have no wish to proselytize ? Well ok , fair enough - but if you do in fact want folks to be open to "converting" , you are not going about it the right way.

Ad hominems do nothing to change a person's point of view.

And I think you realise that , because you have pointed out that invectives in this forum are counter-productive. On that point , at least , we agree one hundred percent.


Best regards ,

Marcus Hanson