19-02-2018, 06:40 PM
Jim,
You don't seem to be aware that the moderators here have been telling lies about Albert Doyle's posting privileges. Have you seen anything from him since last spring? Just because he posts something doesn't mean it has to be responded to or even read. But it's criminal to deprive him of his fundamental 1st amendment privilege. That's still on you, mister, as far as I can see.
DiEugenio: "In rereading it, it's actually Baker who brought up the excuse for too many people being there under Dulles' questioning, as you can see from your own quote. Dulles brought up the time factor excuse as you can see from your own quote."
Jim wants to transpose this topic discussion into an intellectual tennis match on his home court. The overcrowded interrogation room affected Baker's sense of recall, plain and simple. All Dulles did was redundantly clarify that Baker saw Oswald "for a moment" while in that interrogation room.
Jim wants to lump me in with the ex-CIA chief & archconspirator because I embarrassed him by pointing out that Baker had no rhyme or reason to drop his pen and tell the other lawmen how impolite they were for disturbing his affidavit-composition. How clever of you, Jim. You finally understand that I'm more of an evil genius than Big Al, the kiddie's pal.
DiEugenio: "We disagree about Worrell."
And we're still hoping you can pass freshman philosophy and Kriminology.
DiEugenio: "The point about the second versus first floor is one that I think you are (deliberately?) confusing. It's not vague at all from an evidentiary point of view."
Another vague accusation, which I assume is in regard to the Coke problem, which doesn't have a darn thing to do with whether or not the lunchroom incident happened.
DiEugenio: "Your point about Spence misses the point. You assume Spence knew about it, and ignored it because somehow he agreed with you. What on earth do you base that on? Did you see the uncut version of the trial? Have you seen the full transcript? Did you call him? Please let us know if you did any of these."
"But if you did not do any of them, then it seems pretty clear that Spence did not know about either Norman's or Baker's first statements. Any defense lawyer would have used them to cross examine the witnesses. It's something you learn the first year in law school in Evidence 101."
Jim is daydreaming again, about Spence grilling Baker regarding his affidavit inaccuracies, and Jim once again fails to take into account that Spence had nothing to go on.
But Jim wants to pontificate his conclusions about Spence's sloppiness- that cinches Jim's case that Baker was perpetrating a lunchroom hoax, while composing the last page of his affidavit.
More baloney from DiEugenio.
***********************
I won't be responding to your next post here. I have a small business to manage and other commitments. My opinion is that you are overworked- after 30+ years of assassination rigors- and are not seeing things clearly right now.
And you have painted yourself into a corner with your lunchroom hoax endorsement.
It is dying an ugly death, since it was fostered by people who were deceitful and who do not understand the graces of sportsmanship.
You don't seem to be aware that the moderators here have been telling lies about Albert Doyle's posting privileges. Have you seen anything from him since last spring? Just because he posts something doesn't mean it has to be responded to or even read. But it's criminal to deprive him of his fundamental 1st amendment privilege. That's still on you, mister, as far as I can see.
DiEugenio: "In rereading it, it's actually Baker who brought up the excuse for too many people being there under Dulles' questioning, as you can see from your own quote. Dulles brought up the time factor excuse as you can see from your own quote."
Jim wants to transpose this topic discussion into an intellectual tennis match on his home court. The overcrowded interrogation room affected Baker's sense of recall, plain and simple. All Dulles did was redundantly clarify that Baker saw Oswald "for a moment" while in that interrogation room.
Jim wants to lump me in with the ex-CIA chief & archconspirator because I embarrassed him by pointing out that Baker had no rhyme or reason to drop his pen and tell the other lawmen how impolite they were for disturbing his affidavit-composition. How clever of you, Jim. You finally understand that I'm more of an evil genius than Big Al, the kiddie's pal.
DiEugenio: "We disagree about Worrell."
And we're still hoping you can pass freshman philosophy and Kriminology.
DiEugenio: "The point about the second versus first floor is one that I think you are (deliberately?) confusing. It's not vague at all from an evidentiary point of view."
Another vague accusation, which I assume is in regard to the Coke problem, which doesn't have a darn thing to do with whether or not the lunchroom incident happened.
DiEugenio: "Your point about Spence misses the point. You assume Spence knew about it, and ignored it because somehow he agreed with you. What on earth do you base that on? Did you see the uncut version of the trial? Have you seen the full transcript? Did you call him? Please let us know if you did any of these."
"But if you did not do any of them, then it seems pretty clear that Spence did not know about either Norman's or Baker's first statements. Any defense lawyer would have used them to cross examine the witnesses. It's something you learn the first year in law school in Evidence 101."
Jim is daydreaming again, about Spence grilling Baker regarding his affidavit inaccuracies, and Jim once again fails to take into account that Spence had nothing to go on.
But Jim wants to pontificate his conclusions about Spence's sloppiness- that cinches Jim's case that Baker was perpetrating a lunchroom hoax, while composing the last page of his affidavit.
More baloney from DiEugenio.
***********************
I won't be responding to your next post here. I have a small business to manage and other commitments. My opinion is that you are overworked- after 30+ years of assassination rigors- and are not seeing things clearly right now.
And you have painted yourself into a corner with your lunchroom hoax endorsement.
It is dying an ugly death, since it was fostered by people who were deceitful and who do not understand the graces of sportsmanship.