JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[LunarOrbit]

Enough of the irrelevancies. Are you claiming that it is impossible that they might have realised that their own impressions of where the shots came from in an acousitcally complex environment such as Dealey Plaza might have been in error, if given further information? Is coercion really the only explanation your narrow mind can accept?

Again with the personal attacks "narrow mind"

You are demonstrating a narrow mind. You are altering the words of Tip O'Neil in order to force them to fit your pre-existing beliefs rather than change your beliefs to fit what he said.

YES as a matter of fact, I have no reason to doubt the validity of Tip's revelation of this conversation.

I don't question whether the conversation between O'Neil, O'Donnell, and Powers took place. If he said it did then I have no reason to doubt him. But whether that conversation happened or not isn't the point. The point is that their use of the word "persuade" doesn't necessarily mean they were coerced, it is only your interpretation.

per·suade   [per-sweyd]
verb (used with object), per·suad·ed, per·suad·ing.
1. to prevail on (a person) to do something, as by advising or urging: We could not persuade him to wait.
2. to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding; convince: to persuade the judge of the prisoner's innocence.

The FBI coercion explanation is not mine, it is what Tip said Powers and O'Donnell stated.
Although I introduced the term coercion, where they said persuaded.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between persuade and coerce before using those two words interchangeably.

I understand that you must twist...

The only person twisting Tip O'Neils words is you. You did it when you replaced persuade with coerce in order to make what he said fit with your beliefs.

Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.

You only want to move on because you've been caught fabricating evidence to support your case.

[profmunkin]

The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.

If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.
The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell to get them to lie under oath, this is coercion, you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.

[LunarOrbit]

The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.

It is only evidence that O'Neil had a conversation with O'Donnell and Powers, nothing more. And since he used the word "persuade" and not "coerce" your interpretation of it as such is baseless.

If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.

What coercion? The only person saying there was coercion is you. That is exactly why hearsay isn't reliable... one person says "persuaded" and then next person twists it into "coerced".

The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell

What psychological pressure? Inventing claims doesn't help you.

you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.

We don't have to pretend anything... Tip O'Neil said they were persuaded. You're the one who imagines that beatings and water torture must have been involved.

[Jason Thompson]

The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.

I don't doubt the conversation took place. It is your interpretation that is the issue.

If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.

No, don't go evading your own responsibilities in this discussion. The interview does not use the word 'coerce' does it?

The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell to get them to lie under oath, this is coercion, you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.

Prove that they lied and were not simply persuaded that their initial impressions of where they thought the shots were from were wrong. As I said, if asked 'where do you think the shots came from?' and 'are you certain the shots came from there?' two different answers are possible. It is not lying under oath to say 'I think the shots came from xxx' and to say 'I cannot be certain that they definitely did come from there.' It is certainly not lying under oath to admit when questioned that it is possible that where you think you hear a sound coming from is not the actual origin of that sound. Everyday experience can show you how hard it is to localise a single sharp sound if you are surrounded by structures the sound can reverberate from.

So, what of this conversation? Well, maybe they did say they were persuaded, but it is you and you alone that is interpreting it to mean psychological pressure and coercion were used. It is possible to persuade someone with reason and evidence, although it would seem to be near impossible in your case.

[profmunkin]

We don't have to pretend anything... Tip O'Neil said they were persuaded. You're the one who imagines that beatings and water torture must have been involved.

Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.
 
Possible to surmise that the FBI is probably adept at persuasion to get someone to lie under oath, you are right that they probably know better to not to cross the legal line into coercion. Then again the FBI is known to not have any problems with tampering with evidence.

[Jason Thompson]

Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.

You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?

Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.

[profmunkin]

So, what of this conversation? Well, maybe they did say they were persuaded, but it is you and you alone that is interpreting it to mean psychological pressure and coercion were used. It is possible to persuade someone with reason and evidence, although it would seem to be near impossible in your case.

Where, when and how was the FBI granted any authority to persuade a witness of anything?


Specifically to the point: Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded to lie under oath and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

[profmunkin]

Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.

You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?

Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.

no leap at all
Tip said Powers and O'Donnell testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

They gave their testimonies to the FBI, the testimonies did not fit the prearranged story lines so the FBI persuaded them to fabricate the testimony to fit the prearranged story lines and then they lied under oath.

Yes, it is lie under oath, if Powers and O'Donnell fabricated their stories and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

[Jason Thompson]

Where, when and how was the FBI granted any authority to persuade a witness of anything?

You don't need authority to persuade someone of something. When questioning a witness it is quite possible to persuade them their initial observations may have been flawed simply by discussion and query. You still can't understand this, can you? You simply insist that this 'persuasion' must have taken the form of beating them down until they changed their story.

[Jason Thompson]

Tip said Powers and O'Donnell testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

Speculation, and still hearsay. But even if that is so, that still leaves it possible that what they wanted (as any competent investigation would require them to want) is a reliable witness statement that stands up to scrutiny. If someone heard a shot, I want them to tell me that they heard it, and if they can be certain that it came from where they think it did. Not if they think it might have come from somewhere, but if they can be certain.

They gave their testimonies to the FBI, the testimonies did not fit the prearranged story lines so the FBI persuaded them to fabricate the testimony to fit the prearranged story lines and then they lied under oath.

Speculation without proof. You are leaping, whether you understand it or not, from a discussion that persuaded the witnesses that they may have been mistaken or simply that they could not state with certainty where the shots came from to forceful coercion to fit a prearranged story.

[profmunkin]

[You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?

Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.

I don't have to prove it, it is within the Tip O'Neill disclosure.
"said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

For the last time, where is it within the powers of the FBI to influence the testimony of any witness? The FBI should have functioned only to take statements, not persuade witnesses to follow a predetermined concocted story line.

Witness impression is exactly that! Their experience of an event, that is what makes their testimony of any potential value.
If it is not their direct experience then it is just FICTION.

[gillianren]

Who claimed Tip O'Neill had any knowledge other then obtained in the conversation?
Why do you feel it essential to repeat exactly what I just said "he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell."

Because that is the only relevant information.  The only information he has is that he had a conversation.  He has no direct information of what was said to the two men, only what they told him was said.  You say you trust Tip O'Neill; great.  However, he wasn't there.  He wasn't a direct party to whatever happened between the two men and the FBI.  Your conflation of "coerce" and "persuade," and your failure to understand the wide range of possibilities for "persuade," shows that he may have misunderstood what he was told.  Or maybe what they told him wasn't exactly what happened.  We can't know, because all we know is what Tip O'Neill said--and we can't ask him for clarification of the point, because he's long dead.  The only people who know exactly what happened are the two men he's citing and whoever did whatever persuading was done.  Tip O'Neill did not and could not know to a legal certainty what had happened, because he wasn't there.  That is the reason the hearsay rules apply in law; you want your evidence from the closest source possible.

[Jason Thompson]

I don't have to prove it, it is within the Tip O'Neill disclosure.
"said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

No, that's the 'hearsay' part of the evidence. He said they said...

For the last time, where is it within the powers of the FBI to influence the testimony of any witness? The FBI should have functioned only to take statements, not persuade witnesses to follow a predetermined concocted story line.

For the last time, do you understand the difference between persuasion and coercion? They can influence the witness statement by querying it to clear up ambiguous statements. There is nothing nefarious about checking with a witness while taking the stament to check if that witness is certain about where the shots came from or not. 'I heard a shot that seemed to come from xxx' is NOT the same as 'A shot came from xxx', and since that is a critical element of the case it needs to be clarified.

Witness impression is exactly that! Their experience of an event, that is what makes their testimony of any potential value.

And that is why it needs to be carefully checked. It is valueless if a witness says 'I saw John kill Jack' but what he actually saw was a couple of people in the distance who might have a passing resemblance to John and Jack doing something that resulted in one of them falling to the ground. It may well have been John killing Jack, but it might also have been a couple of similar looking guys messing about and one of them falling over. If the witness cannot conclusively identify the man who fell to the ground as Jack, and the man who remained standing as John, or that the man who fell was indeed killed, then his statement taken at face value could lead to the incarceration or worse of an innocent man. That is why witnesses in enquires and trials are cross-examined rather than their statements simply taken in uncritically.

If it is not their direct experience then it is just FICTION.

Prove that what they were persuaded to say was fiction and not a more accurate rendition of their experience, given all I have just said about the difference between saying something definitely occurred and saying something may have occurred but the witness cannot be certain of it.

[profmunkin]

That is the reason the hearsay rules apply in law; you want your evidence from the closest source possible.

I agree
Legally Tip's revelation means nothing.

If one comes to understand that JFK died as a result of coup, then 'legally' fails to mean anything other then a farce and the defence against the truth.

In reality Tip's revelation should have rocked our world.
As I said there is no information that can be presented on this forum that will make any impact.

Nor do I suffer from any illusion to the contrary that it may.

[Jason Thompson]

If one comes to understand that JFK died as a result of coup, then 'legally' fails to mean anything other then a farce and the defence against the truth.

How convenient for you. However, it still leaves you unable to grasp the simple fact that legally or otherwise, your arguments fail on points of logic, not law.

In reality Tip's revelation should have rocked our world.

Conversations where someone says they were told something by someone else rarely make any impression because they are hearsay. There is a good reason that these legal restrictions on the validity of evidence were placed, and that is because the reliability of evidence is an exercise in logic, not law. Tip's revelation is nothing more than someone saying something to him, and his interpretation of it as he relays that to someone else.

You still have no evidence. Hearsay is NOT evidence no matter how much you wish it was.

As I said there is no information that can be presented on this forum that will make any impact.

On the contrary, there is plenty of information that would make an impact. We've been asking you for it throughout this discussion. You simply don't have any of it. Hearsay, fabrications and leaps of logic on your part are not evidence. Your refusal to discuss the actual physical evidence that does exist is notable. You'd rather discuss the specualtions and possibilities rather than the physical evidence, which you admit you have no understanding of anyway.