JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[LunarOrbit]

They told Tip the shots came from front right not the rear but were persuaded by the FBI to change their stories.
So what point are you proving, that they lied in testimony to the WC or that Tip O'Neill is a liar?

1. Even if they did tell Tip O'Neil that they believed the shots came from front right, that doesn't mean it's true. They could have been mistaken due to confusion caused by echoes or their lack of understanding about how someone being from the right rear shot ought to move.

2. Tip O'Neil did not witness any of the interactions between the FBI and the other two men, and therefore can't verify their stories.

Also, what does "they were persuaded by the FBI" mean, exactly? It could mean they were threatened at gun point, or that the FBI provided enough evidence that the shots came from the School Book Depository to convince them that their initial beliefs about the source of the shots were wrong.

[profmunkin]

It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.

If we were asking about the colour of the wallpaper in the room where Tip O'Neil had that conversation with O'Donnell and Powers, then yes, he would be a perfect witness. But the subject of the story is what allegedly happened between the FBI, O'Donnell, and Powers. Tip O'Neil did not personally witness that event, he's only repeating what he was told. That makes it second hand knowledge... hearsay.

Again this only concerns Tip's first hand knowledge of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell. Tip's first hand knowledge of the conversation is not hearsay.
You want to claim Powers and O'Donnell are liars go for it, or that Powers and O'Donnell both misunderstood that the FBI did not intend to influence a fabriacted story.

"Tip O'Neill did not personally witness that event, he's only repeating what he was told. That makes it second hand knowledge... hearsay."
One more time, Tip is not making any claim of knowledge of the assassination, he is relaying first hand knowledge of a conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.

For instance
If you neighbor says he committed a crime, you would then have direct knowledge of the conversation where the neighbor stated to you that he committed a crime.
You could be called as a witness to this conversation in a court of law because it is in your direct knowledge, you may not know any facts about the crime other then what was relayed in the conversation, that is within your realm of knowledge.

[profmunkin]

They told Tip the shots came from front right not the rear but were persuaded by the FBI to change their stories.
So what point are you proving, that they lied in testimony to the WC or that Tip O'Neill is a liar?

1. Even if they did tell Tip O'Neil that they believed the shots came from front right, that doesn't mean it's true. They could have been mistaken due to confusion caused by echoes or their lack of understanding about how someone being from the right rear shot ought to move.

2. Tip O'Neil did not witness any of the interactions between the FBI and the other two men, and therefore can't verify their stories.

Also, what does "they were persuaded by the FBI" mean, exactly? It could mean they were threatened at gun point, or that the FBI provided enough evidence that the shots came from the School Book Depository to convince them that their initial beliefs about the source of the shots were wrong.

Tip said Powers and O'Donnell "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
Point is in the opinion of Powers and O'Donnell the FBI pressured them to essentially lie.

[gillianren]

Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.

It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.

Yeah.  He has knowledge that he had that conversation.  What he does not have knowledge of is the event itself except as it was described to him.  Telling what you've been told is hearsay.  Telling what you've experienced is not.  That he had a conversation with someone is not hearsay.  What that person said is hearsay.  This is basic legal principle.

[profmunkin]

Not the point.
The point is the FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to alter and fabricate their testimony
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie before the WC.
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie to you and me.

No, the FBI allegedly persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to change their testimony. Since we're not hearing this directly from the people involved it's just hearsay. Did it really happen? You accept it as fact because you think it supports your beliefs, you don't seem to mind that you're hearing it second or third hand from someone who wasn't in the room when it happened.

I can except the fact that it happened because 1 credible witness claims the conversation to have taken place.

[profmunkin]

'On the trail of the assassins" page 279
Richard Randolf Carr testified at Shaw trail that when he tried to tell the FBI about what he saw as a witness in Dealey Plaza, the FBI told him to keep his mouth shut.

[profmunkin]

'Rush to Judgment"
Interview with Mrs. Acquilla Clemmons
She says she was witness to the murder of Tippit, by 2 men neither of which matched the description of Oswald.
She said someone came to see her and get her story, after hearing it he told her "someone might hurt her if she talked about what she saw"

[Chew]

'On the trail of the assassins" page 279
Richard Randolf Carr testified at Shaw trail that when he tried to tell the FBI about what he saw as a witness in Dealey Plaza, the FBI told him to keep his mouth shut.

He also claimed to see a bullet kick up grass in the middle of Dealey Plaza. He was in the Court House at the time. He said based on the direction the grass got kicked up the bullet originated from the Grassy Knoll.

[profmunkin]

Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.

It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.

Yeah.  He has knowledge that he had that conversation.  What he does not have knowledge of is the event itself except as it was described to him.  Telling what you've been told is hearsay.  Telling what you've experienced is not.  That he had a conversation with someone is not hearsay.  What that person said is hearsay.  This is basic legal principle.

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."

Powers and O'Donnell told Tip they fabricated their testimony, FACT in evidence, they said they were persuaded to do so by FBI agents - hearsay, although you have Powers and O'Donnell as witnesses with corroborating  stories. What would the motive be for Powers and O'Donnell to  change their testimony in the first place, if they weren't coerced?

If you choose to ignore the implications of the conversation based on O'Neill and or Powers and or O'Donnell's reliability that is your choice.

[Jason Thompson]

What would the motive be for Powers and O'Donnell to  change their testimony in the first place, if they weren't coerced?

That on further questioning they realised their impressions may have been wrong?

[profmunkin]

That on further questioning they realised their impressions may have been wrong?

They accused the FBI of persuading them to alter their testimony.

"Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred."

You guys are good soldiers, to the very end.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[profmunkin]

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"

YES as a matter of fact, I have no reason to doubt the validity of Tip's revelation of this conversation.
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.
I understand that you must twist or discredit this information so as to maintain your steadfast grasp to the WC fiction.
Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

So in fact the term 'coercion' is yours. There is a whole world of difference between the definitions of 'persuade' and 'coerce'. How do you know they were not persuaded simply by the arrival of other information, or during questioning if they found that they could not conclusively state that their initial impressions were in fact correct? For example, the questions 'where do you think the shots came from?' and 'are you certain the shots came from xxx location?' might have very different answers. Coercion was your word, now you defend it.

I understand that you must twist or discredit this information so as to maintain your steadfast grasp to the WC fiction.

You have yet to prove that it is fiction. All you have is hearsay, conversations, and a demonstrated total ignorance of the knowledge required to tackle the actual evidence. Do you care to address the arguments made regarding the actual evidence on this thread, or are you simply incapable of defending your claims effectively?

Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.

You brought this conversation to the table. you don't get to drop it when you can't defend it adequately.

[profmunkin]

Lets look at the FBI performace when interacting with Oswald

August 9th 1963, Oswald is arrested in New Orleans, he requests to talk with an FBI agent, John Quidley meets with Oswald for over an hour.
John Quidley destroys the evidence of this meeting.

Oswald has a direct connection to 544 Camp Street / Guy Banister ex head of the Chicago office of the FBI.
Yet the FBI can't produce any connections between the two men.

November 1963 Oswald drops off at the Dallas FBI office a note for Jim Hosty, Hosty's boss Shanklin tells him to destroy the evidence.

FBI according to Vincent Bugliosi sat in on Oswald interrogations in Dallas, where are the notes or transcripts from those interrogations?
(Where are the Dallas Police transcripts of the interrogations?)

FBI removes 1 page from Oswald's phone book which allegedly contains information on Jim Hosty then presents the phone book to WC as evidence.

The FBI apparently has no problems in ignoring, destroying or altering evidence, it seems to be the routine, at least when Oswald is involved. It does seem that coercion of witnesses could fall under ignoring, destroying or altering evidence.