If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
On Nov 28, 10:37*pm, "Fred" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Nov 28, 7:14 am, "Fred" wrote: "Jangchub" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:33:39 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 27, 8:26 pm, Jangchub wrote: He didn't murder her, he was cheating on his wife and left the scene and reported it hours later. It doesn't make it better, but I think the Kennedy's have had their fair share of early deaths, particularly John. Actually, he didn't report it. The fishermen who found the car did. But there's all sorts of weirdness around that accident and I don't think anyone (including Kennedy himself) is in a position to conclusively say what happened that night. Elizabeth True, but my main point was the Kennedy's have had their fair share of early deaths, two of which were assasinations. I think I was just short of being old enough to remember the situation with Mary Jo, but my hubs is a Kennedy Conspiracy buff. Victoria I never liked the conspiracy angle. Get 5 or 6 Greek men together and ask them who had J.F.K. killed and they will all tell you, "Onassis", who later found out his prize was dead in bed. Actually the only two that more or less gained were Hoover and Johnson and they didn't have to spend a dime. I found it strange that Oswald who tried to shoot the govenor weeks earlier and missed was credited with shooting J.F.K. who was a moving target and way further away. Oswald was a lousy shot who couldn't hit the govenor from fifty feet even though the govenor was sitting in his chair reading a newspaper. My thoughts - Oswald was paid to bring the rifle to the depository. The real shooter meets Oswald on the third? floor. The real shooter wearing gloves does what he was paid to do and hands the rifle back to Oswald and tells Oswald to hide the rifle and to follow him. Oswald stashes the rifle and attempts to follow the real shooter but runs into the cop who is on his way up. This delays Oswald long enough that by the time he exits the back door the real shooter is driving away in the station wagon leaving Oswald whose finger prints are all over the rifle behind to face the music. The get-away vehicle is gone and Oswald realizes he has been set up and panics. The rest is history - sort of - I think that if Oswald had made it to the get-away car the real shooter or driver would sooner or later have snuffed him out. I have often wondered if the same station wagon picked up the other guy that was on the grassy knoll. Face it - Oswald was not a complete idiot. If he planned everything himself he would surely have planned a better get-away. The guys in the station wagon now have a problem because Oswald is still alive and could talk so Ruby is called upon to take Oswald out. All makes for interesting conversation - eh wot?? I'm confused, Fred. *You say you never liked the conspiracy angle, but you have a conspiracy yourself? Elizabeth You telling me that if one man kills another that's a crime but if the same man hires two other men to do the job for him that it is now called a conspiracy?? Actually, yes. Elizabeth |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
Fred wrote:
Back to my original thinking, men kill for women, power, money or revenge, maybe not in that order, so who got the prize?? Define "prize"? Jackie? Marilyn? Judy Exner? Some other woman? -- Karen C - California Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com "On his tombstone, Benjamin Franklin wanted it said not that he had been rich but rather that he had been useful." Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions) WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek) Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/ |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
Karen,
I thought you would allocate the motive being para-legal and all.g "Onassis", - women - Jackie, "Johnson" - power - Presidency, "No one" - money - not armed robbery, "Onassis", "Hoover" - revenge - possible - Kennedys reneged on their promise to lift certain restrictions on Onassis ships entering USA ports, Hoover was about to be fired. Para-legal away!! LOL Ducking and running. Fred http://www.stitchaway.com If nothing changes, nothing changes. Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit. "Karen C in California" wrote in message ... Fred wrote: Back to my original thinking, men kill for women, power, money or revenge, maybe not in that order, so who got the prize?? Define "prize"? Jackie? Marilyn? Judy Exner? Some other woman? -- Karen C - California Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com "On his tombstone, Benjamin Franklin wanted it said not that he had been rich but rather that he had been useful." Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions) WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek) Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
"Jangchub" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:37:04 -0600, "Fred" wrote: You telling me that if one man kills another that's a crime but if the same man hires two other men to do the job for him that it is now called a conspiracy?? Back to my original thinking, men kill for women, power, money or revenge, maybe not in that order, so who got the prize?? Fred http://www.stitchaway.com If nothing changes, nothing changes. Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit. Fred, a man who hires other men to kill for him is involved in a conspiracy. They conspired together to kill the president of the United States, which I believe was not conjured by Oswald. I believe him when he said he was a patsy. Bang. Dead. Ooops. Victoria Victoria, To my way of thinking, if a person hires another person or persons to kill someone, the person doing the hiring gives the order and pays the going price. The person doing the hiring doesn't care - when, where or how and is not directly involved in a conspiracy. The person or persons hired may conspire together or with others as they plan and carry out the job. The person who set things in motion could be considered just as guilty as those hired but that person could always plead that he/she was not part of any conspiracy, that he/she was just joking and never thought the others involved would do such a thing as kill a president. Splitting hairs but you get the drift. I agree - Oswald knew what was going down and was the delivery man of the rifle but he didn't shoot anyone and with his finger prints on the rifle it looked like he was made a patsy; had he made it out the back door in time to get away with the other guys in the station wagon he would not have been a patsy he would have been dead, buried and no where to be found. There is no way those guys were going to take a chance on Oswald spilling his guts. If he had planned the operation he would have planned a better get away. I think that he just missed his ride out of the area and panicked. Fred http://www.stitchaway.com If nothing changes, nothing changes. Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
On Nov 29, 7:49*am, lucretia borgia
wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:33:04 -0800 (PST), opined: He testified that the car went upside down. *How could there have been an air pocket up in the back? Elizabeth The air pocket would always be at the 'top' of whatever, it would rise as far as it could. *Bubbles from scuba divers go on their way to the surface, same sort of thing. Right, but he also testified that he could see the headlights, which meant it went down back first. She wouldn't have found an air pocket in the back, which is where they claim she was found. Elizabeth |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
On Nov 29, 9:17*am, Cheryl Isaak wrote:
On 11/28/08 11:30 PM, in article , " wrote: On Nov 28, 5:08*pm, Cheryl Isaak wrote: On 11/28/08 5:04 PM, in article , "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote: wrote in message .... On Nov 28, 3:11 pm, lucretia borgia wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:40:08 -0600, Jangchub opined: Do you have any idea how fast a car goes into the water? Even if he immediately called for help she'd have died. People die all the time here in TX where we have flash floods with just about every hard rain. People insist on driving over one inch of water to their death. Water drags you down toot sweet. I'm not saying Ted was an angel, but he certainly didn't preclude her safety by leaving. It takes seconds, not minutes to drown. Victoria You are comparing apples to oranges. A car swept by flood waters is entirely different to one going off the road into water and gently settling down into same. And exactly why is it his fault that she didn't get herself out? There were apparently three open windows in the car. Elizabeth I don't think there were seatbelts back then either. Wasn't the usual spiel that she was unconscious? Really don't remember anymore and don't care enough to see what google has to say. C I don't know how they'd know that, since there was no autopsy. *One source claims that she was evidently breathing from an air pocket in the back, but that doesn't make sense either, since it apparently suck upsidedown back end first. Elizabeth As I said, usual spiel... But IF there had been an autopsy, blood tests could have seen blood alcohol levels, presence of drugs in the blood... You get the gist C Yep. I think an autopsy would have cleared him, but his parents were paid to insist that there not be one. These days, you can't refuse an autopsy if the state requires it. Elizabeth |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
(no subject)
On Nov 29, 12:33*pm, Jangchub wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:53:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: Yep. *I think an autopsy would have cleared him, but his parents were paid to insist that there not be one. *These days, you can't refuse an autopsy if the state requires it. Elizabeth Or if you are a Jew. *My mother's younger sister, my Aunt Ruthie was found dead of her head exploding. *Anurism. *She was 53. *My Uncle Normie was thought to have killed her by both me and my mother because he was and still is a degenerate gambler and needed the insurance money, which was HUGE. *He would not allow an autopsy even though we demanded one because she was Jewish. *That's in Brooklyn, NY. *I don't know about the rest of the country where there may not be as large a Jewish community, which has its culture written into the laws or at the least into the record. Um, no. If the state found probable cause to show that he killed her, they would have forced an autopsy. Your demanding it is not the same as the state mandating it. Elizabeth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(no subject) | Barbara[_4_] | Needlework | 0 | September 17th 08 12:50 PM |
(no subject) | Laury Walkey | Needlework | 0 | April 5th 08 10:05 PM |
(no subject) | A S Bissantz | Yarn | 5 | November 8th 04 03:30 PM |
(no subject) | Pat in Virginia | Quilting | 12 | February 1st 04 08:38 PM |
(no subject) | lrdavis | Needlework | 2 | November 18th 03 06:45 AM |