FRICK

In compliance with Protocol I will start with the Leadership of the Warren Commission Defenders.

#1 John McAdams who is a Professor at Marquette University and even teaches a course defending the Warren Commission Report.

In his newsgroup McAdams admitted that the authorities Destroyed Evidence on 2 or 3 instances.

After Repeated requests that he Identify which 2 or 3 instances he admits to, he Refuses to Identify those

#2 is another University Professor, Ken Rahn who also teaches a class in support of the Warren Commission Report.

I don't hesitate to inform folks that Misinformation in the Furtherance of a Felony is a Crime called "Accessory After the Fact".

#3 We have an Author Jean Davison of a Novel "Oswald's Game" who denies it's a Novel. Even though the Forward written by Norman Mailer states it IS indeed a "Novel"

This Page is "Necessitated" by the Threats employed by a few Warren Report Defenders.

Prior to the participation of Todd Vaughan, rob Spencer, Bud, tom lowery, Grizzlies and David VP, Americans used to engage in Civil Debates on this subject.

Because Conspiracy Believers use Official Evidence and Testimony to Win those debates, The WCR Defenders resort to Personal attacks.

Once those personal attacks begin, I always ask if they are SURE that's the road they want to take?

That's when they employ the Filthiest Language not even heard in a Lumber Camp.

It has now reached a point where rob Spencer has threatened to "HACK" this website Because he doesn't want you folks to see the Official Records Proving Conspiracy.

Ironic, considering that rob Spence himself as they ALL DID, ADMITTED that the authorities Destroyed Evidence.

***********************
#1
John;
I asked you to IDENTIFY exactly which 2 or 3 instances you Already Admitted
to?

Apparently you have "Selective" Following.
I "Proved" Every one of my 14 points.

NOW answer which 2 or 3 times you already admitted to.

STOP playing "Dodge-Ball".

"John McAdams" <john mcadams@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:43ffd456.46429625@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 24 Feb 2006 22:51:22 -0500, "tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hello John;
>>Glad to see you still post here.
>>
>>When can I expect you to answer exactly which 2 or 3 instances the
>>authorities destroyed evidence?
>>
>>You already admitted the authorities destroyed evidence 2 or 3 times.
>>
>>Pleas tell of which 2 or 3 times of the list I posted?
>>
>> 1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office.
>
> Yep, but that had nothing to do with any conspiracy.
********************************************

>>2. Withholding Hosty's name, address, phone number
>> And license plate number from Oswald's notebook.

> Simply untrue. An early FBI document listed "investigative leads" and
> it didn't include Hosty's contact information, since that wasn't a
> "lead."

> But the WC had the entire address book (not "notebook").
****************************************************************************
> Jean has blown you out of the water on this.
>
> Why do you continue to push this silliness?

See admittance that FBI Agents Gemberling/Kessler "intentionally withheld"
that page. Below

************************************************************************

>>3 . Destroying Walker back yard photo.

> That's simply untrue.

***************************************************
>>4. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to
>>
>> Copper Jacketed .
>>

> There was never any "steel-jacketed" bullet.
Original DPD Report said it was. Volume XXIV page 39.

See above website.
************************************************
> If you believe every bogus early report, you can get a ton of
> "destroyed" evidence.
>
> This is like the "Mauser" nonsense on the day of the assassination.

***********************************************************
>> 5. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
>>
>
> You're going to need to post some evidence of that.
>
> You never have.

WRONG; Here it is AGAIN.
http://www.geocities.com/jfkjusticewatch/oswald.html
**************************************************************************

>> 6. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched
>>
>> TSBD paper.

> Quit being silly.

This is from the DPD website. Who's being silly?

**********************************************************
>> 6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.
>>
>
> Please prove a connection.

Testimony of CIA Employee James Wilcott found HERE.
http://www.freewebs.com/tomnln/cia.htm
*******************************************************

>>
>> 7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
>>
>
> LOL!
>
> You don't think Oswald went to Mexico City!!!

>> 8. Washing out Limo at Parkland Hospital.
>>
>> Thus Destroying Evidence. Within minutes
>>
>
> Not true. When the limo got back to DC, the back seat was splattered
> with gore.

The Limo was washed out with a bucket of water while at Parkland. From NINE (9) separate Sources)

>> 9. Stealing body from Dallas jurisdiction under
>>
>> Gun Point.
>>
>
> The body wasn't "destroyed." It made it to Bethesda.
>
> I thought you knew that?
>
> Were you not aware that the body was taken to Bethesda?

>>10. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
>>
>>
>
> The limo is still in a museum in Michigan!!!
>
> Did you not know that?

>>11.            Destroying part 3 of P O Box Rental Application.
>>
>
> And your evidence for this is?
>
> If you mean they could not be found, that's not the same as their
> being "destroyed."
>
The Official Records states "Destroyed".
***********************************************************************
>>12.    Showed LHO 133A BEFORE it was Found. WCR App XI
>>
> You believe every silly factoid, don't you?

Are you Disagreeing with the WCR that you're Trying to Defend?    (see above
Citation)
****************************************************************************

>>13.   Dry Cleaning/Pressing JBC's Clothing.
>>

> Yes, but how was that sinister?

Clothing with bullet holes are EVIDENCE.

ANOTHER "ADMITTANCE".
******************************************************************
> What might the clothing have shown about Connally's wounds that wasn't
> already known?
>
PROOF of Entrance/Exit.
>
>>
>>Switch Entrance/Exit wounds on JBC's Wrist wound.
>
>
> So you think Nellie shot her husband, right?
>
> If not, there would be no possible reason to switch the wound.
>
Strawman??? Entrance/Exit.
********************************************************************
> Now let me predict something:
>
> You are incapable of debating any of these issues. You won't and
> can't defend the notion that any of these things are sinister.
>
> .John

SINISTER????
I said "Destruction of Evidence".
When You change "Destruction of Evidence" TO "Sinister, does that
"Decriminalize the act??

PREDICT???
Do you use a Crystal Ball or, a Ouiji Board???
******************************************************************

*********************************************************************************
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

This one never made it to McAdams group Either.

"John McAdams" <john.mcadams@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:43fff925.55852000@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 25 Feb 2006 01:28:26 -0500, Martin Shackelford
> <mshack@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>You could have responded honestly to Tom's claims, John, but for some
>>reason you drifted down the slippery slope into misrepresentation--for
>>example:
>>
>>1) Whether or not YOU believe it had anything to do with conspiracy, there
>>is no question that the FBI destroyed the Oswald note, which was clearly
>>destruction of evidence.
>>
===========================================================
> Yes, it is.

That's 1 for 1.    Admittance
==========================================================

> But kindly explain how you think it was sinister.

tom never said "sinister".   tom said "Felony"
==========================================================
>>2) You don't know whether the original Walker bullet was steel-jacketed
>>(as was reported) or copper-jacketed (as the Warren Commission had
>>it)--your belief doesn't constitute a refutation of his claim.
>>
=============================================================
> But an early report doesn't constitute any kind of strong evidence
> *for* the claim.

It was an Official Typewritten Report by the Investigating DPD Detectives.
see attached
=================================================================
> You really *ought* to be sophisticated enough to know that bogus early
> reports are a dime a dozen in this case.
>
> Or maybe you believe the rifle discovered in the TSBD was a Mauser.
>
> Do you?

tom did NOT state the Mauser.    Are you trying to switch focus?
===========================================================
>>3) Okay, who DID alter the transcript of the Oswald radio debate--someone
>>did.
>>
>
> Kindly point me to a source on that.
>
> Just was what the nature of the "alteration?"
>
> We have the tape, so I don't see how the transcript is a big deal.

In the Transcript they ADDED the word "NOT". Changing the Meaning of the
Statement by Oswald.

> And we certainly know that getting the Dallas police tapes just right
> was a massive enterprise.

The DPD tapes were NOT the issue here.
============================================================
>
>>4) "Quit being silly" completely evades the issue. The "bag" found on the
>>sixth floor (allegedly) didn't match the TSBD paper, or did you miss that
>>FBI report?
>>
>
> From:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

Does Your website OVERRIDE Official /FBI Reports?
==================================================
> <Quote on>
>
> Jerry McLeer also has a problem with Cadigan's testimony. In his
> online essay, "The Paper Sack," he points out that the replica sack
> (CE 364) made ten days later does not match the original bag (CE 142),
> as James Cadigan testified. He fails to tell his readers, however,
> that a sample of paper taken from the Depository by the Dallas Police
> on the evening of November 22nd (CE 677) does match the bag discovered
> on the sixth floor (4H95-97). Apparently, the roll of paper was
> changed before the replica was produced on December 1st. Since all the
> rolls of paper in the Depository during this entire period were from
> the same shipment from the St. Regis paper company, Cadigan's tests
> were sufficiently precise to show roll-to-roll variation in paper from
> the same source. The fact that CE 142 and CE 677 matched is in fact
> strong evidence that Oswald got the paper for the bag from the roll in
> the Depository.
>
> <Quote off>
>
> Did you not know all this, Martin?
>
> And if you did, why did you post a response (above) that didn't *show*
> that you knew it?
>
>
>
>>5) Tom says the body was stolen from Dallas at gun point, which was true.

WOW   That's #2    Admittance
==========================================================
>>You respond by denying that it was "destroyed," which had NOTHING to do
>>with what he said.
>>
>
> Earth to Martin:
>
> Tom has been fussing and fuming about "destroyed" evidence!
>
> Have you not been reading his posts?

Which YOU conveniently AVOID.
========================================================

>>6) You also evade the limo issue. The limo wasn't examined by the Warren
>>Commission staff, but was shipped off and dismantled, evidence destroyed.
>>The remodeled version, used by President Johnson, eventually ended up in
>>the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. That it's "still there" has
>>NOTHING to do with Tom's statement.
>>
>
> Earth to Martin:
>
> Tom has been fussing and fuming about "destroyed" evidence!
>
> Have you not been reading his posts?

Which YOU Conveniently AVOID
===============================================================
>>7) Postal regulations required that P.O. Box rental applications be held
>>for a certain period of time--the portion of Oswald's that would have
>>shown whether anyone else was authorized to receive mail at the box was
>>destroyed WELL BEFORE that time period had elapsed. Tom is quite correct
>>on that one, but again you evade his actual point. The REST of the
>>document was found, but the crucial portion was missing--you try to
>>pretend that isn't meaningful.
>>
>
> If you think it's meaningful, kindly explain what it means!
>
> I want to hear your theory on this.

They LIED John.    They LIED.
What part of "They Lied" don't you Understand?
==========================================================

>>8) Forensic pathologists routinely examine clothing in a criminal case.
>>The fact that Connally's clothing was dry-cleaned before being turned over
>>to the FBI involved the destruction of evidence. Why can't you just admit
>>that, John? It might actually give you some credibility, as the flat-out
>>"deny everything" approach definitely doesn't.
>>
> Martin, your flat out "everything is sinister" approach deprives you of
> any credibility.

Investigation of a Crime REQUIRES "everything is sinister approach" Sir.
==============================================================
> You just can't have any credibility when you huff and puff about
> things that you *know* are not the result of any conspiracy, and not
> part of any "cover-up."

WRONG John.
Withholding/Lying/Destruction of Evidence is what Destroys Credibility.
=================================================================
> That's not an intellectually serious way of discussing the case.

That is the ONLY way to approach ANY case Sir.
================================================================
>>9) Finally, you employ your favorite tactic--demanding proof that
>>something is "sinister" when the poster never used the term.
>>
>
> If it's not sinister, it's silly to huff and puff about it, isn't it?
>
> If that your tactic? Huff and puff about the supposed misdeeds of
> officialdom, and then when pressed about whether it *means* anything,
> respond "I didn't say it means anything?"

Do I understand that John does NOT consider Destruction of Evidence to NOT
"mean anything"?
=====================================================================

> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Well John;
You have Identified 2 of the 3 times the authorities destroyed evidence
which you have admitted to;
How about ID'ing the Other one you admit to?

An email was sent to you that we have identified as containing a virus. Below find the details of the infected message:

From: 3fc729f0@mcadams.posc.mu.edu
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:49:44 -0400
Virus Name: W32/Netsky.c@MM!zip
Infected Attachments: 00000307.EML, /material.zip

To protect you from destructive Internet viruses, your Cox High Speed Internet service now includes a free anti-virus security enhancement. This security enhancement detects and prevents the delivery of most viruses transmitted via email so that your personal computers will not be harmed.

This is an auto-generated message. Please do not reply. For more information on how this security enhancement works, please visit Cox Customer Support at the following location:

An Exchange between Professor Rahn & Myself;
I will put Ken Rahn's replies in RED.

BOTTOM POST;
I want people to see the WHOLE exchange.

"Kenneth A. Rahn" <krahn@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:e85fru01mkb@news4.newsguy.com...
> Tomnln,
>
> "tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:c5gpg.22679$8q.18503@dukeread08...
>> Talking about "Possibilities".
>>
>> What are the possibilities of you & I Debating this subject (Live) in
> front
>> of your Class???
>
> Zero.
>
>> What I have in mind is a series of multiple hours sessions.
>
> No way. That would be like giving the semester to you.
>
>> It would be a Great opportunity for your students to Really get they're
>> Money's worth.
>
> Hardly!
>
> Ken Rahn
>
At a Minimum this shows you to be an Anti-American Coward.
At a Maximum it shows you to be a Criminal.

Only a Criminal would take Thousands of Dollars from students and teach them
LIES.
Only a Criminal would do that and Refuse to Debate the issue in front of his
"Captive" Class.
Only a Criminal would Demand the Students accept those Lies or FAIL the
course. (thus Losing their $)
Only a Criminal takes a Position thgat can NOT be defended.

Hey Ken;

Does this mean you're gonna Return all that Tuition Money???

Ken, do your students Fail the Course if they believe in a Conspiracy?

"Kenneth A. Rahn" <krahn@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:44a5b95e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Tomnln,
>
> "tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fodpg.22649$8q.7074@dukeread08...
>> Talking about "Possibilities".
>>
>> What are the possibilities of you & I Debating this subject (Live) in
>> front
>> of your Class???
>
> Zero.
>
>> What I have in mind is a series of multiple hours sessions.
>
> Then I should just give you the entire semester?
>
>> It would be a Great opportunity for your students to Really get they're
>> Money's worth.
>
> Hardly.
>
> Ken Rahn

ANOTHER ONE;

On 29 Jul 2006 00:09:15 -0400, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <krahn@uri.edu>
wrote:

>Tom,
>
> Let's just write off this post of yours as an "honest mistake" (your
>words). It is about as far from the truth on the NAA as anything I have
>read so far. But we have been over most of this ground many times before,
>so please don't ask me to keep repeating myself.
>
>Ken Rahn

C;mon, Ken ... "you're wrong but I'm not going to discuss it with yo
or explain why" .... that's the best you can do?

Barb :-)
>
>

Would you charge them Tuition?
Would you give them access to Both Sides of the issue?
When they find Conspiracy, would you give them a passing Grade?
Would you give them access to the 26 volumes?
If you Failed them, would you reimburse their tuition?

http://whokilledjfk.net/

"Kenneth A. Rahn" <krahn@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:44d6ae5a$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> To All,
>
> There is an interesting article on CNN.com today about Jim Fetzer's
> new group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06/sept11.theories.ap/index.html
>
> Maybe we should start a "Scholars for JFK Truth." :-)
>
> Ken Rahn
> --
> Kenneth A. Rahn
> Graduate School of Oceanography
> University of Rhode Island
> Narragansett, RI 02882-1197

The Warren Report was NOT allowed as Evidence into the Clay Shaw Trial because it was Ruled as "Hearsay" by a Superior Court Judge Aloysius Haggerty.

While 90% of the American people reject the conclusions of the Warren Report, here are some examples of the 10% debating tactics.

When the WCR Defenders are Losing the discussion of evidence/testimony they resort to "personal Attacks"

When they encounter someone who can Out-Insult them, they resort to Attacking Wives by Name.

I mention it because toad is always pointing out typo's rather than discuss Official Records.

> Because a woman came up to him and said "They are shooting the
> President from the bushes."
=====================================================================
> Smith said he himself had no idea where the shots came from.

THAT Eliminates the 6th floor window Directly above him. Also see Report Below.about WHERE the shots came from.
=====================================================================

Look for this one on the website.
It's a Classic.

"tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote in message news:...
> WATCH THE SUCKER S-I-N-K FOLKS
>
> You're sinking as Low as the WCR that was Thrown outta a U S Court Room
> Trial.
>
> RULED as "HEARSAY".
>
> Here's MORE....at the Bottom.
> I want people to read the shit you post.
>
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1154560818.801243.144130@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> tomnln wrote:
>>> Produce proof Oswald wore T-Shirt ONLY?
>>>
>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
>>
>>
>> Never said I had proof, did I?
>>
>> It's what we who are rational, thinking people call a "suggestion".
>>
>> I also "suggest" that you seek professional help.
>>
>> Idiot.

The Warren Report was NOT allowed as Evidence into the Clay Shaw Trial because it was Ruled "Hearsay" by a Superior Court Judge Aloysius Haggerty.

While 90% of the American people reject the conclusions of the Warren Report, here are some examples of the 10% debating tactics.

When the WCR Defenders are Losing the discussion of evidence/testimony they resort to "personal Attacks"

When they encounter someone who can Out-Insult them, they resort to Attacking Wives by Name.

.
"Ben Holmes" <bnholmes@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dp4j0a02luj@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> Not very smart, are you?
>
>
> In article <1135985353.881530.14200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
>>
>>Ben,
>>
>>I never said I was in Tomnln's home, nor did I say I had connections to
>>him.
>>
>>I just said the Jerk Store called for him.
>>
>>Your powers of deduction have been upgraded to hideous.
>>
>>Oh, and the Jerk Store just called for you.
>>
>>Todd
>>
>

Ø Tomnln,
>
> Still too much of a coward to remove the lies from your own web page.
>
> You'd rather spread lies about what Lee Bowers saw.
>
> You're a piece of garbage.
>
> Todd

Ø Tom,
>
>>Fritz is also the man who said "I took no notes".<
>
> And you're the one who said Lee Bowers saw the two men by the fence run
> away and jump onto a railroad car.
>
> Liar.
>
> Todd
>

Ø ===============================================================================

> Here's a little known fact for you to think about once you sober up:
> not only is Lee Bowers not on record as ever saying that he saw anyone
> running from behind the fence and jumping onto a box car, he's on
> record as saying that he saw no strangers behind the fence at the time
> of the shooting.
>
> Now, put down the crack pipe and see if you can come up with an
> intelligent reply for a change.
>
> Todd
>=======================================================================

"Ben Holmes" <bnholmes@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dp4j0a02luj@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> Not very smart, are you?
>
>
> In article <1135985353.881530.14200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
>>
>>Ben,
>>
>>I never said I was in Tomnln's home, nor did I say I had connections to
>>him.
>>
>>I just said the Jerk Store called for him.
>>
>>Your powers of deduction have been upgraded to hideous.
>>
>>Oh, and the Jerk Store just called for you.
>>
>>Todd
>>
>

Ø Tomnln,
>
> Still too much of a coward to remove the lies from your own web page.
>
> You'd rather spread lies about what Lee Bowers saw.
>
> You're a piece of garbage.
>
> Todd

Ø Tom,
>
>>Fritz is also the man who said "I took no notes".<
>
> And you're the one who said Lee Bowers saw the two men by the fence run
> away and jump onto a railroad car.
>
> Liar.
>
> Todd
>

Ø ===============================================================================

Hey Todd;

Are you Really sure that you want these insults to include OUR Wives????

Are you REALLY Sure???

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137125419.789151.8650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ben,
>
> You were the first oversized asshole to jump on the Tomnln "Paraffin
> test at 2:50" bandwagon.
>
> You make me want to vomit all over Tomnln's wife Ellen.
>
> Todd

HERE's ANOTHER
.
"Ben Holmes" <bnholmes@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dp4j0a02luj@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> Not very smart, are you?
>
>
> In article <1135985353.881530.14200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
>>
>>Ben,
>>
>>I never said I was in Tomnln's home, nor did I say I had connections to
>>him.
>>
>>I just said the Jerk Store called for him.
>>
>>Your powers of deduction have been upgraded to hideous.
>>
>>Oh, and the Jerk Store just called for you.
>>
>>Todd
>>
>

HERE's ANOTHER.....
toad;
You've said Bowers did NOT say he saw 3 men jump into a freight train.

http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm

The official report at the bottom Proves your a LIAR.

All these posts and you STILL haven't addressed this.     P-H-O-N-Y
F-E-L-O-N     L-I-A-R

The official Report proves my point   see below

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154018284.529108.37000@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> toad;
>> You've said Bowers did NOT say he saw 3 men jump into a freight train.
>>
>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>>
>> The official report at the bottom Proves your a LIAR.
>>
>> All these posts and you STILL haven't addressed this. P-H-O-N-Y
>> F-E-L-O-N L-I-A-R
>>
>
>
>
> I see you're not man enough to support your claim.
>
> Ellen sure picked a winner.
>
>
>>
>>
>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153972481.225654.175180@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > Tomnln,
>> >
>> > Just recently you've claimed that Lee Bowers said that he saw 3 men run
>> >
>> > from the picket fence and climb into a freight train.
>> >
>> > Please provide just one citation where Lee Bowers said he saw someone,
>> > anyone, run from behind the stockade fence after the shooting.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >

http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm

Here is the Proof that you Lied.

http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm

1-29-06

>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
> Here's what Bowers said about the two men:
>

1-23-06

>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>

1-26-06

>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>

1-26-06

>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>

1-27-06

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138344226.756622.23800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ø Tomnln,
>
> Still too much of a coward to remove the lies from your own web page.
>
> You'd rather spread lies about what Lee Bowers saw.
>
> You're a piece of garbage.
>
> Todd

1-27-06

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138342959.774799.85720@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ø Tomnln,
>
>>Messing with Evidence in ANY form is a FELONY.<
>

=========================================================================

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138396174.871680.107940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ø Tom,
>
>>Fritz is also the man who said "I took no notes".<
>
> And you're the one who said Lee Bowers saw the two men by the fence run
> away and jump onto a railroad car.
>
> Liar.
>
> Todd
>

Ø
===============================================================================

1-27-06

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138405572.438455.9660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Tomnln,
>
>>It's you and your Ilk who have "Pirated" the American Justice System. <
>
> It's you who's blatantly lied on your web site.
>
> Lee Bowers NEVER claimed that the two men he saw near the fence ran
> away, nor did he say that either one of them jumped on a railroad car.
>
> You made this up, didn't you?
>
> Todd
>

2-1-06

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138833176.281512.204490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom,
>
> Let me ask you a question.
>
> Where in the record in this case does Lee Bowers claim that he saw the
> two men near the fence run away and get onto a railway car?
>
> Either you have a source or you are a liar.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Todd
>

2-20-06

> Here's a little known fact for you to think about once you sober up:
> not only is Lee Bowers not on record as ever saying that he saw anyone
> running from behind the fence and jumping onto a box car, he's on
> record as saying that he saw no strangers behind the fence at the time
> of the shooting.
>
> Now, put down the crack pipe and see if you can come up with an
> intelligent reply for a change.
>
> Todd
>=======================================================================
HERE's ANOTHER....

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154460886.817053.72580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Right Here toad; http://whokilledjfk.net/
>>
>>
>> Unless you wanna call the Bowere/FBI/DPD Liars also.
>>
>> That's what you do with Everyone who makes you look like a FOOL.
>>
>>
>
>
> Fool,
>
> Let's set the record straight. What I REPEATEDLY called you out on was
> your TOTAL CLAIM that Bowers saw 2 men run from the fence and jump onto
> a train.
>
> I examined the record in the case and found no indication whatsoever of
> Bowers himself ever saying...
>
> A.) that he ever saw 2 men run from the fence...
>
> or
>
> B.) that he ever saw anyone jump onto a train.
>
> That record remains intact. Even now.
>
> Now, you've recently posted an FBI document on your silly amateurish
> website where, a whopping 29 years after the fact, a 2nd party, DPD
> Officer Wise, told the FBI that "someone" in the tower said they saw 3
> men jump onto the train. OK, Tom, MAYBE Wise isn't embellishing his
> story and MAYBE that "someone" WAS in fact Bowers, and MAYBE he really
> saw 3 men jump onto the train (he stopped it after all). However, there
> is still NO RECORD of Bowers himself ever saying that is why he stopped
> the train. Further, EVEN WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING WHY HE
> STOPPED THE TRAIN WITH MARK LANE, ONLY 3 OR 4 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT,
> BOWERS SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT!
>
> Does that mean anything to you? Or are you, as I suspect, for good
> reason, completely brain dead?
>
> Now, moving on, the other part of your claim was that "Bowers saw 2
> men" (later you added a 3rd man) run from the fence. But the document
> you posted on your website says nothing of the sort! And there is
> nothing in the record that supports your claim.
>
> You lied, didn't you?
>
> You also claimed that the document you posted was a DPD report, when in
> fact it is an FBI report, and you also claimed that the fence was
> "several hundred yards" away from the stockade fence. It is not. It's
> 150 to 250 feet or so away. From this I conclude, rightly so I might
> add, that you really have no clue as to what is going on, and very
> little credibility.
>
> As for your query as to "where they (the tramps) came from", in the
> real world in which I live (which you are obviously not a part of) the
> train tracks do not begin and end only where they are nearest the
> stockade fence. Therefore the tramps could have jumped on the train at
> any point along the length of the tracks. That you can't figure that
> out, and that you refuse to offer it as an explanation, speaks volumes
> about your lack of both intelligence and honesty.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1154366571.893169.71750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > tomnln wrote:
>> >> Hi toad;
>> >> You said Bowers Never said he saw 3 men climb into a freight car.
>> >
>> >
>> > Do you have a document where Bowers says otherwise?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I posted Official Proof that you Lied HERE...
>> >> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>> >>
>> >> Would you like to address these Official Records?
>> >> http://whokilledjfk.net/
>> >>

FINALLY;

Todd Finally admits that evidence was CHANGED.
SEE BELOW.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137972148.595441.323590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Tomnln,
>
> The only person misrepresenting the facts is you.
>
> You can post the Gregory Exhibit a hundred times if you like. Knock
> yourself out.
**********************************************************************
> BUT I ALREADY KNOW what the diagram says. I have the 26 volumes. I know
> that the typed Entry and Exit are crossed out and changed by hand.
**********************************************************************
> This is not NEWS (except for you apparently).
>
> The real issue is WHY. Why was it changed on the diagram?
>
> Jean explained that for you. Quite clearly.
>
> But you ignore that.
>
> Yet you claim to want to discuss "evidence/testimony" in this case.
>
> BUT EVERY TIME SOMEONE TRIES TO DISCUSS "EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY" WITH YOU,
> YOU DON'T SEEM TO WANT TO PARTICIPOATE IN THE DISCUSSION!
>
> I find it quite twisted.
>
> You're a joke, Tomnln. And I think most people can see that.
>
> Now, if you want to discuss the JBC wrist wound with me, fine, let's do
> it. I'll show you why the entry wound in on the back of the wrist,
> exactly as the diagram was changed to correct.
>
> Todd
>

ANOTHER LIE FROM TOAD;

Official Record from J. Edgar Hoover proving my statement will be posted on
alt.binaries.pictures
under heading TOAD VAUGHAN, LIAR.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155584893.194022.81210@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Did the gov't Transpose frames 314-315 to give the impression the head
>> went
>> forward?
>>
>> (YES)
>
>
>
> NO.
>
> Anyone can see from the bit of the next frame visible at the top of
> each frame reproduction that the reversal didn't hide anything.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> toad STILL supports Felons.
>
>
> Ellen still hates Tom, secretly.

>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155578949.286108.145780@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Phil Ossofee wrote:
>> >> BACK AND TO THE LEFT BACK AND TO THE LEFT BACK AND TO THE LEFT NOT
>> >> FORWARD AND TO THE LEFT BACK AND TO THE LEFT BACK AND TO THE LEFT.
>> >
>> >
>> > Did the head first move forward, Phil?
>> >
>

Only after they transposed frames 314-315. As shown in Official Record above.

========================================================================
>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155649964.486314.217520@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > tomnln wrote:
>> >> TOAD;
>> >> Are you Denying those people reported what I said they reported???
>> >
>> >
>> > No, I am not, nor did I say I was, you blubbering idiot.
>> >
>> > I asked you if you had "Ever talked) to Kantor or Kilduff, Tomnln, and
>> > see what they had to say about this?"
>> >
>> > I'm not sure Kantor "reported" that (i.e. that he had it published as
>> > part of a story), but it was in his notes. I interviewed Kantor in the
>> > mid 1990, just before he died. He didn't arrive at Parkland until well
>> > after JFK was taken in, so he certainly didn't see the wound - he
>> > probably got his description from his watching Kilduff point to his
>> > right temple at the press conference.
>> >
>> > Same for Kiker. I didn't interview him, but he was on the same Press
>> > Bus as Kantor so without a doubt he arrived after JFK was taken inside.
>> > A photograph in POP shows him taking notes outside of Parkland in the
>> > emergency room parking lot.
>> >
>> > The funny thing about Kilduff is, and you would know this if you had
>> > done your research, Kilduff thinks the head wound was on the LEFT side
>> > of the head (see High Treason 2, I think). So how reliable of a witness
>> > does that make him? Also, when I interviewed him in the mid 1990's, he
>> > said the entire LEFT forehead/side of the head looked like "ground
>> > hamburger" and that it was a large wound. I asked him if he saw a entry
>> > wound in the right temple, and he said no. He was sure the wound was on
>> > the left side of the head.
>> >
>> > So much for the 3 Ks (Kantor, Kiker, and Kilduff).
>> >
>> > As for Hurchel Jacks, I'd have to check, but I don't think he said he
>> > saw a specific entry wound, just a wound. If you have something
>> > different, post it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Want me to Prove ANOTHER Lie by you???
>> >>
>> >> Confirm or, deny.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1155584355.759261.137970@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > tomnln wrote:
>> >> >> Entrance to Right Temple also reported by 4 others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Douglas Kiker.
>> >> >> Seth Kantor.
>> >> >> Malcolm Kilduff.
>> >> >> Hurchel Jacks.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Ever talk to Kantor or Kilduff, Tomnln, and see what they had to
>> >> > sayabout this?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ever discuss "evidence and testimony"with them?
>> >> >
>> >> > Or are you just an "armchair" researcher?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <lazuli777@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1467-44E0C98B-666@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net...
>> >> >> > Also, don't you lone nutters find it just a little bit curious that
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > main Doctors who saw JFK at Parkland-Dr. Clark,Perry, McClelland,
>> >> >> > Carrico, Peters-none of them saw any gaping exit wound in the front
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the head, let alone the massive damage as seen in the Z Film to this
>> >> >> > area. There was a small entrance wound near the hairline high in
>> >> >> > temple
>> >> >> > area as seen by Dr. Crenshaw, James Jenkins & X-Ray Tech Jerrol
>> >> >> > Custer
>> >> >> > at bethesda and Dennis David from suppressed pictures, but the
>> >> >> > afforementioned Parkland Experts only saw a gaping wound in the
>> >> >> > occipital, far too large for an entrance.

SEE BELOW;

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1155680733.555258.272680@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>
> tomnln wrote:
>> MIDDLE POST;
>>
>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155665332.141297.197720@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > tomnln wrote:
>> >> Thank You Sincerly for bringing it up Again Toad.
>> >>
>> >> Here is page 87 from Volume VI of Bowers' testimony.......
>> >>
>> >>                                          *******************************
>> >> Mr. BALL. Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high
>> >> ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the
>> >> underpass
>> >> toward the mouth of the underpass?
>> >>      Mr. BOWERS. Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass,
>> >> there
>> >> were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set,
>> >> in
>> >> a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about
>> >> midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
>> >> Mr. BALL.. Were they standing together or standing separately?
>> >> Mr. BOWERS. They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and
>> >> gave
>> >> no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
>> >> Mr. BALL. In what direction were they facing?
>> >>      Mr. BOWERS. They were facing and looking up towards Main and
>> >> Houston,
>> >> and following the caravan as it came down.
>> >> Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone standing on the triple underpass?
>> >>      Mr. BOWERS. On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One
>> >> facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad
>> >> employee,
>> >> a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that
>> >> worked
>> >> for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant
>> >> furnished by the railroad to these welders.
>> >> Mr. BALL. You saw those before the President came by, you saw those
>> >> people?
>> >> Mr. BOWERS. Yes; they were there before 'and after.
>> >> Mr. BALL. And were they standing on the triple underpass?
>> >>      Mr. BOWERS. Yes; they were standing on top of it facing towards
>> >> Houston
>> >> Street, all except, of course, the one policeman on the west side.
>> >> Mr. BALL.. Did you see any other people up on this high ground?
>> >> Mr. BOWERS. There were one or two people in the area. Not in this same
>> >> vicinity. One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking
>> >> lot there. One or two.   Each had uniforms similar to those custodians
>> >> at
>> >> the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance
>> >> back.
>> >>     Mr. BALL. When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?
>> >>
>> >>      287
>> >>                            **********************
>> >> I don't think there is any CURE for your Criminal mind.
>> >>
>> >> I use the term Criminal because you & your cohort claim you're well read
>> >> on
>> >> the subject.
>> >> Even if you Missed some things< I posted them for you.
>> >>
>> >> This will be added to your Resume' which will be sent to your Superiors
>> >> (Aren't we ALL?)
>> >> Who are stationed at Hezbollah.
>> >>
>> >> I'm SURE they will be Impressed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tomnln,
>> >
>> > I see your stupidity and intellectual dishonesty has no boundaries.
>> >
>> > I asked you to "support your claim that Lee Bowers saw 2 (or 3,
>> > whatever you want) run form the "picket" fence."
>> >
>> > So you posted part of Bowers Warren Commission testimony.
>> >
>> > The problem is, NOWHERE in that testimony did Bowers say or even
>> > remotely imply that he saw ANYONE run from the fence.
>> >
>> > So once again you've failed to support your own claim, one that you've
>> > repeated dozens of times now, and one that you have been shown is not
>> > true.
>> >
>> > That makes you a liar.
>> ========================================================================
>> > I've also previously pointed out to you (below) that Lee Bowers NEVER
>> > told the Warren Commission that the 2 men he saw were standing behind
>> > the fence. He said they were "towards the mouth of the underpass". Not
>> > behind the fence.
>>
>> Jane, You Ignorant SLUT;
>>
>> The fence runs all the way down to and, ends AT the Overpass.
>> =========================================================================
>>
>
*****************************************
> Tomnln, you dirty whore.
>
> Yes, is does.

"YES IS DOES" "YES IS DOES"

Aren't you the guy who chastises others for Poor Grammer?

******************************************

> And toward the mouth of the underspass could be anywhere along the
> fence, or even beyond it to the east a bit.
>
> And NOWHERE does Bowers say or even remotely imply that he saw ANYONE
> run from the fence.
>
>

>> > Additionally, I've also previously pointed out (again below) that
>> > Bowers is on record as saying there was NO ONE standing behind the
>> > fence. SEE BELOW
>> >
>> > You've NEVER addressed these two points, instead choosing to ignore
>> > them.
>> >
>> > So, no not only are you a liar who makes wild claims he can't support,
>> > you're nothing shy of intellectually dishonest.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> >
>> > Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high
>> > ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the
>> > underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?
>> > Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass,
>> > there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly
>> > heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man,
Bye Bye toad
>> > about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
>> > Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?
>> > Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and
>> >
>> > gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
>> > Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?
>> > Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston,
>> > and following the caravan as it came down.
>> > He said they were "towards the mouth of the underpass". Not behind the
>> > fence.
>> >
>> > .
>> > QUOTE ON
>> > Bowers: "Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in
>> > the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have
>> > - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else
>> > because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were
>> >
>> > fired."
>> > ("Rush to Judgement", "Reel 18 Take 103", page 8 of 13)
>> > QUOTE OFF
>> > A point of clarification is in order here.
>> > The main portion of the stockade fence runs east and west, then turns
>> > north and a smaller section then north and south.
>> > Bowers was in located in a control tower due north of the fence.
>> > The south side of the fence faced Elm Street.
>> >>From Bowers vantage point the only side of the fence that he could have
>> >
>> > ever seen was North side of the fence, the back side.
>> > Thus Bowers seems to have misspoke when he said "I could see back or
>> > the South side of the wooden fence...", he could have only meant that
>> > he "...could see back or the North side of the wooden fence..."
>> > The portion of the fence that Bowers could see, again, the back, or the
>> >
>> > north side of the fence, is the same side of the fence that a gunman
>> > would have to be hiding behind.
>> > But Bowers clearly says "...there was no one there who could
>> > have...had anything to do with (the assassination) either...as
>> > accomplice or anything else because there was no one there...at the
>> > moment that the shots were fired."
>> >

>> >> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1155647613.506993.42500@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > tomnln wrote:
>> >> >> AGAIN;
>> >> >> Your Lies followed by proof in Official Record.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BINGO Hezbollah.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I really appreciate you repeatedly being in Denial.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It gives me Another opportunity to post your Lies along with Official
>> >> >> Proof.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm still waiting for you to supprt your claim that Lee Bowers saw 2
>> >> > (or 3, whatever you want) run form the "picket" fence.
>> >> >
>> >> > You never supported that claim.
>> >> >
>> >> > Without support, it's just a fabrication.
>> >> >
>> >> > I, on the other hand, have shown that Bowers, BY HIS OWN WORD, said he
>> >> > saw NO ONE behind the fence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, and you're a liar. SEE ABOVE
>> >> >

>> >> >> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1155583872.598962.280490@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > tomnln wrote:
>> >> >> >> That's the Shortcoming of "Opinions" toad.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ellen said that you're an expert on "Shortcoming".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I don't know who she told that to, it could have been anyone here. I
>> >> >> > heard it the other day, I think.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I "PROVED" you're a LIAR with Official Records.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Only in your paranoid delusions, old crazy man.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Liar.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You and your words are in That Hall of "Infamy".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > More like, "Hall of Piss Poor Web Sites Run by an Old Man Nut Job
>> >> >> > Case".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You ain't No Lazarus...........You're Still Dead.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you now are claiming I'm dead?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Let me guess, you killed me, right? With a shot from the grassy
>> >> >> > knoll.
>> >> >> > You were dressed like a tramp and ran to a boxcar. Lee Bowers saw
>> >> >> > you,
>> >> >> > right?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You need to see a doctor, Tom. A good head shrink. Real bad.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And isn't Lazaus still dead as well?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hmmm. Yes, he is.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you're an idiot.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Liars usually Are.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So your theory is that people who are liars are usually dead?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Are you in the fourth grade?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1155574985.964904.286150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> > Alive and well, thinkg everyday about what a liar Tom Rossley is.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > rob.spencer@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Quote from Sheep dipper:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "You would be as DEAD as your partner toad vaughan."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Just checking.
>>

"tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1155762094.618975.221700@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> tomnln wrote:
>>> WHY is everyone in front of the TSBD heading TO or, Looking at the
>>> Grassy
>>> Knoll when Officer Baker Raced to the TSBD within seconds???
>>
> =================================================================
>> "Everyone" is not.
>
> Point out WHO is focusing on the TSBD?
> ================================================================
>> Also, have you ever read the testimony of Phil Willis?
>
> The subject is photos showing where people's focus was. G N or, TSBD?
> Losers always change the subject.
> ===============================================================
>
>
>>> They aren't even looking at Baker as he Races past them?
>
> My point Exactly. NOR, the TSBD. &nbs