|
|
Post by Morgana on Nov 30, 2020 10:16:31 GMT -6
An interview I listened to the other day, Opperman was talking with PI Tony Spearl (no idea if this guy is straight up or not. His associations are questionable) and he made a statement about Sebring's assistant. That's it. But like so many statements out there...it probably is Markham.
Doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 30, 2020 9:23:56 GMT -6
Another point I'm trying to make is, I don't care (to a certain extent) whether OJ was "framed" or not. That's a completely different situation from, say, the "trial" of Bobby Beausoleil, where the PROSECUTION'S OWN FILES contradict the "case" the prosecution presented to the public, and the jury. The case against OJ presented to the public and the jury is NOT contradicted by the prosecution's own files. The crime scene techs say they found a sock on OJ's bedroom floor. There is a polaroid--not digital photograph, a polaroid--of that sock in situ. There are photos of tiny droplets of blood on that sock. A DNA lab says those blood drops match Nicole and Ron. Drops of blood sampled at the scene match OJ's DNA. There is a photo of a cut on OJ's finger a day or two after the murders, consistent with the kinds of accidental wounds stabbers give themselves (and are suspiciously lacking in the Manson Family.) And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
And that's what the prosecution showed the "jury." Just because OJ's high-priced celebrity lawyer told a "reporter" that he supposedly saw or heard about all this OTHER "evidence" that was NOT in the files, or that he was told, blah, blah, blah, does NOT prove, in any way, shape, or form, that such evidence ever existed. It is not different at all from Jim Rothstein's bullshit claims. And remember--OJ had NO OTHER DEFENSE. "I was framed!" The weakest excuse for a defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the prosecution spent nine months showing the jury--and remember, this was LIVE television, not a "secret" trial--a MOUNTAIN of proof. "It was aaaaalllllllll faked!" is a claim that has never been supported by one, single, solitary shred of evidence. Just belief.
I can--and have--SHOW you that the LAPD and DA office files, the witness statements, the autopsy reports, etc, CONTRADICT Bugliosi's case against the Manson Family. I can SHOW you the newspaper articles where Susan Atkins got her information--including WRONG information, like the window screen being "cut," or the victims being "hanged" from the ceiling. I can SHOW you the statement by Garretson, "verified" by polygraph, if that means jack shit, that "Patty Montgomery" visited 10050 Cielo Drive on multiple occasions in the recent past. I can SHOW you LAPD files that PROVE "Patty Montgomery" was a KNOWN alias of Patricia Krenwinkle. I can, thereby, PROVE that finding her fingerprints--NOT bloody fingerprints--in that house does NOT "prove" she was one of the MURDERERS. And that Bugliosi lies about all this at the trial. And to the press.
Is it hypothetically possible OJ was "framed?" Sure. It's hypothetically possible the Easter Bunny did it. But that is NOT the same thing as SHOWING me EVIDENCE that it happened. And hearsay, let alone hearsay from a 10,000 percent biased source, is NOT evidence. It might be a lead TO evidence. But after 25 years, I have yet to see one, single, solitary scrap of that "evidence." Just people busting a gut to believe something just because they want it to be true.
"But those files are ALL faked!" might be true. It's not, but even if it is, it's NOT the same thing as being able to PROVE that the "cases" against Bobby B and Charles Manson and David Berkowitz are PROVEN extensively false by the ACTUAL evidence in the actual files.
And I have to keep repeating over and over and over, I am NOT saying the Manson Family are "innocent." All I'm saying is, there is NO evidence they're guilty. And there IS evidence the prosecution LIED to the public, and to the jury.
I know people end up making huge emotional investments in their favorite conspiracy theories. I don't care. I care about nothing but EVIDENCE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 30, 2020 8:56:13 GMT -6
I'm not claiming I have cracked any of these cases. Only that we have, indeed, uncovered links between them. And those links might tell us something. And by links, I don't mean stories. I mean, stories have led us to surprising EVIDENCE. For example, at his "trial," Manson was accused of using various "mind control" techniques to turn his adorers into killers. The funny thing is, that's what the CIA had been trying to do for years. And Manson and many of his fellow prisoners at McNeil Island Penitentiary were "treated" by some of the same "doctors" in those programs. And a cluster of "serial killers" in New York appear to be "clustered" around another, "Doctor" Ewen Cameron. And that's all we know. What does it "prove?" Well, there are OTHER links between both these "doctors," other people in the CIA, and OTHER cases. And OTHER concrete links between many of those cases. And some of those cases follow a similar pattern of trial by media, etc, etc, etc.
We have uncovered SOME real EVIDENCE of SOMETHING funny going on. And that's it. So far. But the more we look into certain leads, the more evidence we find. So, I think it's perfectly logical to ask certain questions, like, "Were Arthur Shawcross, Kenneth Bianchi, David Berkowitz, Israel Keyes, and others, ALSO 'patients' of Drs Jolyon West, Ewen Cameron, etc?"
I'm not saying we have answered that question completely, yet. I'm saying, evidence proves that it's not a crazy question to ask.
|
|
Omega
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Omega on Nov 30, 2020 5:20:05 GMT -6
Sometimes, it reminds of........
|
|
|
|
Post by mysteriouscourtier on Nov 30, 2020 2:58:51 GMT -6
You are right, of course.
I didn't think the real story behind "The Zodiac" would ever be told, but your books proved me wrong - much to my delight.
There may be real stories yet untold, that I would never expect, behind other historic tragedies. I look forward to hearing what others have to say about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Nov 29, 2020 22:00:23 GMT -6
From a comment that was posted by Princess (Bo's niece) on Keddie28 FB Page:
Now we have come to expect, and disregard, this type of useless chatter from Dmac but I do wish that Princess would explain WHAT and WHO in the Sam Hill she is talking about - if she even knows - or is that just some 28 lingo she's throwing around there? Is she saying that Ronald Reagan was covering up these murders that happened in Keddie, California? Bless her heart she really needs to put down the kool-aid and quit trying to fit Uncle Bo into all of this - Dmac's having a hard enough time squeezing Marty in.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Nov 29, 2020 21:24:35 GMT -6
Dmac recently posted this question:
I'll be the first to say that I believe Sheila said many things while posting on the forums that was very misleading but I don't think she ever said she left 28 with no belongings whatsoever (if she did I don't remember reading it). Ricky insinuated that he did on the cabin walk through but not Sheila. They may have left 28, for the week after the murders without anything, but I highly doubt they left for Oregon without anything (Aunt Jackie already had 6 children of her own to clothe). Where did Dmac think all those photos came from? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 21:22:24 GMT -6
Why can't I make people understand what I'm trying to do? Shapiro making CLAIMS about "evidence" that LAPD "suppressed," like "two murder weapons," that are NOT supported by ACTUAL documents or photos, etc from the files of LA county authorities, are what I'm trying to get people to stop clinging to. How the fuck is he any different from Rothstein claiming he's seen aaaaaaaalllllllll these secret files" that no one else can see? Why can't you see the difference between this kind of unsubstantiated horseshit, and our ability to compare the "case" presented to the jury in the Hinman murder, and how it is contradicted by the prosecution's OWN FILES?
"Somebody in LAPD told me..." Why can't some people get it through their thick skulls that that is NOT evidence of ANYTHING? There is a REASON why hearsay like that is not admissible as EVIDENCE. THIS is the reason. "I saw all this evidence. I can't show it to you. I have a million excuses for not showing it to you. But, if you don't believe me, you're a sheeple." Blah, blah, blah.
Yeah. Everybody and their dog tries to cash in with this unsubstantiated horseshit. That doesn't make ANY of it "evidence." Understand? I don't care if I hurt your feelings. I care about whether or not you have evidence of something. You, and everybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 21:01:44 GMT -6
Well, I've been pointing out all along that CIA, KGB, Gestapo, El Chapo, you name it, ALL use the same underground railroads as everybody else. That doesn't automatically mean any of them "control" every (or any) underground railroad.
Assistant what? Bookkeeper? Floor sweeper? Assistant what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 20:56:27 GMT -6
I don't understand your point. Falsify? Who? Falsify what? What are you disagreeing with? "But they were not exploited for highly publicized, 'popular' legend, hypothesized purposes." Is that your point? I don't understand. So what if none of "Cameron's" patients (the ones we KNoW of) were used to murder the LaBiancas or whoever. I never said they did. That doesn't mean the CIA or whoever didn't use Cameron's experiments to get bright ideas about their own plans. Is that what you're arguing about? That just because none of the Cameron subjects listed on the public records committed certain specific crimes, then there's NO reason to even ask who DID use those techniques? Cameron, or anyone else? And what about the SUCCESSFUL experiments? You're only talking about the failures. That's like saying Apollo 11 never landed on the moon, because Apollo 1 was a disaster.
Is that your point? If not, what is your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Nov 29, 2020 20:33:43 GMT -6
Intelligence has ALWAYS controlled the main routes for drug trafficking. Businesses are used as front and money laundering. I've always wondered if Paul Tate wasn't apart of that. Bringing in Sebring. Forget bikers at the moment. I'm talking another level but I am well aware they are apart of the whole. I do believe Polanski has always been some type of intelligence asset. YOU DO NOT GET TO CERTAIN LEVELS OF FAME without being bloodlines or very connected. And for a price. I've done much reading on this subject....
Just my thoughts...and intuition.
If you ever get into Cisco Streetloves research on the Child Atlanta murders. He discovered that the main trafficking for children/porn and drugs were all the same routes throughout the US and controlled by the same folks. Like Danny Castilaro he was taken out. His ebook scrubbed from the internet.
When you do more reading Tom... I think you will discover similar. I say that with due respect.
Morgana
PS. Who was Sebring's assistant? Not his partner. I thought Markham was his partner.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysteriouscourtier on Nov 29, 2020 19:37:13 GMT -6
I wouldn't call Cameron's work in Canada "legitimate", certainly, many of his colleagues did not. He was a scumbag, my opinion, should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity along with the whole 'first generation' CIA cabal.
But my point is, the small number of documented Cameron-CIA victims here were subjected to "the most brutal" (victim's words) MKUltra project experimentation (was it #68? can't recall right now). They would never be the same. But they were not exploited for highly publicized, 'popular'legend, hypothesized purposes.
I can't claim to know, what happened to victims of the other 148 subprojects.
I did discover, once I got my hands on a complete copy of the subproject #136 proposal, that several persons who ought to know better including a prominent victim claimant, had apparently deliberately mis-represented the text of that proposal in their public statements about it. Twisted it, rewrote it, quoted pieces of it out of context and then attributed highly nefarious context to those statements, that didn't exist in the original! Very disappointing. The whole MKUltra endeavor was outrageous violations of medical ethics, anyway...no need to falsify and exaggerate that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 10:05:14 GMT -6
For the love of Mae Brussell. Where on earth do people get the idea that the prosecution tried to FRAME OJ?  ?? They did EVERYTHING they could, and things they couldn't, to get him off. No one, NO ONE, sabotaged the trial in favor of OJ like Marcia Clark and half the LAPD forensics "experts." There was no "conspiracy" to "convict" OJ. There was a blatant conspiracy to get him off. And the ooooooooooooooooooooonly way to do that was sabotage their own case. And it was one of the most airtight cases I've ever seen. Every. Single. Fucking. Day, Marcia Clark would waltz into the courtroom an hour, sometimes TWO hours late, with some bullshit excuse about a sick kid, or whatever. The jury would be sitting there, the whole court would be sitting there, FUMING. Then, she'd show up just to ask for a continuance. Or some other delay. And "Judge" Ito would say, "Well, today's Thursday, and Monday's a holiday, so let's just adjourn until Tuesday." But the jury didn't get a 4-day weekend. They were locked up in that hotel for nine months with NOTHING to do. Nothing. They HATED her, hated Darden, and hated Ito with a blind, bloody passion. And that was NO accident. And then expert witness after expert witness got on the stand and shot themselves in the foot. They should have been FIRED for the "testimony" they gave. Not to mention the softballs they pitched to Cochrane day after day after day. If they were part of some massive conspiracy to "frame" (snicker) OJ, then why didn't ONE SINGLE SOLITARY ONE OF THEM do a half-competent job of it? Frame. Hilarious. The most expensive jury consultant in the country told Marcia Clark, "For the love of God and your own children, you do NOT want ANY black women on that jury if you can possibly help it." Clark told, "Thanks, but I know what I'm doing." So, she literally went across the street and went to work for OJ's lawyers. There was one black woman on the jury who make it clear she was never, ever going to vote "guilty." Marcia Clark never challenged for cause. And day after day, she would sit there in the jury box, watching the paint dry, or counting ceiling tiles. She never once looked at any of the physical evidence being presented. Not once. And Marcia Clark WANTED her on that jury. "Debunked." You mean "sandbagged." By the "prosecution's" own "experts." I wouldn't let Christopher Darden prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald. OJ Simpson was THE goose who laid ALL the golden eggs in those days. Dick Ebersol, the most powerful man in TV at that time, personally defended OJ to the last drop of orange juice. "Framed." You tickle me. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 9:33:02 GMT -6
Oh, John Gale did plenty of what we would call "trafficking," which could broadly be defined as "wholesale" dealing, as opposed to "retail" dealing. The business got bigger and bigger as prices got lower and lower. But the Hells Angels, Billy Doyle, etc, would NOT be BUYING from Jay. They'd be SELLING. Now, Jay's usual suppliers (no doubt Sinatra's mob buddies) would be upset about him BUYING from would-be competitors like Doyle, but they wouldn't kill a nickel and dime customer like Jay over it. They'd kill Doyle. Rostau and Massaro were, indeed, bumped off in the spring of 1970. They had burned every bridge there was. I'd bet credits to Navy beans that Jay bought that last spoon of "bad coke" from Doyle. There MIGHT be some truth to the rumor that Rostau tried to score some more coke for Jay that night, and Parent went down to Santa Monica Bvd to pick him up or whatever. And some rude questions may have been asked about "Uh, who sold you your last weekly spoon, Jay?" And that conversation might have turned ugly. But that doesn't explain knifing the other three people in the house. Nor does it explain the other half of the rumor, that Rostau "couldn't" find any. And it doesn't explain why Jay left his coke--of whatever quality--in the car. Unless he didn't want whoever to know he had it. But, there is no sign that whoever FOUND it in Jay's car. So, how would Rostau know he'd been two-timed by Jay? And if Jay got all pissy about Rostau showing up empty-handed, then again, why would Rostau and Massaro knife everybody in the house, and shoot Parent before he could give Rostau and Massaro a ride back to town?
On the other hand, if Garretson fudged that part of the story, and went and picked up Tex and Patty instead, and the conversation turned ugly over the "bad coke" Jay got from them (or their buddy Doyle) earlier, then, again, why was Jay's coke in the car? Unless he brought some in the house for a "spit test," and Tex was smart enough to take it with him?
Now, suppose that is not what happened. Suppose it was FRYKOWSKI who called and wanted some coke, because Jay claimed he didn't have any (or, at least, any "good" coke.) Suppose Parent showed up with Tex and Patty in the car. Suppose he went to see Garretson (maybe to keep Garretson busy.) Suppose Parent went into the main house to tell Tex "I/we need to go." Suppose Frykowski got upset by the interruption. Or Jay got upset by whatever was going down. Or Sharon. Or suppose he recognized Parent, or whatever. Or, suppose they asked Parent to help Tex move the trunks out of the middle of the living room. Suppose it's Tex and Parent who get into a fight over which end to pick up first, and Parent gets stabbed in the hand, and Tex chases him out to his car, and shoots him. Now, what is Tex going to do? Call for help. Help arrives a couple of hours later. The scene gets uglier. The phone wires get cut. Etc.
Because that time lapse between 12:15 and 12:45 needs to be explained, AND that time lapse between the four shots fired about 12:45 and the screams and three more shots at about 3:45 needs to be explained. Not to mention the men being fully clothed, and the women in their night things needs to be explained.
Lets' just say that we know where Abigail and Sharon were all night. But we DON'T "know" where Jay and Frykowski were between 10:00 pm and 3:45am.
Now, there's one other situation that could have gotten out of hand. There are plenty, plenty of rumors that Jay and many of his "friends" were into BDSM. So are a lot of people. Big whoop. But Parent's PO and others believed HE was into it, and probably gay or bi to boot. There's not much doubt Garretson was most likely gay for pay, and we KNOW Tex, Sadie (short for "Sadistic?" or "Satanist?" Both? Sadie for pay?) and others in the Family played Whatever for pay. Did Tex/Voytek/Jay make Steven an offer he couldn't refuse? When rich, powerful, spoiled, party hounds spend a hot, "buggy," Friday night sitting around bored, with no candy and no toys, that scene can easily turn ugly. Very ugly.
Belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 8:55:00 GMT -6
The Canadian government is no more anxious to brag about Cameron's work for the CIA than the CIA is. Sure, he and others, like Jolyon West, et al, did "legitimate" psychiatric work. But they also cashed a lot of checks working on other projects. There is a good doc on Youtube and other channels called "Caring Corrupted" about Nazi nurses that illustrates my point. It wasn't all Josef Mengele. Plenty of "good" doctors and nurses cheerfully went along.
|
|
