This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.admissable as evidence.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel and police continued to question him after he'd "lawyered up". Anything he said after he requested a lawyer and was denied one, is NOT
Since Oswald requested a lawyer at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater, anything he said during his interrogation would not have been admissable as evidence.were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember" what Oswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer. The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the arraignment
2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups, which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the sameheight or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the last lineup, Oswald was shown with two teenagers and a Mexican.
Those lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence.you have prima facie proof that the evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution )
3. Take the fact that the people who originally found the evidence did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found, and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else, and
I don't understand why people can't see that. General Walker did.
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel
and police continued to question him after he'd "lawyered up". Anything he said after he requested a lawyer and was denied one, is NOT admissable as evidence.were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember" what Oswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing.
Since Oswald requested a lawyer at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater, anything he said during his interrogation would not have been admissable as evidence.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer. The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the arraignment
2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups,
which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the same height or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the last lineup, Oswaldwas shown with two teenagers and a Mexican.
Those lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence.
3. Take the fact that the people who originally found the evidence did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found,
and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else, and you have prima facie proof that the evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution )
I don't understand why people can't see that.
General Walker did.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:46:31 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counselHe was offered legal council. He declined.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:46:31 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:arraignment were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember" what Oswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing.
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counselHe was offered legal council. He declined.
and police continued to question him after he'd "lawyered up". Anything he said after he requested a lawyer and was denied one, is NOT admissable as evidence.
Since Oswald requested a lawyer at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater, anything he said during his interrogation would not have been admissable as evidence.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer. The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the
was shown with two teenagers and a Mexican.2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups,Show cases being thrown out of court in Dallas at this time with similarly conducted lineups.
which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the same height or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the last lineup, Oswald
This person said the Soviets got it right in their investigation of the assassination (they said it was the CIA; he's said on one occasion it was the Birchers and recently said it was anti-Castro Cubans: those are three different groups). Then heThose lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence.
3. Take the fact that the people who originally found the evidence did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found,Show this is necessary.
And how could that be done unless they marked them somehow?
and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else, and you have prima facie proof that the evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution )How did you rule out other possibilities?
I don't understand why people can't see that.I see you making a bunch of empty claims. Why don`t you see that?
General Walker did.
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.admissable as evidence.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel and police continued to question him after he'd "lawyered up". Anything he said after he requested a lawyer and was denied one, is NOT
Since Oswald requested a lawyer at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater, anything he said during his interrogation would not have been admissable as evidence.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer.
The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the arraignment were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember" whatOswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing.
2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups, which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the sameheight or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the last lineup, Oswald was shown with two teenagers and a Mexican.
Those lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence.
3. Take the fact that the people who originally found the evidence did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found, and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else, andyou have prima facie proof that the evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution )
I don't understand why people can't see that. General Walker did.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:46:31?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:admissable as evidence.
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel and police continued to question him after he'd "lawyered up". Anything he said after he requested a lawyer and was denied one, is NOT
Since Oswald requested a lawyer at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater, anything he said during his interrogation would not have been admissable as evidence.
...The forensic evidence and the eyewitnesses were ample to convict him for both murders.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer.
He lied.
Oswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing.The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the arraignment were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember" what
height or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the last lineup, Oswald was shown with two teenagers and a Mexican.
2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups, which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the same
Those lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence.
It would be very difficult to get a dead ringer for anyone in a lineup.
you have prima facie proof that the evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution )3. Take the fact that the people who originally found the evidence did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found, and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else, and
I don't understand why people can't see that. General Walker did.
If only Gil could cite a real legal expert...
The president of the Dallas Bar Association asked to speak to Oswald to make sure his right
to counsel was not being violated and was granted that request. He offered to obtain counsel
for Oswald but the offer was declined because Oswald was hoping John Abt, a communist
lawyer from New York, would take his case. Oswald's protest that he was being denied legal
counsel was just one of many lies he told during the two days he was in custody.
Nothing Oswald said would have been necessary to convict him. The forensic evidence and
the eyewitnesses were ample to convict him for both murders.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer.He lied.
Oswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing.The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the arraignment were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember" what
same height or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the last lineup, Oswald was shown with two teenagers and a Mexican.2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups, which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the
Those lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence.
It would be very difficult to get a dead ringer for anyone in a lineup. Cite the requirement that the other people in a lineup must look similar to the suspect.
and you have prima facie proof that the evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution )3. Take the fact that the people who originally found the evidence did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found, and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else,
I don't understand why people can't see that. General Walker did.
If only Gil could cite a real legal expert that shares his opinion on the validity of the evidence.
Gil is a make believe lawyer who is making up excuses to dismiss the evidence he knows proves
Oswald's guilt.
The verdict of history is not dependent on Gil's misconceptions of the rules of evidence. History
can accept all of the above evidence that Gil wants to dismiss and properly conclude Oswald
was JFK's assassin just as surely as it has concluded Booth was Lincoln's assassin. There's
nothing Gil can do to change that which is a source of great frustration for him.
This person said the Soviets...
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:10:38 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:46:31 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.
What a fucking liar you are.1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counselHe was offered legal council. He declined.
https://youtu.be/GwSDb1fB7ZI
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:56:59 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The president of the Dallas Bar Association asked to speak to Oswald to make sure his rightSource ?
to counsel was not being violated and was granted that request. He offered to obtain counsel
for Oswald but the offer was declined because Oswald was hoping John Abt, a communist
lawyer from New York, would take his case. Oswald's protest that he was being denied legal
counsel was just one of many lies he told during the two days he was in custody.
Nothing Oswald said would have been necessary to convict him. The forensic evidence and
the eyewitnesses were ample to convict him for both murders.
Source ?
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer.He lied.
Source ?
what Oswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing.The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the arraignment were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember"
same height or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the last lineup, Oswald was shown with two teenagers and a Mexican.2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups, which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the
Those lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence.
It would be very difficult to get a dead ringer for anyone in a lineup. Cite the requirement that the other people in a lineup must look similar to the suspect.https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-rules-for-police-lineups-35166
and you have prima facie proof that the evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution )3. Take the fact that the people who originally found the evidence did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found, and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else,
I don't understand why people can't see that. General Walker did.
If only Gil could cite a real legal expert that shares his opinion on the validity of the evidence.
Gil is a make believe lawyer who is making up excuses to dismiss the evidence he knows proves
Oswald's guilt.
The verdict of history is not dependent on Gil's misconceptions of the rules of evidence. History
can accept all of the above evidence that Gil wants to dismiss and properly conclude Oswald
was JFK's assassin just as surely as it has concluded Booth was Lincoln's assassin. There's
nothing Gil can do to change that which is a source of great frustration for him.
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:31:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 11:57:29?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:56:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The president of the Dallas Bar Association asked to speak to Oswald to make sure his rightSource ?
to counsel was not being violated and was granted that request. He offered to obtain counsel
for Oswald but the offer was declined because Oswald was hoping John Abt, a communist
lawyer from New York, would take his case. Oswald's protest that he was being denied legal
counsel was just one of many lies he told during the two days he was in custody.
I gave this to you in another thread but here it is again:
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94Sorry moron, but hearsay from a dead person isn't evidence.
Nothing Oswald said would have been necessary to convict him. The forensic evidence and
the eyewitnesses were ample to convict him for both murders.
Source ?
See the Warren Commission Report.That isn't evidence... that's someone's OPINION of the evidence.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer.He lied.
Source ?
See the above link.If Chickenshit, Chuckles, and Huckster were honest, they'd be slapping
you silly for trying to use hearsay from the dead...
Gil has it right... I don't think these morons even *know* what
evidence is.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 11:57:29?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:56:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The president of the Dallas Bar Association asked to speak to Oswald to make sure his rightSource ?
to counsel was not being violated and was granted that request. He offered to obtain counsel
for Oswald but the offer was declined because Oswald was hoping John Abt, a communist
lawyer from New York, would take his case. Oswald's protest that he was being denied legal
counsel was just one of many lies he told during the two days he was in custody.
I gave this to you in another thread but here it is again:
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94
Nothing Oswald said would have been necessary to convict him. The forensic evidence and
the eyewitnesses were ample to convict him for both murders.
Source ?
See the Warren Commission Report.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer.He lied.
Source ?
See the above link.
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:57:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.In your own OP at the top of the thread, you offer no citations, no documents,
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
no testimony, no exhibits, etc, to support your own assertions. I guess you think you're above your own rules.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:22:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:31:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 11:57:29?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:56:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>
The president of the Dallas Bar Association asked to speak to Oswald to make sure his rightSource ?
to counsel was not being violated and was granted that request. He offered to obtain counsel
for Oswald but the offer was declined because Oswald was hoping John Abt, a communist
lawyer from New York, would take his case. Oswald's protest that he was being denied legal
counsel was just one of many lies he told during the two days he was in custody.
I gave this to you in another thread but here it is again:
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94Sorry moron, but hearsay from a dead person isn't evidence.
Nothing Oswald said would have been necessary to convict him. The forensic evidence and
the eyewitnesses were ample to convict him for both murders.
Source ?
See the Warren Commission Report.That isn't evidence... that's someone's OPINION of the evidence.
At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer.He lied.
Source ?
See the above link.If Chickenshit, Chuckles, and Huckster were honest, they'd be slapping
you silly for trying to use hearsay from the dead...
Gil has it right... I don't think these morons even *know* whatThere is no spoon.
evidence is.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:36:15 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:discussed and concluded findings, period. You'll also note: Gil Jesus stated clearly "This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons."
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:57:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
what rules asshole? If you haven't noticed this forum discusses the legal attributes/findings/investigation of the *murder* of a President of the United States... Your job is to defend the conclusions of the 1964 WCR whom amassed sorted through,What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.In your own OP at the top of the thread, you offer no citations, no documents,
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
no testimony, no exhibits, etc, to support your own assertions. I guess you
think you're above your own rules.
And your added charge is: to impress the critics of same 1964 report of YOUR scenario of the events that took place in Dealey Plaza that fine day in November... without making yourself look the damn fool we here know you are...
Get busy numbnuts...
He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we dont try dead people.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:36:15 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:discussed and concluded findings, period. You'll also note: Gil Jesus stated clearly "This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons." And your added charge is: to impress the critics of same 1964 report of YOUR scenario
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:57:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
what rules asshole? If you haven't noticed this forum discusses the legal attributes/findings/investigation of the *murder* of a President of the United States... Your job is to defend the conclusions of the 1964 WCR whom amassed sorted through,What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.In your own OP at the top of the thread, you offer no citations, no documents,
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
no testimony, no exhibits, etc, to support your own assertions. I guess you
think you're above your own rules.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:20:32 AM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:discussed and concluded findings, period. You'll also note: Gil Jesus stated clearly "This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons." And your added charge is: to impress the critics of same 1964 report of YOUR scenario
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:36:15 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:57:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
what rules asshole? If you haven't noticed this forum discusses the legal attributes/findings/investigation of the *murder* of a President of the United States... Your job is to defend the conclusions of the 1964 WCR whom amassed sorted through,What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.In your own OP at the top of the thread, you offer no citations, no documents,
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
no testimony, no exhibits, etc, to support your own assertions. I guess you
think you're above your own rules.
The rules implied in Gil's ever-wilted "no citations, no documents, no...." whining. I guess you just didn't bother to notice that Mr Citation didn't present any citations, documents or any other supporting authority for
his assertions. They're just a bunch of baseless assertions, an overfluffed puff of hot air. That's par for Gil's course.
BTW, A couple of items, since I bothered to ask someone who knows
something about Texas criminal procedure
1.) Under Texas law, the arraignment process is broken into two parts.
The first is where the accused is formally presented with the charges against them. The second is the more traditional formal arraignment.
This second hearing is where the court may appoint counsel for an
otherwise unrepresented, indigent accused. The accused can waive the
right to counsel at this time, or bring their own. It's important to note that the second hearing can take place no sooner than two days
after the serving of charges. In Oswald's case, he could not have been assigned an attorney by the court until November 24th. It wouldn't
have happened on the 22nd, as Gil thinks.
2.) Once Oswald started to answer investigators' questions, it didn't
matter if he had a lawyer or not. The trick to invoking the right to
remain silent is to actually remain silent until your attorney appears. Oswald did no such thing. Anything he said could, and would, have
been used against him in a court of law. Just like the Miranda warning
warns you about.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:46:34 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:discussed and concluded findings, period. You'll also note: Gil Jesus stated clearly "This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons." And your added charge is: to impress the critics of same 1964 report of YOUR scenario
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:20:32 AM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:36:15 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:57:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
what rules asshole? If you haven't noticed this forum discusses the legal attributes/findings/investigation of the *murder* of a President of the United States... Your job is to defend the conclusions of the 1964 WCR whom amassed sorted through,What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.In your own OP at the top of the thread, you offer no citations, no documents,
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
no testimony, no exhibits, etc, to support your own assertions. I guess you
think you're above your own rules.
The rules implied in Gil's ever-wilted "no citations, no documents, no...."
whining. I guess you just didn't bother to notice that Mr Citation didn't present any citations, documents or any other supporting authority for
his assertions. They're just a bunch of baseless assertions, an overfluffed
puff of hot air. That's par for Gil's course.
BTW, A couple of items, since I bothered to ask someone who knows something about Texas criminal procedure
1.) Under Texas law, the arraignment process is broken into two parts.
The first is where the accused is formally presented with the charges against them. The second is the more traditional formal arraignment.
This second hearing is where the court may appoint counsel for an otherwise unrepresented, indigent accused. The accused can waive the
right to counsel at this time, or bring their own. It's important to note that the second hearing can take place no sooner than two days
after the serving of charges. In Oswald's case, he could not have been assigned an attorney by the court until November 24th. It wouldn't
have happened on the 22nd, as Gil thinks.
2.) Once Oswald started to answer investigators' questions, it didn't matter if he had a lawyer or not. The trick to invoking the right to remain silent is to actually remain silent until your attorney appears. Oswald did no such thing. Anything he said could, and would, haveWhat Gil fails to appreciate is that there is no such thing as Miranda rights. The Miranda
been used against him in a court of law. Just like the Miranda warning warns you about.
ruling did not create any rights. Gil is right that governments don't create rights. The either
recognize them or infringe upon them. What Miranda did was create a new set of rules that
cops had to follow. Those rules specified that cops not only had to respect a suspect's rights
but they had to inform a suspect of precisely what those rights are. Prior to Miranda, there
was a good deal of gray area as to how hard interrogators could lean on a suspect. If a
suspect didn't know his rights, cops weren't obligated to inform him.
In Miranda case, SCOTUS ruled by a 5-4 margin that the cops had gone too far in pressuring
Miranda to confess and then devised the Miranda rules for the future. It overturned Miranda's
conviction and ordered a new trial in which the confession would not be admissible. It didn't
help Miranda. He was retried and reconvicted and was sentenced to 20-30 years in jail.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:46:34?PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:discussed and concluded findings, period. You'll also note: Gil Jesus stated clearly "This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons." And your added charge is: to impress the critics of same 1964 report of YOUR scenario
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:20:32?AM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:36:15?PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:57:29?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
what rules asshole? If you haven't noticed this forum discusses the legal attributes/findings/investigation of the *murder* of a President of the United States... Your job is to defend the conclusions of the 1964 WCR whom amassed sorted through,
As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've listed.In your own OP at the top of the thread, you offer no citations, no documents,
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
no testimony, no exhibits, etc, to support your own assertions. I guess you
think you're above your own rules.
What Gil fails to appreciate is that there is no such thing as Miranda rights.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we don’t try dead people.Except, of course, when believers attempt to try Oswald.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:more for the hard of hearing — we don’t try dead people.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Straw man logical fallacy. There is no attempt at a trial (mock or otherwise) on this board, except by conspiracy believers like Gil. In fact, I just pointed out why Gil’s approach is the incorrect one.He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we don’t try dead people.Except, of course, when believers attempt to try Oswald.
Ben ignores that and accuses “believers” of attempting to try Oswald. The only believers who do that are conspiracy believers like Gil. A trial standard is the wrong standard for the simple reason that the putative defendant is DEAD, and — once
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:50:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:more for the hard of hearing — we don’t try dead people.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Straw man logical fallacy. There is no attempt at a trial (mock or otherwise) on this board, except by conspiracy believers like Gil. In fact, I just pointed out why Gil’s approach is the incorrect one.He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we don’t try dead people.Except, of course, when believers attempt to try Oswald.
Ben ignores that and accuses “believers” of attempting to try Oswald. The only believers who do that are conspiracy believers like Gil. A trial standard is the wrong standard for the simple reason that the putative defendant is DEAD, and — once
People like Gil who try to dismiss the evidence against Oswald on technical grounds reveal thatThey dismiss - or try to - the evidence against Oswald on legalistic terms and then turnaround and have no standards when it comes to accusations about others. If they used the same standard in both cases then they would be credible. But they don't and
their intention is not to seek the truth but to promote their false narrative that Oswald was framed.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:15:25 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:once more for the hard of hearing — we don’t try dead people.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:50:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Straw man logical fallacy. There is no attempt at a trial (mock or otherwise) on this board, except by conspiracy believers like Gil. In fact, I just pointed out why Gil’s approach is the incorrect one.He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we don’t try dead people.Except, of course, when believers attempt to try Oswald.
Ben ignores that and accuses “believers” of attempting to try Oswald. The only believers who do that are conspiracy believers like Gil. A trial standard is the wrong standard for the simple reason that the putative defendant is DEAD, and —
they aren't.People like Gil who try to dismiss the evidence against Oswald on technical grounds reveal thatThey dismiss - or try to - the evidence against Oswald on legalistic terms and then turnaround and have no standards when it comes to accusations about others. If they used the same standard in both cases then they would be credible. But they don't and
their intention is not to seek the truth but to promote their false narrative that Oswald was framed.
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the
Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".
Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing so.
SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcw
more for the hard of hearing — we don’t try dead people.dcw
HankOn Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:50:41 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Straw man logical fallacy. There is no attempt at a trial (mock or otherwise) on this board, except by conspiracy believers like Gil. In fact, I just pointed out why Gil’s approach is the incorrect one.He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we don’t try dead people.Except, of course, when believers attempt to try Oswald.
Ben ignores that and accuses “believers” of attempting to try Oswald. The only believers who do that are conspiracy believers like Gil. A trial standard is the wrong standard for the simple reason that the putative defendant is DEAD, and — once
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:20:20 AM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
I guess I'll have to keep re-running this until Hank comes out of summer hibernation....the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
Herein I addressed a couple of your "Don ignored this point" challenges. So glad to oblige you....
dcw
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".
Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....
It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcw
more for the hard of hearing — we don’t try dead people.dcw
HankOn Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:50:41 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Straw man logical fallacy. There is no attempt at a trial (mock or otherwise) on this board, except by conspiracy believers like Gil. In fact, I just pointed out why Gil’s approach is the incorrect one.He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we don’t try dead people.Except, of course, when believers attempt to try Oswald.
Ben ignores that and accuses “believers” of attempting to try Oswald. The only believers who do that are conspiracy believers like Gil. A trial standard is the wrong standard for the simple reason that the putative defendant is DEAD, and — once
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:33:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:10:38?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:46:31?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:What a fucking liar you are.
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.He was offered legal council. He declined.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel
https://youtu.be/GwSDb1fB7ZI
That doesn`t speak to what I lied about at all.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:40:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
He overlooked the only reason: Oswald was dead, and we dont try dead people.Except, of course, when believers attempt to try Oswald.
Straw man logical fallacy.
The claim in the OP is that the case against Oswald would have been thrown out of court...
They dismiss - or try to - the evidence against Oswald on legalistic terms...
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:09:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:33:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:10:38?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:46:31?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:What a fucking liar you are.
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.He was offered legal council. He declined.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel
https://youtu.be/GwSDb1fB7ZI
That doesn`t speak to what I lied about at all.
I fuck my mother`s corpse.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:09:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:33:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:10:38?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:46:31?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:What a fucking liar you are.
This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons.He was offered legal council. He declined.
1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel
https://youtu.be/GwSDb1fB7ZI
That doesn`t speak to what I lied about at all.
No response needed...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:28:35 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,994 |