There are basically several reasons why I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent. I believe that these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence because not only were many of the steps taken
by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.

Not the least of these reasons was that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt.

Reason # 1: The prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt

In a criminal case, the credibility of the case is directly connected to the credibility of the people making the case. Justice cannot be served if the justice system is geared to anything other than bringing the REAL perpetrators to justice.

During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests.

For example, if you had nine convictions out of ten arrests, you'd have a 90% conviction rate. Wade compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.

The problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED.

And if you arrested the wrong person, it would require you to manufacture evidence against that suspect in such a way to convince a judge or jury of his guilt. This is exactly what they did in Dallas County under Henry Wade's tenure.

Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

District Attorney Craig Watkins became the first black elected chief prosecutor in any Texas county back in 2006.
The new DA and other Wade detractors said the cases won under Wade were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark.

They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates.

In the case of James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blamed a culture of "win at all costs."

"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys."

In this case, there is evidence that there was an assumption of guilt at the time of arrest as well. Johnny Calvin Brewer testified that during the struggle with Oswald in the Texas Theater, "I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, '
Kill the President, will you ?' " ( 7 H 6 )

By 1953, Henry Wade already had the city wired. Reporters treated his word as gospel, sometimes even buttressing Wade’s efforts in court with their own testimony. The Dallas Police Department and County Sheriff’s Office eagerly did his bidding.

Henry Wade's word was gold.

Wade was so highly regarded by the people of Dallas that he was able to convince a jury in 1954 to send an innocent man to the electric chair.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury.

And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries.

With such a skill for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit, the credibility of the Dallas DA's case against Lee Harvey Oswald deserves a second look. As does the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

But corruption didn't just exist in the Dallas DA's office, it was rampant in the police department as well.

Corruption of police

Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department.

In 1966, Mark Lane interviewed Nancy Hamilton, formerly known as Nancy Perrin Rich, a bartender at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Hamilton told him that Dallas Police officers and DA Henry Wade drank for free at Ruby's club and looked the other way when Ruby
violated the local liquor laws.
https://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k

In her testimony for the Warren Commission, Rich claimed that Jack Ruby once assaulted her and when she went to police to report a complaint, they refused to take a report on the incident and file charges against him.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/WC_Vol14_343-hamilton.gif

It was Rich's intent to sue Ruby for the assault, but in order to sue Ruby in civil court, it was imperative for there to be a public record of the assault. With police refusing to take her report, there was no way she could prove the assault ever took
place.

Rich testified that when she threatened police that she would file her complaint with the District Attorney's Office, she "wasn't advised. I was flatly told not to."

But the corruption of the police and in the DA's office weren't the only things IMO that call into question the credibility of the case against Oswald.

There was the way the authorities handled Oswald after his arrest, using tactics that were illegal and unethical from a legal standpoint. Tactics one would not use in a normal criminal investigation where the suspect was guilty, but tactics one would use
certainly in a case where they were framing an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:58 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are basically several reasons why I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent. I believe that these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence because not only were many of the steps

taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.

Not the least of these reasons was that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt.

Reason # 1: The prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt

Why does that matter given Oswald was never prosecuted?

In a criminal case, the credibility of the case is directly connected to the credibility of the people making the case. Justice cannot be served if the justice system is geared to anything other than bringing the REAL perpetrators to justice.

Do you believe everyone convicted during Wade's time as prosecutor was framed?

During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests.

For example, if you had nine convictions out of ten arrests, you'd have a 90% conviction rate. Wade compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.

Tell us how that varies from other big city prosecutors.

The problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED.

Do you think it's odd that the people who get convicted were arrested first?

And if you arrested the wrong person, it would require you to manufacture evidence against that suspect in such a way to convince a judge or jury of his guilt. This is exactly what they did in Dallas County under Henry Wade's tenure.

What does this have to do with Oswald?

Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Yes, innocent people sometimes get convicted. Our criminal justice system isn't perfect. It's just the best system yet invented.

District Attorney Craig Watkins became the first black elected chief prosecutor in any Texas county back in 2006.
The new DA and other Wade detractors said the cases won under Wade were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark.

They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates.

In the case of James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's

car.

Again I ask, what does any of this have to do with Oswald. He was never prosecuted by Wade's office. You're barking up the
wrong tree.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blamed a culture of "win at all costs."

"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys."

In this case, there is evidence that there was an assumption of guilt at the time of arrest as well. Johnny Calvin Brewer testified that during the struggle with Oswald in the Texas Theater, "I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, '

Kill the President, will you ?' " ( 7 H 6 )

By 1953, Henry Wade already had the city wired. Reporters treated his word as gospel, sometimes even buttressing Wade’s efforts in court with their own testimony. The Dallas Police Department and County Sheriff’s Office eagerly did his bidding.

Henry Wade's word was gold.

Wade was so highly regarded by the people of Dallas that he was able to convince a jury in 1954 to send an innocent man to the electric chair.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury.

And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries.

With such a skill for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit, the credibility of the Dallas DA's case against Lee Harvey Oswald deserves a second look. As does the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

The Dallas DA did not make the case against Oswald. The Warren Commission did. Try reading their report sometime.

But corruption didn't just exist in the Dallas DA's office, it was rampant in the police department as well.

Corruption of police

Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department.

Welcome to the real world. In my younger days, I was the third trick manager at a 7/11 store. We gave the cops free coffee.
It was to our benefit because it meant the cops were dropping in frequently which tends to discourage armed robbers. This
was especially important on the third trick.

In 1966, Mark Lane interviewed Nancy Hamilton, formerly known as Nancy Perrin Rich, a bartender at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Hamilton told him that Dallas Police officers and DA Henry Wade drank for free at Ruby's club and looked the other way when

Ruby violated the local liquor laws.

https://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k

You think this only happens in Dallas?

In her testimony for the Warren Commission, Rich claimed that Jack Ruby once assaulted her and when she went to police to report a complaint, they refused to take a report on the incident and file charges against him.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/WC_Vol14_343-hamilton.gif

How does that exonerate Oswald? How does it make all the evidence against him go away?

It was Rich's intent to sue Ruby for the assault, but in order to sue Ruby in civil court, it was imperative for there to be a public record of the assault. With police refusing to take her report, there was no way she could prove the assault ever took

place.

Rich testified that when she threatened police that she would file her complaint with the District Attorney's Office, she "wasn't advised. I was flatly told not to."

But the corruption of the police and in the DA's office weren't the only things IMO that call into question the credibility of the case against Oswald.

There was the way the authorities handled Oswald after his arrest, using tactics that were illegal and unethical from a legal standpoint. Tactics one would not use in a normal criminal investigation where the suspect was guilty, but tactics one would

use certainly in a case where they were framing an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

A red herring if ever there was one.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:28:55 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

A red herring if ever there was one.

I'm sorry, did you think my opinion was for your approval ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:32:21 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:28:55 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

A red herring if ever there was one.

I'm sorry, did you think my opinion was for your approval ?

That thought never entered my mind. I'm not at all surprised you deleted all the other points I made, primarily the one that
Wade's record as a prosecutor is completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination since his office never prosecuted that case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:38:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

Wade's record as a prosecutor is completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination since his office never prosecuted that case.

Au contraire. The credibility of a criminal case is based on the credibility of the police who put it together and the DA who decided to prosecute it.
Once Oswald was formally charged with the murders, the case was Wade's. Because it didn't go to TRIAL is irrelevant.
Those defendants were framed BEFORE they went to trial, not while they were in court.
You argument is therefore moot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:41:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:38:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

Wade's record as a prosecutor is completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination since his office never prosecuted that case.

Au contraire. The credibility of a criminal case is based on the credibility of the police who put it together and the DA who decided to prosecute it.

Wade's only involvement in the case was formally charging Oswald with the two murders, which only requires a minimal
amount of evidence. He never even got a chance to present the case to the grand jury. As for the police, their job is to
gather the evidence and send it to the DA. They don't work at his direction. You want to take the ludicrous position that the
DPD was engaging in a cover up from the get go. Do you think they were onboard before the assassination or were they
recruited to join in the cover up after the assassination? I'm not sure which is the more ridiculous proposition.

Once Oswald was formally charged with the murders, the case was Wade's. Because it didn't go to TRIAL is irrelevant.

Wade never had the chance to engage in the prosecutorial misconduct you seem to be accusing him of.

Those defendants were framed BEFORE they went to trial, not while they were in court.
You argument is therefore moot.

Wade's involvement ended the minute the person he had charged was pronounced dead. Just what do you think Wade did in
the roughly 36 hours between the time Oswald was charged and he was declared dead that would cast doubt on the
conclusions of the WC?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:58 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are basically several reasons why I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent. I believe that these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence because not only were many of the steps

taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.

Not the least of these reasons was that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt.

Reason # 1: The prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt

In a criminal case, the credibility of the case is directly connected to the credibility of the people making the case. Justice cannot be served if the justice system is geared to anything other than bringing the REAL perpetrators to justice.

During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests.

For example, if you had nine convictions out of ten arrests, you'd have a 90% conviction rate. Wade compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.

How is this possible when, according to you, the Dallas Police Department had no idea how to process evidence correctly?

The problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED.

And if you arrested the wrong person, it would require you to manufacture evidence against that suspect in such a way to convince a judge or jury of his guilt. This is exactly what they did in Dallas County under Henry Wade's tenure.

Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

District Attorney Craig Watkins became the first black elected chief prosecutor in any Texas county back in 2006.
The new DA and other Wade detractors said the cases won under Wade were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark.

They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates.

In the case of James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's

car.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blamed a culture of "win at all costs."

"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys."

In this case, there is evidence that there was an assumption of guilt at the time of arrest as well. Johnny Calvin Brewer testified that during the struggle with Oswald in the Texas Theater, "I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, '

Kill the President, will you ?' " ( 7 H 6 )

By 1953, Henry Wade already had the city wired. Reporters treated his word as gospel, sometimes even buttressing Wade’s efforts in court with their own testimony. The Dallas Police Department and County Sheriff’s Office eagerly did his bidding.

Henry Wade's word was gold.

Wade was so highly regarded by the people of Dallas that he was able to convince a jury in 1954 to send an innocent man to the electric chair.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury.

And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries.

With such a skill for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit, the credibility of the Dallas DA's case against Lee Harvey Oswald deserves a second look. As does the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

But corruption didn't just exist in the Dallas DA's office, it was rampant in the police department as well.

Corruption of police

Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department.

In 1966, Mark Lane interviewed Nancy Hamilton, formerly known as Nancy Perrin Rich, a bartender at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Hamilton told him that Dallas Police officers and DA Henry Wade drank for free at Ruby's club and looked the other way when

Ruby violated the local liquor laws.

https://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k

In her testimony for the Warren Commission, Rich claimed that Jack Ruby once assaulted her and when she went to police to report a complaint, they refused to take a report on the incident and file charges against him.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/WC_Vol14_343-hamilton.gif

It was Rich's intent to sue Ruby for the assault, but in order to sue Ruby in civil court, it was imperative for there to be a public record of the assault. With police refusing to take her report, there was no way she could prove the assault ever took

place.

Rich testified that when she threatened police that she would file her complaint with the District Attorney's Office, she "wasn't advised. I was flatly told not to."

But the corruption of the police and in the DA's office weren't the only things IMO that call into question the credibility of the case against Oswald.

There was the way the authorities handled Oswald after his arrest, using tactics that were illegal and unethical from a legal standpoint. Tactics one would not use in a normal criminal investigation where the suspect was guilty, but tactics one would

use certainly in a case where they were framing an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:41:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:38:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

Wade's record as a prosecutor is completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination since his office never prosecuted that case.

Au contraire. The credibility of a criminal case is based on the credibility of the police who put it together and the DA who decided to prosecute it.
Once Oswald was formally charged with the murders, the case was Wade's. Because it didn't go to TRIAL is irrelevant.
Those defendants were framed BEFORE they went to trial, not while they were in court.
You argument is therefore moot.

This is the approach you are forced to take when you have a guilty client with a truckload of evidence against him, you are forced to put the system on trial. Worked for OJ. But the fact remains that OJ killed his ex-wife, and Oswald killed Kennedy,
despite the desperate misdirection to the authorities.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:52:58 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are basically several reasons why I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent. I believe that these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence because not only were many of the steps

taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.

Not the least of these reasons was that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt.

Reason # 1: The prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt

In a criminal case, the credibility of the case is directly connected to the credibility of the people making the case. Justice cannot be served if the justice system is geared to anything other than bringing the REAL perpetrators to justice.

During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests.

For example, if you had nine convictions out of ten arrests, you'd have a 90% conviction rate. Wade compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.

The problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED.

And if you arrested the wrong person, it would require you to manufacture evidence against that suspect in such a way to convince a judge or jury of his guilt. This is exactly what they did in Dallas County under Henry Wade's tenure.

Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

District Attorney Craig Watkins became the first black elected chief prosecutor in any Texas county back in 2006.
The new DA and other Wade detractors said the cases won under Wade were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark.

They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates.

In the case of James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's

car.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blamed a culture of "win at all costs."

"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys."

In this case, there is evidence that there was an assumption of guilt at the time of arrest as well. Johnny Calvin Brewer testified that during the struggle with Oswald in the Texas Theater, "I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, '

Kill the President, will you ?' " ( 7 H 6 )

By 1953, Henry Wade already had the city wired. Reporters treated his word as gospel, sometimes even buttressing Wade’s efforts in court with their own testimony. The Dallas Police Department and County Sheriff’s Office eagerly did his bidding.

Henry Wade's word was gold.

Wade was so highly regarded by the people of Dallas that he was able to convince a jury in 1954 to send an innocent man to the electric chair.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury.

And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries.

With such a skill for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit, the credibility of the Dallas DA's case against Lee Harvey Oswald deserves a second look. As does the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

But corruption didn't just exist in the Dallas DA's office, it was rampant in the police department as well.

Corruption of police

Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department.

In 1966, Mark Lane interviewed Nancy Hamilton, formerly known as Nancy Perrin Rich, a bartender at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Hamilton told him that Dallas Police officers and DA Henry Wade drank for free at Ruby's club and looked the other way when

Ruby violated the local liquor laws.

https://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k

In her testimony for the Warren Commission, Rich claimed that Jack Ruby once assaulted her and when she went to police to report a complaint, they refused to take a report on the incident and file charges against him.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/WC_Vol14_343-hamilton.gif

It was Rich's intent to sue Ruby for the assault, but in order to sue Ruby in civil court, it was imperative for there to be a public record of the assault. With police refusing to take her report, there was no way she could prove the assault ever took

place.

Rich testified that when she threatened police that she would file her complaint with the District Attorney's Office, she "wasn't advised. I was flatly told not to."

But the corruption of the police and in the DA's office weren't the only things IMO that call into question the credibility of the case against Oswald.

There was the way the authorities handled Oswald after his arrest, using tactics that were illegal and unethical from a legal standpoint. Tactics one would not use in a normal criminal investigation where the suspect was guilty, but tactics one would

use certainly in a case where they were framing an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

Fringe reset.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:52:58 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are basically several reasons why I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent. I believe that these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence because not only were many of the steps

taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.

Not the least of these reasons was that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt.

Reason # 1: The prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt

In a criminal case, the credibility of the case is directly connected to the credibility of the people making the case. Justice cannot be served if the justice system is geared to anything other than bringing the REAL perpetrators to justice.

During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests.

For example, if you had nine convictions out of ten arrests, you'd have a 90% conviction rate. Wade compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.

The problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED.

And if you arrested the wrong person, it would require you to manufacture evidence against that suspect in such a way to convince a judge or jury of his guilt. This is exactly what they did in Dallas County under Henry Wade's tenure.

Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

District Attorney Craig Watkins became the first black elected chief prosecutor in any Texas county back in 2006.
The new DA and other Wade detractors said the cases won under Wade were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark.

They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates.

In the case of James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's

car.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blamed a culture of "win at all costs."

"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys."

In this case, there is evidence that there was an assumption of guilt at the time of arrest as well. Johnny Calvin Brewer testified that during the struggle with Oswald in the Texas Theater, "I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, '

Kill the President, will you ?' " ( 7 H 6 )

By 1953, Henry Wade already had the city wired. Reporters treated his word as gospel, sometimes even buttressing Wade’s efforts in court with their own testimony. The Dallas Police Department and County Sheriff’s Office eagerly did his bidding.

Henry Wade's word was gold.

Wade was so highly regarded by the people of Dallas that he was able to convince a jury in 1954 to send an innocent man to the electric chair.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury.

And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries.

With such a skill for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit, the credibility of the Dallas DA's case against Lee Harvey Oswald deserves a second look. As does the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

But corruption didn't just exist in the Dallas DA's office, it was rampant in the police department as well.

Corruption of police

Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department.

In 1966, Mark Lane interviewed Nancy Hamilton, formerly known as Nancy Perrin Rich, a bartender at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Hamilton told him that Dallas Police officers and DA Henry Wade drank for free at Ruby's club and looked the other way when

Ruby violated the local liquor laws.

https://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k

In her testimony for the Warren Commission, Rich claimed that Jack Ruby once assaulted her and when she went to police to report a complaint, they refused to take a report on the incident and file charges against him.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/WC_Vol14_343-hamilton.gif

It was Rich's intent to sue Ruby for the assault, but in order to sue Ruby in civil court, it was imperative for there to be a public record of the assault. With police refusing to take her report, there was no way she could prove the assault ever took

place.

Rich testified that when she threatened police that she would file her complaint with the District Attorney's Office, she "wasn't advised. I was flatly told not to."

But the corruption of the police and in the DA's office weren't the only things IMO that call into question the credibility of the case against Oswald.

There was the way the authorities handled Oswald after his arrest, using tactics that were illegal and unethical from a legal standpoint. Tactics one would not use in a normal criminal investigation where the suspect was guilty, but tactics one would

use certainly in a case where they were framing an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

Gil: "During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests."

1.) The conviction rate is the number of convictions divided by the number of cases brought to trial, not convictions per arrest. You can be charged without being arrested. You can also be arrested more than once before being charged.
2.) Where is the conviction rate not an important statistic determining the performance of the DAs office? Who wants a DA that can't get convictions?


Gil "the problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED."

The reason they're arrested is because the authorities think they have a case against the accused. Probable cause and all that.


Gil: "Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants."

Henry Wade's tenure lasted 36 years. Wade, Vance, and Hill collectively occupied the Dallas DA's office for 55 years. Over that span, how many murder, rape, and burglary convictions were obtained in Dallas County? That is, nineteen overturned
convictions represent what percentage of the total number? And how does that compare to the percentage of similar overturned convictions in other jurisdictions of the same size? Without that context, Gil has no point.

Gil: "They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates. "

This is true everywhere. No one wants to promote a serial loser.


Gil "Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury."

Did Wade know he was charging an innocent for a crime they did not commit? In one case you cite, the accused actually signed a confession. More to the point, no other prosecutor in the country would have pursued that case with a confession in hand?

Gil: "And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries."

This is called "preemptory challenge," and it's been used by prosecution, plaintiff, and defense attorneys all over over, and since, well, forever. Every DA's office had a set of rules like Wade's, written or unwritten. The prosecutors who left for
private practice as defense counsel took these rules with them and applied them on behalf of the accused, albeit with a different thrust and purpose. Nowadays, it's much more nuanced and sophisticated, with the trial lawyers hiding behind a new breed of "
jury consultants" who do the same thing as Wade.


Gil: "Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department."

Again, this is nothing new, nor is it particularly applicable to Dallas. Cops get free stuff and discounts all the time from business owners all the time. Free food, free drinks, free rent, etc. Sometimes, the businessmen seek to curry favor with the
police force. Other times, they simply want cops visible on premises as a deter undesirable actors from acting undesirably.

Gil complains that Wade and the DPD behaves like everyone else, but doesn't tell you that everyone else does the same thing. He's doing the same thing that he excoriates Wade and the Dallas DA's office for as "corrupt." If it makes Wade corrupt, doesn't
also mark Gil as corrupt? And if we should ignore Wade for his corruption, should we not also ignore Gil for his?

BTW, the D Magazine article Gil links to was written by one Mary Mapes, who would gain momentary fame (and a pink slip) for.....oh, yeah. That 60 Minutes kerfluffle in 2004. Oops.

Finally, we come to Nancy Perrin Rich. The FBI checked her back-story, from which the following gems emerge in CE3058, 3059, 3060, 3061 and 3062:

"Following the above incident, PERRIN appeared on frequent occasions at the Oakland Police Department, according to Sergeant DAHL . She volunteered her services to this department . She also volunteered "fanciful" information regarding organized criminal
activity in Oakland, California. Sergeant Dahl stated that this information had no substance and was apparently a product of PERRIN's imagination, He recalled that PERRIN made statements to the effect that she was personally acquainted with various
individuals prominent in the entertainment field and
prominently mentioned in connection with national criminal activity . He advised that he would place little credence in anything furnished by PERRIN . This opinion was based upon
his conversations with her subsequent to the investigation involving EDWARD 0. DRUVIMOND . He advised that in retrospect, he must consider PERRIN to be emotionally unstable"

"Lieutenant PARKER stated chat there is no so-called 'false police record' for Perrin in the Oakland, California Police Department . He stated that during the period he had dealings with PERRIN, he came to the conclusion that she is emotionally
unreliable . He specifically described PERRIN as a 'screwball' and 'nutty as a fruitcake' ".

"VICTORSON is an Attorney at Law and represented NANCY ELAINE PERRIN when she wav arrested for vagrancy in August, 1961 . VICTOR'SON did not know PERRIN on a social basis, but de-scribed her as being an habitual liar, who found it very difficult to tell
the truth . PERRIN was continually telling wild tales concerning her exploits or concerning the exploits of ethers, These stories were so ridiculous that ns one could possibly believe them"

"RAYBURN is a detective on the Dallas Police Department presently assigned to the Juvenile Division. Sometime during the Summer of 1961, he became acquainted with NANCY ELAINE PERRIN who, at that time, was employed as a waitress at the Carousel Club in
Dallas, Texas. RAYBURN became well acquainted with PERRIN and knew, her on a close personal basis . RAYBURN described PERRIN as being a "psychopathic liar," who got great delight out of telling wild tales . RAYBURN believed that PERRIN actually believed
these stories herself after she had told them several times ."

"CHERRY stated that he believed NANCY PERRIN to be mentally deranged and was incoherent in her speech. PERRIN is described as a white female, 25, 5 feet 5 inches, slender build, brown hair, wild eyed, partly crossed, and talked with a lisp."

"Miss Jan Ross, receptionist for this concern, 22 years of age, single, stated that she knew Mrs. Rich when she was employed with this concern that she considered Mrs . Rich to be one of the most immoral women that she had ever met [...] Miss Ness also
stated that hare . Rich um a highly nervous individual, self-centered, end had told her that she had had St . Vitus Dance
during her childhood) that Mr . . Rich was anything but ladylike and had a very foul tongue) that while employed with this concern. Rich was having an affair with an individual from Texas whose name she did not know but whom she believed to be the father
of Mrs. Rich's unborn child; that Mrs. Rich lied consistently about many things and caused the other employees a good
deal of concern."

"Mrs. Mary Kennett, secretary for this concern and wife of Rodney 0. Kennett, stated that she disliked Mrs. Rich personally and morally and that she was not a nice person to be with ; that she did not believe Mrs. Rich's stories and would not believe her
"on a stack of bibles ." Mrs. Kennett also said that she believed the subject would tell a story that came into her mind and immediately bell we it to be true even though it was ficticious .

"On December 5, 1963, Perrin was afforded a polygraph examination at Oakland, California, with a Special Agent of the FBI as examiner and a second Special Agent of the FBI present during this examination. In appraising the polygraph examination, the
examiner observed that Perrin is a Caucasian female, 35 years of age . She stated that she attempted suicide in 1956
following which she was voluntarily committed to the psychiatric ward, Northampton State Hospital, Massachusetts. She advised that she was arrested in Denver, Colorado, in 1960 charted with carrying a concealed weapon and was fined $525 .00 as a result
of this charge . She stated she was arrested in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1960 or 1961 charged with prostitution and paid a $200 .00 fine . She advised she was arrested at Dallas, Texas, on two occasions during the summer of 1961 charged with
prostitution . These charges later wore reduced to vagrancy . She advised that she has Suffered from chorea (St . Vitus's dance) since she was eight years of age . She was observer to be extremely nervous . She stated she was then currently under the
care of a physician for low blood pressure. She stated she used the drug methedrine and had consumed ten milligrams of this drug on the date of the polygraph examination. Following the polygraph examination, the examiner observed that the results were
inconclusive, based on Perrin's past medical history and use of drugs. The examiner observed however that significant emotional responses recorded by the Polygraph led the examiner to believe Perrin's story regarding Cuban aids meetings is untrue . The
examiner is
of the opinion she has a tendency to delusions of grandeur."

Upon rocks like Perrin, Gil wishes to build his church.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 2:46:20 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

Gil: "Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants."

Henry Wade's tenure lasted 36 years. Wade, Vance, and Hill collectively occupied the Dallas DA's office for 55 years. Over that span, how many murder, rape, and burglary convictions were obtained in Dallas County? That is, nineteen overturned

convictions represent what percentage of the total number? And how does that compare to the percentage of similar overturned convictions in other jurisdictions of the same size? Without that context, Gil has no point.

When has Giltardo ever had a point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 2:46:20 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

This is called "preemptory challenge," and it's been used by prosecution, plaintiff, and defense attorneys all over over, and since, well, forever. Every DA's office had a set of rules like Wade's, written or unwritten. The prosecutors who left for

private practice as defense counsel took these rules with them and applied them on behalf of the accused, albeit with a different thrust and purpose. Nowadays, it's much more nuanced and sophisticated, with the trial lawyers hiding behind a new breed of "
jury consultants" who do the same thing as Wade.

One of the biggest mistakes made by the prosecution in the O.J. Simpson case was allowing the case to be moved to Los
Angeles rather than in Santa Monica district where the crime occurred. This pretty much guaranteed O.J. would get a
sympathetic jury, one that was more than willing to buy into "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.".

I've sat on four juries, in my life, two civil and two criminal. In every case, both sides used preemptory challenges. The
attorneys would tell the prospective jurors that sometimes, it was just a hunch. Other times a juror would give an answer
that wasn't enough to disqualify him/her but made the attorney uncomfortable. Prosecutors take people to court because
they believe the person they have charged is guilty of the crime for which they are accused. Naturally they want to win and are
going to try to seat a jury they believe gives them the best chance to obtain a conviction. There's absolutely nothing wrong
with that. The system isn't perfect and sometimes innocent people do get convicted. It's a far more common occurrence
that guilty people get acquitted because the system stacks the deck against the state. That's how it should be in a criminal
case. It should be difficult to convict someone because the state is trying to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property.
That doesn't ensure that innocent people won't on rare occasions get convicted, but it does lessen the chances.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 2:46:20 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:52:58 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are basically several reasons why I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent. I believe that these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence because not only were many of the steps

taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.

Not the least of these reasons was that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt.

Reason # 1: The prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt

In a criminal case, the credibility of the case is directly connected to the credibility of the people making the case. Justice cannot be served if the justice system is geared to anything other than bringing the REAL perpetrators to justice.

During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests.

For example, if you had nine convictions out of ten arrests, you'd have a 90% conviction rate. Wade compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.

The problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED.

And if you arrested the wrong person, it would require you to manufacture evidence against that suspect in such a way to convince a judge or jury of his guilt. This is exactly what they did in Dallas County under Henry Wade's tenure.

Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

District Attorney Craig Watkins became the first black elected chief prosecutor in any Texas county back in 2006.
The new DA and other Wade detractors said the cases won under Wade were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark.

They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates.

In the case of James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's

car.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blamed a culture of "win at all costs."

"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys."

In this case, there is evidence that there was an assumption of guilt at the time of arrest as well. Johnny Calvin Brewer testified that during the struggle with Oswald in the Texas Theater, "I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was,

'Kill the President, will you ?' " ( 7 H 6 )

By 1953, Henry Wade already had the city wired. Reporters treated his word as gospel, sometimes even buttressing Wade’s efforts in court with their own testimony. The Dallas Police Department and County Sheriff’s Office eagerly did his bidding.

Henry Wade's word was gold.

Wade was so highly regarded by the people of Dallas that he was able to convince a jury in 1954 to send an innocent man to the electric chair.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury.

And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries.

With such a skill for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit, the credibility of the Dallas DA's case against Lee Harvey Oswald deserves a second look. As does the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

But corruption didn't just exist in the Dallas DA's office, it was rampant in the police department as well.

Corruption of police

Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department.

In 1966, Mark Lane interviewed Nancy Hamilton, formerly known as Nancy Perrin Rich, a bartender at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Hamilton told him that Dallas Police officers and DA Henry Wade drank for free at Ruby's club and looked the other way when

Ruby violated the local liquor laws.

https://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k

In her testimony for the Warren Commission, Rich claimed that Jack Ruby once assaulted her and when she went to police to report a complaint, they refused to take a report on the incident and file charges against him.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/WC_Vol14_343-hamilton.gif

It was Rich's intent to sue Ruby for the assault, but in order to sue Ruby in civil court, it was imperative for there to be a public record of the assault. With police refusing to take her report, there was no way she could prove the assault ever

took place.

Rich testified that when she threatened police that she would file her complaint with the District Attorney's Office, she "wasn't advised. I was flatly told not to."

But the corruption of the police and in the DA's office weren't the only things IMO that call into question the credibility of the case against Oswald.

There was the way the authorities handled Oswald after his arrest, using tactics that were illegal and unethical from a legal standpoint. Tactics one would not use in a normal criminal investigation where the suspect was guilty, but tactics one would

use certainly in a case where they were framing an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

Gil: "During the tenure of Henry Wade as District Attorney of Dallas County, the DA's office was interested in only one thing: conviction rates. Conviction rates are determined by dividing the number of convictions by the number of arrests."

1.) The conviction rate is the number of convictions divided by the number of cases brought to trial, not convictions per arrest. You can be charged without being arrested. You can also be arrested more than once before being charged.
2.) Where is the conviction rate not an important statistic determining the performance of the DAs office? Who wants a DA that can't get convictions?

Gil "the problem with this system is that your interest is not necessarily in convicting the guilty party, but instead convicting the person you ARRESTED."

The reason they're arrested is because the authorities think they have a case against the accused. Probable cause and all that.

The real underlying problem with Gil`s idea is that he isn`t showing anything even remotely similar to what the conspiracy folk suggest (but never spell out) happened in the JFK and Tippit murders.

He isn`t showing that the authorities *immediately*, without even the dust settling tampering with evidence, suppressing evidence, tampering with witnesses, manufacturing evidence, ect.

Gil: "Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants."

Henry Wade's tenure lasted 36 years. Wade, Vance, and Hill collectively occupied the Dallas DA's office for 55 years. Over that span, how many murder, rape, and burglary convictions were obtained in Dallas County? That is, nineteen overturned

convictions represent what percentage of the total number? And how does that compare to the percentage of similar overturned convictions in other jurisdictions of the same size? Without that context, Gil has no point.

Another problem is Gil`s assumption that if a person is that in all the cases he brings up, the person was innocent of the crime they were charged with. He can`t show that that is true.

Gil: "They note that the promotion system under Wade rewarded prosecutors for high conviction rates. "

This is true everywhere. No one wants to promote a serial loser.

<snicker> Gil is suspicious of the merit system.

Gil "Wade's office had no problem charging innocent people for crimes they did not commit and presenting evidence in such a way as to obtain a conviction by a judge or jury."

Did Wade know he was charging an innocent for a crime they did not commit? In one case you cite, the accused actually signed a confession. More to the point, no other prosecutor in the country would have pursued that case with a confession in hand?

The one guy confessed twice, once to Fritz and again to Wade.

Gil: "And Wade was not above tampering with jury selections. Wade wrote a manual for prosecutors in 1969 that was used for more than a decade. It gave instructions on how to keep minorities off juries."

This is called "preemptory challenge," and it's been used by prosecution, plaintiff, and defense attorneys all over over, and since, well, forever. Every DA's office had a set of rules like Wade's, written or unwritten. The prosecutors who left for

private practice as defense counsel took these rules with them and applied them on behalf of the accused, albeit with a different thrust and purpose. Nowadays, it's much more nuanced and sophisticated, with the trial lawyers hiding behind a new breed of "
jury consultants" who do the same thing as Wade.

People are so biased these days that cases are won or lost during the jury selection process. I remember reading Robert Kardashian`s book on the OJ trial (he was a lawyer for the defense) and in it he said they did research to find the best jurors.
They found the best for them were black women, because they tested to *hate* Nicole Simpson Brown. The prosecution though that women would be sympathetic to the domestic abuse aspect, so they didn`t contest them, but they were wrong.

Gil: "Officers accepted gratuities from businessmen, like Jack Ruby, a strip club operator who supplied free booze and women to members of the police department."

Again, this is nothing new, nor is it particularly applicable to Dallas. Cops get free stuff and discounts all the time from business owners all the time. Free food, free drinks, free rent, etc. Sometimes, the businessmen seek to curry favor with the

police force. Other times, they simply want cops visible on premises as a deter undesirable actors from acting undesirably.

I knew/know several cops, and that is true here in Philly. One cop I knew had a deal at a video store in his district that they would give him videos before they were even allowed to be rented to the public, in return he would run there whenever there
was a call over police radio with a problem there.

There is also apparently a system in place where cops can only go to one place to eat free food, and no other cops can go there. This is by seniority, and they have to wait for a cop to retire so they can move into a place that has better food. This "
one cop per place" system prevents putting too much burden on one establishment. I don`t think the food places begrudge the cops, they like them in the place.

These sort of arrangements don`t lend themselves to cops committing crimes on behalf of the people providing the gratuities, only a little more vigorous response when they have problems.

Gil complains that Wade and the DPD behaves like everyone else, but doesn't tell you that everyone else does the same thing. He's doing the same thing that he excoriates Wade and the Dallas DA's office for as "corrupt." If it makes Wade corrupt, doesn'

t also mark Gil as corrupt? And if we should ignore Wade for his corruption, should we not also ignore Gil for his?

BTW, the D Magazine article Gil links to was written by one Mary Mapes, who would gain momentary fame (and a pink slip) for.....oh, yeah. That 60 Minutes kerfluffle in 2004. Oops.

Finally, we come to Nancy Perrin Rich. The FBI checked her back-story, from which the following gems emerge in CE3058, 3059, 3060, 3061 and 3062:

"Following the above incident, PERRIN appeared on frequent occasions at the Oakland Police Department, according to Sergeant DAHL . She volunteered her services to this department . She also volunteered "fanciful" information regarding organized

criminal activity in Oakland, California. Sergeant Dahl stated that this information had no substance and was apparently a product of PERRIN's imagination, He recalled that PERRIN made statements to the effect that she was personally acquainted with
various individuals prominent in the entertainment field and

prominently mentioned in connection with national criminal activity . He advised that he would place little credence in anything furnished by PERRIN . This opinion was based upon
his conversations with her subsequent to the investigation involving EDWARD 0. DRUVIMOND . He advised that in retrospect, he must consider PERRIN to be emotionally unstable"

"Lieutenant PARKER stated chat there is no so-called 'false police record' for Perrin in the Oakland, California Police Department . He stated that during the period he had dealings with PERRIN, he came to the conclusion that she is emotionally

unreliable . He specifically described PERRIN as a 'screwball' and 'nutty as a fruitcake' ".

"VICTORSON is an Attorney at Law and represented NANCY ELAINE PERRIN when she wav arrested for vagrancy in August, 1961 . VICTOR'SON did not know PERRIN on a social basis, but de-scribed her as being an habitual liar, who found it very difficult to

tell the truth . PERRIN was continually telling wild tales concerning her exploits or concerning the exploits of ethers, These stories were so ridiculous that ns one could possibly believe them"

"RAYBURN is a detective on the Dallas Police Department presently assigned to the Juvenile Division. Sometime during the Summer of 1961, he became acquainted with NANCY ELAINE PERRIN who, at that time, was employed as a waitress at the Carousel Club in

Dallas, Texas. RAYBURN became well acquainted with PERRIN and knew, her on a close personal basis . RAYBURN described PERRIN as being a "psychopathic liar," who got great delight out of telling wild tales . RAYBURN believed that PERRIN actually believed
these stories herself after she had told them several times ."

"CHERRY stated that he believed NANCY PERRIN to be mentally deranged and was incoherent in her speech. PERRIN is described as a white female, 25, 5 feet 5 inches, slender build, brown hair, wild eyed, partly crossed, and talked with a lisp."

"Miss Jan Ross, receptionist for this concern, 22 years of age, single, stated that she knew Mrs. Rich when she was employed with this concern that she considered Mrs . Rich to be one of the most immoral women that she had ever met [...] Miss Ness also

stated that hare . Rich um a highly nervous individual, self-centered, end had told her that she had had St . Vitus Dance

during her childhood) that Mr . . Rich was anything but ladylike and had a very foul tongue) that while employed with this concern. Rich was having an affair with an individual from Texas whose name she did not know but whom she believed to be the

father of Mrs. Rich's unborn child; that Mrs. Rich lied consistently about many things and caused the other employees a good

deal of concern."

"Mrs. Mary Kennett, secretary for this concern and wife of Rodney 0. Kennett, stated that she disliked Mrs. Rich personally and morally and that she was not a nice person to be with ; that she did not believe Mrs. Rich's stories and would not believe

her "on a stack of bibles ." Mrs. Kennett also said that she believed the subject would tell a story that came into her mind and immediately bell we it to be true even though it was ficticious .

"On December 5, 1963, Perrin was afforded a polygraph examination at Oakland, California, with a Special Agent of the FBI as examiner and a second Special Agent of the FBI present during this examination. In appraising the polygraph examination, the

examiner observed that Perrin is a Caucasian female, 35 years of age . She stated that she attempted suicide in 1956

following which she was voluntarily committed to the psychiatric ward, Northampton State Hospital, Massachusetts. She advised that she was arrested in Denver, Colorado, in 1960 charted with carrying a concealed weapon and was fined $525 .00 as a result

of this charge . She stated she was arrested in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1960 or 1961 charged with prostitution and paid a $200 .00 fine . She advised she was arrested at Dallas, Texas, on two occasions during the summer of 1961 charged with
prostitution . These charges later wore reduced to vagrancy . She advised that she has Suffered from chorea (St . Vitus's dance) since she was eight years of age . She was observer to be extremely nervous . She stated she was then currently under the
care of a physician for low blood pressure. She stated she used the drug methedrine and had consumed ten milligrams of this drug on the date of the polygraph examination. Following the polygraph examination, the examiner observed that the results were
inconclusive, based on Perrin's past medical history and use of drugs. The examiner observed however that significant emotional responses recorded by the Polygraph led the examiner to believe Perrin's story regarding Cuban aids meetings is untrue . The
examiner is

of the opinion she has a tendency to delusions of grandeur."

Upon rocks like Perrin, Gil wishes to build his church.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:28:52 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:58?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are basically several reasons why I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent. I believe that these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence because not only were many of the steps

taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.

Not the least of these reasons was that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt.

Reason # 1: The prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt

Why does that matter given Oswald was never prosecuted?

It truly takes a moron to try to make this point.

What's even funnier, is that Corbutt goes *ON* responding to this
post. Clearly, Corbutt *DOES* think it matters...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 04:41:27 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:38:00?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

Wade's record as a prosecutor is completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination since his office never prosecuted that case.

Au contraire. The credibility of a criminal case is based on the credibility of the police who put it together and the DA who decided to prosecute it.
Once Oswald was formally charged with the murders, the case was Wade's. Because it didn't go to TRIAL is irrelevant.
Those defendants were framed BEFORE they went to trial, not while they were in court.
You argument is therefore moot.

More than merely moot - it takes a moron to *make* that argument.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:03:16 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:41:29?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:38:00?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

Wade's record as a prosecutor is completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination since his office never prosecuted that case.

Au contraire. The credibility of a criminal case is based on the credibility of the police who put it together and the DA who decided to prosecute it.

Wade's only involvement ...

Ah! So you admit he was involved....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:51:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

Fringe reset.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 11:53:44 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 2:46:20?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

Gil: "Nineteen convictions — three for murder and the rest involving rape or burglary — won by Wade and two successors who trained under him were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants."

Henry Wade's tenure lasted 36 years. Wade, Vance, and Hill collectively occupied the Dallas DA's office for 55 years. Over that span, how many murder, rape, and burglary convictions were obtained in Dallas County? That is, nineteen overturned

convictions represent what percentage of the total number? And how does that compare to the percentage of similar overturned convictions in other jurisdictions of the same size? Without that context, Gil has no point.

Logical fallacy deleted.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:59:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:02:13 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:12:43 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 2:46:20?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote: >>

This is called "preemptory challenge," and it's been used by prosecution, plaintiff, and defense attorneys all over over, and since, well, forever. Every DA's office had a set of rules like Wade's, written or unwritten. The prosecutors who left for

private practice as defense counsel took these rules with them and applied them on behalf of the accused, albeit with a different thrust and purpose. Nowadays, it's much more nuanced and sophisticated, with the trial lawyers hiding behind a new breed of "
jury consultants" who do the same thing as Wade.

One of the biggest mistakes...

You have to understand the truth before you can pinpoint mistakes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:32:40 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)