https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1719/why-governments-case-oswald-bs
Since the case against Oswald isn't based on anything Oswald said in the short time he was in custody, your argument is
moot.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:52:33 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Since the case against Oswald isn't based on anything Oswald said in the short time he was in custody, your argument isI'm nor arguing you fucking idiot. I'm posting the REASONS WHY I BELIEVE the government's case is bullshit.
moot.
It's an opinion.
It's not for debate and it's not for your approval.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:05:21?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:52:33?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Since the case against Oswald isn't based on anything Oswald said in the short time he was in custody, your argument isI'm nor arguing you fucking idiot. I'm posting the REASONS WHY I BELIEVE the government's case is bullshit.
moot.
It's an opinion.
It's not for debate and it's not for your approval.
So you admit ...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.
My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
PERIOD.
Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. Thepublic was not allowed to attend the hearings.
Everything was done in secret.
I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
MORE TO COME
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE CorbettAs I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.
is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
Your opinion...
The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
Even if true...
This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't know why ...
From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
Why ...
It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
A charge with no evidence.
Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
Cite?
Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
That's how a fact finding process works...
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
public was not allowed to attend the hearings.The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
PERIOD.
Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The
Everything was done in secret.
A record was kept...
I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
MORE TO COME
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE CorbettAs I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.
is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
I never said anything about a conspiracy ?
The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.
This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.
From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI >https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.A charge with no evidence.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4
Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.
Good God, that's common knowledge. >https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=
Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA
Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.Cite?
Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?
Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ? >Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
I call it corroboration.
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.
The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.
And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
Oswald's guilt.
POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.
No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
This case never would have seen the light of day.
As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
And that's why they let Ruby into the building.
None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.
The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
PERIOD.
?????????????????
public was not allowed to attend the hearings.Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The
Everything was done in secret.
A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.
After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.
I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.Your reasons are FUBAR.
And your comments, like you, are worthless.
And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:…
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
PERIOD is a punctuation mark.?????????????????The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
PERIOD.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.
The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
I never said anything about a conspiracy ?
WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minuteWade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.
Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it wasMore products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.A charge with no evidence.
Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.Good God, that's common knowledge. https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=
Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA
Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.Cite?
Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
I call it corroboration.
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.
And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did makePOLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.
some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
Oswald's guilt.
No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
This case never would have seen the light of day.
As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
And that's why they let Ruby into the building.
No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
?????????????????The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
PERIOD.
The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony.
Everything was done in secret.
A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.
And your comments, like you, are worthless.I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.Your reasons are FUBAR.
And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.
The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
I never said anything about a conspiracy ?
WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minuteWade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police.
Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.
Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it wasMore products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.A charge with no evidence.
Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-Good God, that's common knowledge. https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.
Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA
Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.Cite?
Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
I call it corroboration.
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.
And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did makePOLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.
some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
Oswald's guilt.
No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
This case never would have seen the light of day.
As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
And that's why they let Ruby into the building.
No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.?????????????????The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
PERIOD.
Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony.
Everything was done in secret.
A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.
And your comments, like you, are worthless.I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.Your reasons are FUBAR.
And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE CorbettThe LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.
is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder. >>>> My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
I never said anything about a conspiracy ?
Ok...
WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
This is another example of your piss poor reasoning.
You also ignore...
Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. >>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
Why would you think ...
More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
Who were they?
Your claim wasn't that the FBI took over the investigation. That is not in dispute. Your claim was that Hoover covered up thehttps://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.A charge with no evidence.
false arrest (presumably of Oswald). Do you have any evidence Hoover engaged in such a coverup? Why would you claim
the arrest of Oswald was a false arrest? Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.
Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
I though you were well informed about the facts of the case. My mistake. The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt.
Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.
Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.Good God, that's common knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=
It's common knowledge Hoover disliked the Kennedys...
Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA
So. I'll bet Hoover called Bobby a few names too. That still is no evidence Hoover directed a coverup. You just made that up.
Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.Cite?
That's what the staff laywers did. They looked at the statements the DPD.
The called people who had done analysis on the
evidence, some of which was done by crime labs other than the FBI's.
Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
I would agree with that assessment. Neither is reliable.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
Who were they testifying to when they made these allegations?
Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
Which of the people in these videos testified to the WC? Lane even stated in your videos that these witnesses were NOT
called to testify to the WC. Are you calling Lane a liar?
Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
I call it corroboration.
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
Consiilience refers to evidence.
Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.
That's not what I said. I said there resources were not unlimited...
POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct. >>>>
And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
Oswald's guilt.
You're an idiot...
No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
For months, years, you have been accusing the DPD and Wade of doing just that.
This case never would have seen the light of day.
Not if you were the judge.
As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
A judge would not have taken Oswald's word ...
And that's why they let Ruby into the building.
No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
?????????????????The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
PERIOD.
PERIOD is a punctuation mark.
The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony.
After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.Everything was done in secret.
A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.
So?
And your comments, like you, are worthless.I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.Your reasons are FUBAR.
And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.
You haven't posted any evidence.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:17:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because thereAs I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.So you admit ...
That you're an idiot, yes...
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.
is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder. >>>> My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
I never said anything about a conspiracy ?
Ok...
Got caught lying, and can't retract the lie...
WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
This is another example of your piss poor reasoning.When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.
You also ignore...
Nothing has been "ignored" - this is simply another unsupportable lie
on your part.
Logical fallacy deleted.Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. >>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
Why would you think ...
That you could support yoiur lie.Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-
No, we *never* thought that.
More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
Who were they?They were photographed. Are you blind?
Answering a question you can't answer with another question? Quite
the coward, aren't you?
Gil has ALREADY cited for this.Your claim wasn't that the FBI took over the investigation. That is not in dispute. Your claim was that Hoover covered up thehttps://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.A charge with no evidence.
false arrest (presumably of Oswald). Do you have any evidence Hoover engaged in such a coverup? Why would you claim
the arrest of Oswald was a false arrest? Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.
You lose!
Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
I though you were well informed about the facts of the case. My mistake. The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt.I predicted you wouldn't answer this question. Answering it with a
Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.
lie is the same as not answering it.
You lose.
Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.Good God, that's common knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=
E >CGLEDGMcBGNEDwgINEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQYCsICDRAuGIAEGMcBGK8BGArCAgcQABiABBgKwgIjEC4YgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYxwEY0QMYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIcEC4YgAQYxwEYrwEYChiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAeIDBBgAIEGIBgG6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
It's common knowledge Hoover disliked the Kennedys...
Gil just said that.
Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA
So. I'll bet Hoover called Bobby a few names too. That still is no evidence Hoover directed a coverup. You just made that up.Gil cited for it.
What more would an honest person need?
Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.Cite?
That's what the staff laywers did. They looked at the statements the DPD. You're a DAMNED liar! Name every witness the DPD interviewed, andlet's compare it to the list of witnesses the WCR listed.
The called people who had done analysis on theagain...
evidence, some of which was done by crime labs other than the FBI's. ROTFLMAO!!! You just RAN from the fact that Gil got it right - yet
Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
I would agree with that assessment. Neither is reliable.Gil cited for his assertion - your "bullshit detector" is acting like
a mirror. **YOU** were the one lying.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.The WC.
Who were they testifying to when they made these allegations?
Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
Which of the people in these videos testified to the WC? Lane even stated in your videos that these witnesses were NOTNah, clearly, *YOU* are the liar. You can't quote Gil, then quote
called to testify to the WC. Are you calling Lane a liar?
Mark Lane contradicting him.
Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
I call it corroboration.
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
Consiilience refers to evidence.Testimony is evidence.
You lose!
Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.
That's not what I said. I said there resources were not unlimited...
Yep... they aren't shorthanded.
POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct. >>>>
And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
Oswald's guilt.
You're an idiot...
When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.
No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
For months, years, you have been accusing the DPD and Wade of doing just that.He provably did. There's a difference between a professional, who is
honest, and Wade, who was not.
This case never would have seen the light of day.
Not if you were the judge.Nor if you were honest.
As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
A judge would not have taken Oswald's word ...
Then he could take the word of police officers who knew...The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
And that's why they let Ruby into the building.
No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
?????????????????The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
PERIOD.
PERIOD is a punctuation mark."Period" is also an exclamation.
Are you too stupid to understand that?
Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony.
After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.Everything was done in secret.
A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.
So?Good of you to admit the truth...
And your comments, like you, are worthless.I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.Your reasons are FUBAR.
And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.
You haven't posted any evidence.You're lying again...
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:43:58?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
You haven't posted any evidence.I think you've got that backwards. My posts are the only ones citing sources.
Citing unsworn statements made to Mark Lane is not evidence.
In those rare instances where you do cite actual evidence, you draw illogical conclusions from it.
On the other hand, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've said.
Giltardo continues to lie.
YOU'VE posted No citations
YOU'VE posted No documents
YOU'VE posted No testimony
YOU'VE posted No exhibits
YOU'VE posted No witness videos
YOU'VE posted No photographs
Giltardo continues to lie. Often it is not necessary to post any of the above to refute your silly conclusions. When necessary
I have posted all of the above. For example, just a few days ago, I posted the autopsy photo which refuted the statement by
Chaney..
All you post is silly comments, lies and insults.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
I post critical questions which you usually avoid. For example in the same thread that the above passage came from, I asked
you if you believe the throat wound was an entrance,
does that mean you believe the back wound was an exit
or did you believe they were both entrances.
why are there no exit wounds
and no bullets found in the
body.
Would you like to take that one on or are you going to chicken out again.
I also asked you how Chaney's statement that JFK was shot in the face corroborates the witnesses who said the throat
wound was an entrance.
The above questions are an example of how I am able to refute your silly conclusions without having to post any evidence of
my own. All I have to do is point out how illogical your arguments were.
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:25:49?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>> Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
Ok, so these are just your FUBAR opinions and not evidence of anything. That makes them easy to dismiss.it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
I never said anything about a conspiracy.
WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
This is another example of your piss poor reasoning. Even if it were true that the DPD framed some people is not evidence
all or even most of the people prosecuted were framed. What you need is evidence they framed Oswald and since you have
admitted to having no evidence that was done, we can once again easily dismiss your arguments.
When Giltardo can't answer a question...
You also ignore the fact the DPD only were involved in the initial evidence gathering. The FBI soon took over the collectionhttps://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
and analysis of the evidence. Since the DPD's involvement was limited to the first few days. Did the DPD manage to frame
Oswald in the first 36 hours? What evidence did they fabricate against Oswald? What is your evidence that they did? Did
they know ahead of time they had to start framing Oswald immediately? You've never answered these questions. Being an
incurable optimist, I'm giving you another chance.
The coward's crutch. Your webpages aren't evidence...
https://gil-jesus.com/jfk-assassination/Another opportunity for you to provide evidence that the DPD fabricated evidence against Oswald. Are you up to it?Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. >>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/
https://gil-jesus.com/the-walker-shooting/
Coward's crutch.
Who said it was videotaped ?Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
Why would you think a conversation between Oswald and the president of the Dallas Bar Association would be videotaped?
You asked if it was. It was a stupid question.
I asked for ANY video or audio of Oswald saying he didn't want a lawyer. I never said anything about the meeting with Nichols.
It is silly to ask for any such video...
The meeting between Louis Nichols and Oswald has been documented by the ABA Journal:Who said it never occurred ? I acknowledge it occurred and go into it in depth on my webpage.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94
https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
WHY DO YOU KEEP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ? IT SEEMS YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH READING COMPREHENSION.
It shows...
Of course you'll dismiss this out of hand but you'll accept at face value Oswald's claim he was being denied legal representationNichols testified that Oswald told him he was being held incommunicado. ( 7 H 328 )
without any corroborating ebvidence.
Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
He testified that Oswald told him he wanted John Abt or someone from the ACLU. ( 7 H 329 )
Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
No, he just told the press that Oswald refused his help. ( 7 H 330 )
What more did he need to say?
Nichols, who was reluctant to get involved, among whose clients was the city of Dallas, and who had a brother on the police force, was obviously biased in favor of the police department.
He never wanted to get involved and never told the press the whole story.
Do you realize what bias does to a witness' credibility ?
The bias is imaginary. You have provided no evidence of bias. Only your silly insinuations.
Are you suggesting the basement was empty during the transfer ?Who were they?Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it wasMore products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
I'm suggesting people's attention would have been focused on the door Oswald was going to be led out of. Why would anyone
notice Ruby coming down the ramp behind them? Why would you assume anyone would have seen Ruby?
Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
Ruby said he came down the ramp. How else do you think he could have gotten into the garage.
Who else needed to see it to justify the arrest?Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?Besides the police, who among the witnesses in the theater saw Oswald pull a gun ?
That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.
Oswald should have been charged with assault and battery on a police officer. That charge alone would have been enough to hold him until arraignment Monday morning.
He was charged with murder later that evening because they had probable cause to charge him with the Tippit murder. Later
that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.
Was he ever charged with assault and battery on Off. Nick MacDonald ? Yes or no ?
I don't know.
the other evidence, Day told the Commission that, "I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, that IT STILL REMAINED ON THERE....." ( 4 H 261 )That's not what Lt. Day testified to. He testified that after he lifted the print, there was enough there for the FBI to do a comparison. When asked why he didn't send the lifted palm print ( CE 637 ) to the FBI on the night of the assassination withReally, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt. Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.
The "complete lifting leaving no trace" was the FBI's excuse for why there was no palm print on the rifle when they received it.
It was their speculation, nothing more.
But you accept it as fact.
Fingerprints do not remain on an object indefinitely.
I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
Among those witnesses were :
Robert Edwards
Buell Frazier
Michael Paine
B.M. Patterson
James Worrell
Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.
That's in ADDITION to the witnesses Mark Lane interviewed.Your wild accusations are no evidence.
Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
Is that enough corroborating evidence for you ?
Probably not.
These are NOT the types of things that go on in a normal homicide investigation.
And the fact that you think they do only proves one thing :
You're an idiot.
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 11:40:55?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 8:20:53?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Later that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.List that evidence.
I just did. Can't you read ?No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.
Among those witnesses were :
Robert Edwards ( 6 H 205 )
Buell Frazier ( 2 H 240 )
Michael Paine ( 9 H 444 )
B.M. Patterson ( 15 H 745 )
James Worrell( 2 H 201 )
So you expect me to hunt down what they said in order to support your claim. Typical burden shifting.
You're the one not posting citations.That's in ADDITION to the witnesses Mark Lane interviewed.Your wild accusations are no evidence.
Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
Is that enough corroborating evidence for you ?
Probably not.
The class dunce just called me an idiot. That's going to ruin my day. <chuckle>ROFLMAO. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:19:01?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
So you expect me to hunt down what they said in order to support your claim. Typical burden shifting.
I expect you to look it up to prove me wrong.
Don't blame me because you're too lazy to look it up.
But since you wanna be an asshole, here's the statements they made and their denials under oath side-by-side.
Robert Edwards >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/affidavit-lies-edwards.gif >Buell Frazier >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-frazier.jpg
Michael Paine >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-m-paine.png
B.T. Patterson >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-patterson.jpg
James Worrell >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-worrell.png
Now everybody will know who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
Have a nice rest of your day, idiot.
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:16:56?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:have a lawyer, regardless of what the legal obligation was to appoint him a lawyer, we, the bar association, ought to look into the matter.
Was he biased? He was concerned enough about Oswalds rights that he made a trip to the jail to visit Oswald and talk to him:
By that time I had time to think about what I thought my obligation should be, and realizing that under the circumstances maybe some people might overlook the fact that Oswald had rights that needed to be protected at the same time, and if he didn't
city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon.He said he went to the jail and visited with Oswald of his own volition.
It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the
Hank, you are the biggest bullshit artist here.it but had been denied of it.
District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers regarding the treatment of Oswald.
One of the issues was Oswalds repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal representation.
In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.
On Saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal representation, wanted legal representation or wanted
Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an inquiry. ( 7 H 327 )According to Nichols, Wade said hed pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him. ( ibid. )
Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer so Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one.
Of course, the reason why Wades response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the evening before during the Midnight Press Conference.Whaley, who testified:
After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald. But according to Nichols, he couldnt get a member of the criminal bar to go with him.
To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.
A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions: Was he being
beaten?
starved?
deprived of sleep?
isolated from his friends and family?
denied counsel?
In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was connected to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.
Nichols used to work for the city attorneys office, and at the time of Oswalds incarceration, still represented the city credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 )
Nichols calls the police station
Still trying to avoid personally talking to Oswald in person, Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer:
Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him ( ibid. )
Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday, the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for someone to come forward to give me legal assistance and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William
He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer. ( 2 H 261 )( 7 H 327 )
Nichols attempted to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to deliver a message to Oswald:
I said, Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one.
Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols didnt know whether I wanted to or not at this point.decided what should be done at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association.
I didnt know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer, and I didnt anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I dont practice criminal law. ( ibid. pg. 331 )
However, Nichols WAS PRESSURED INTO GOING BY A LAW PROFESSOR FROM SMU.
I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had transpired, what I had done, and I hadnt
He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadnt been able to get one, and I told him thatI had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done.
It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the cityhall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon. ( ibid. pgs. 327-328 )
Nichols reluctance to become involved in the issue caused the SMU professor to light a fire under his butt as if to say, Its been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasnt asked for an attorney yet ?as I understand I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I DON'T REMEMBER
Something doesnt sound right.
Forced to go
When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chiefs office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to Oswalds cell himself. ( ibid., pg 328 )
When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment:
Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, Well, he really didnt know what it was all about, that he washad been incarcerated, and kept INCOMMUNICADO, and I said, Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because
Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of President Kennedy, and he cant remember what was said in the exchange ?had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man had never asked for a lawyer.
Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word incommunicado to describe-
Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.
Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or anyor indicate to you that he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of his choice?
Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything. Just didnt elaborate, and I REALLY DIDNT ASK HIM at that point. MY INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I
In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, Nichols told him that he didnt know Abt and he didnt know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but admitted under oath that as it turned out later, anumber of lawyers I know ARE members. ( ibid. pg. 329 )
What a surprise.door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We dont want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer. As far as I know, he has never asked for
According to Nichols testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald:
NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?
OSWALD. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I dont get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me.
NICHOLS. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now.
OSWALD. No. ( ibid. )
As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the press:
.As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a statement to the press, and I said, Well, I dont know whether I do or not. I dont know whether it is the thing to do or not. And he said, Well, they are going to be right outside the
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in this video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day, Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didnt say who he wanted and police were not going to call all overtown to find him one and obtaining counsel was Oswalds responsibility, not the departments.
Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his offer for help:fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not appear to be irrational." He
He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparentlyat least the conversation was that if he didnt get somebody to represent him that he wanted that he could always
Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswalds request for John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union.
He never mentioned to the press Oswalds complaint of being held incommunicado.
Nichols didn't go there on his own volition.
He didn't want any part of it.
Your claim, your burden of proof. You've made @ claim. When do you intend to prove it?
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:43:43?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
No, you didn't. You cited Edwards correcting a Sheriffs Dept. affidavit from 11/22/63, not an FBI statement.
Mr. BELIN - In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - No; I didn't say that.
== unquote ==
Scratch Edwards off the list. He didn't do what Gil claimed: When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said He corrected a Sheriffs Dept affidavit.
OH MY GOD, WHAT A TERRIBLE MISTAKE I MADE. IT WASN'T THE FBI, IT WAS THE SHERIFF'S DEPT.
What about the other four ? FBI ?
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 2:00:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
All you need do to prove believers to be liars & cowards is to keep
wacking them over the head with the facts.
They run away...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Hanky was beside himself with joy because one the five I mentioned wasn't the FBI.
I still got 4 out of 5 for 80 % correct.
You won't hear a peep from Hank about any of those.
That 80 % is 75 % more than "the more knowledgeable" one scored on my questions.
Go figure.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 104:51:03 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,309 |
