Dartmouth Professor finds that iconic Oswald photo was not faked
Alexander Foyle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gw_3nA5G4
"Dartmouth College Office of Public Affairs • Press Release
Posted 11/05/09 • Media Contact: Susan Knapp (603) 646-3661
Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a
photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed
an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a
rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and
others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the
seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo
with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly
was not altered.
“If we had found evidence of photo tampering, then it would have
suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,” said Farid, who is also the
director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at
Dartmouth. “Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can
no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.” Farid added that
federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered
with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was
a conspiracy.
The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal
Perception.
Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools
used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and
his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal
proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the
underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically
impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by
photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in
the Oswald photo analysis.
“The human brain, while remarkable in many aspects, also has its
weaknesses,” says Farid. “The visual system can be quite inept at
making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.”
At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo
appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To
determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of
Oswald’s head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was
able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain
all of the shadows in the photo.
“It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect
forgery with the technology available in 1963,” said Farid. With no
evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was
authentic.
”As our digital forensic tools become more sophisticated, we
increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an
attempt to resolve some long-standing mysteries,” said Farid."
jas
wrote:
Let's see how long it takes for conspiracists to jump all over this.
It will be interesting to see what they have to say...
bigdog
wrote:
Prediction: The CTs will accuse Hany Farid of being a government
disinformation agent.
davidemerling
wrote:
Those who have common sense and are not distrustful of EVERY professional
in the photographic field (and every other field, for that matter) - are
probably not surprised by this finding. It simply repeats what most of us
have known to be true for a very long time.
The article doesn't say if he was working with the originals, however.
If Mr. Farid were only interested in publicity and fame - he would have
received more mileage by claiming that the photos were altered. Instead,
he chose to reiterate and confirm a long held belief within the
responsible research community.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Peter Fokes
<alexand...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html
Thanks for posting this article. Very interesting.
By the way, did Oswald ever say there was something fishy about the
shadows?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
> On 5 Nov 2009 14:56:19 -0500, Alexander Foyle
> <alexand...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html
>
> Thanks for posting this article. Very interesting.
>
> By the way, did Oswald ever say there was something fishy about the
> shadows?
>
I don't think so. I think his only comment was that they put his head on
someone else's body.
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
>
>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gw_3nA5G4
>>
>> "Dartmouth College Office of Public Affairs � Press Release
>> Posted 11/05/09 � Media Contact: Susan Knapp (603) 646-3661
>>
>> Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a
>> photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
>> Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed
>> an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a
>> rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and
>> others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the
>> seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo
>> with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly
>> was not altered.
>>
>> �If we had found evidence of photo tampering, then it would have
>> suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,� said Farid, who is also the
>> director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at
>> Dartmouth. �Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can
>> no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.� Farid added that
>> federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered
>> with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was
>> a conspiracy.
>>
>> The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal
>> Perception.
>>
>> Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools
>> used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and
>> his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal
>> proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the
>> underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically
>> impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by
>> photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in
>> the Oswald photo analysis.
>>
>> �The human brain, while remarkable in many aspects, also has its
>> weaknesses,� says Farid. �The visual system can be quite inept at
>> making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.�
>>
>> At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo
>> appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To
>> determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of
>> Oswald�s head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was
>> able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain
>> all of the shadows in the photo.
>>
>> �It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect
>> forgery with the technology available in 1963,� said Farid. With no
>> evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was
>> authentic.
>>
>> �As our digital forensic tools become more sophisticated, we
>> increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an
>> attempt to resolve some long-standing mysteries,� said Farid."
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 5, 1:56 pm, Alexander Foyle<alexanderfo...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gw_3nA5G4
>>
>>
>> Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a
>> photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
>> Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed
>> an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a
>> rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and
>> others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the
>> seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo
>> with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly
>> was not altered.
>>
>> suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,� said Farid, who is also the
>> director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at
>> no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.� Farid added that
>> federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered
>> with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was
>> a conspiracy.
>>
>> The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal
>> Perception.
>>
>> Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools
>> used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and
>> his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal
>> proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the
>> underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically
>> impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by
>> photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in
>> the Oswald photo analysis.
>>
>> weaknesses,� says Farid. �The visual system can be quite inept at
>> making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.�
>>
>> At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo
>> appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To
>> determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of
>> able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain
>> all of the shadows in the photo.
>>
>> forgery with the technology available in 1963,� said Farid. With no
>> evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was
>> authentic.
>>
>> increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an
>
> Those who have common sense and are not distrustful of EVERY professional
> in the photographic field (and every other field, for that matter) - are
> probably not surprised by this finding. It simply repeats what most of us
> have known to be true for a very long time.
>
> The article doesn't say if he was working with the originals, however.
>
> If Mr. Farid were only interested in publicity and fame - he would have
> received more mileage by claiming that the photos were altered. Instead,
> he chose to reiterate and confirm a long held belief within the
> responsible research community.
>
It's not publicity and fame they seek. It is responsibility and notice
by the powers that be who will reward them for supporting the cover-up.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
Thalia
wrote:
It depends on whether he had access to the originals, and if he was
looking at more than just the inconsistant shadows, ie shape of
Oswalds chin etc.
He would be an extremely brave man to say they were fakes!! He would
probably shelve his study if that were his findings because of the
ridicule he would receive.
What I want to see is a photographic expert look at Jack White's items
and argue/dicuss each point in a scentific manner. Still waiting for
that.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 5, 12:56 pm, Alexander Foyle<alexanderfo...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gw_3nA5G4
>>
>>
>> Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a
>> photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
>> Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed
>> an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a
>> rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and
>> others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the
>> seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo
>> with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly
>> was not altered.
>>
>> suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,� said Farid, who is also the
>> director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at
>> no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.� Farid added that
>> federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered
>> with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was
>> a conspiracy.
>>
>> The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal
>> Perception.
>>
>> Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools
>> used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and
>> his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal
>> proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the
>> underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically
>> impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by
>> photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in
>> the Oswald photo analysis.
>>
>> weaknesses,� says Farid. �The visual system can be quite inept at
>> making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.�
>>
>> At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo
>> appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To
>> determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of
>> able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain
>> all of the shadows in the photo.
>>
>> forgery with the technology available in 1963,� said Farid. With no
>> evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was
>> authentic.
>>
>> increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an
>
> Let's see how long it takes for conspiracists to jump all over this.
> It will be interesting to see what they have to say...
>
Jump all over? I remember that I wrote a post about this topic where an
epert was talking about how to tell fake photos by noticing inconsistent
shadows.
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
In 1964, the WC showed that CE 133-B was a true photograph of its
negative, CE 749. However, analysts were unable to establish the
truthfulness of CE 133-A since its negative was unavailable.
During the late seventies, the Photographic Panel of the HSCA elevated
the debate surrounding the earlier backyard photographs, CE 133-A and
CE 133-B, and the newly uncovered photographs postfixed with 133-C.
The panel showed that the signature of the Imperial Reflex camera had
distinctive characteristics with minor variations. Yet examinations of
all the available backyard photographic materials revealed negative
scratch marks in precisely the same locations. Although these
materials had the distinctive marks of the Imperial Reflex camera,
they lacked the minor variations of the signature, which were present
on test negatives exposed in the same camera. These findings raise the
possibility that forgers impressed a common signature of the Imperial
Reflex camera upon negatives exposed in high-quality equipment. For
details see the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/scratch.htm
The Photographic Panel made another contribution toward our
understanding of the backyard materials. They labeled CE 134, the 8 X
10 enlargement of CE 133-A, as first generation material. This
description means that the DPD made this enlargement from an original
and not an intermediate negative as the WC claimed.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/missing.htm
This missing negative effectively prevented the panel from determining
whether the camera signatures on the backyard photographic materials
had minor variations or were photographically identical.
Although the panel complained that the negative vanished without
explanation they did not attempt to petition the courts to order the
release of the missing evidence. These developments show that the
authorities lawfully withheld the negative from WC and the HSCA and
strongly suggest that National Security, as in concealment covert
activities, was the basis for withholding the negative.
Herbert
Alex Foyle
> On 11/5/2009 10:36 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
> > By the way, did Oswald ever say there was something fishy about the
> > shadows?
>
> I don't think so. (...)
I don't think so either and it appears as though Professor Hany Farid (or
the person who wrote this press release) got confused with the syntax
here.
Maybe they wanted to say that Oswald thought the photo was a fake and that
others thought that the shadows were inconsistent with the lighting.
Oswald most likely never said anything about the shadows in the photo. Mae
Brussell made a useful summary of what he allegedly said here:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Last%20Words%20of%20Lee%20Oswald.html
"In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I
don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this
photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine]
without advice of an attorney (...) That picture is not mine, but the face
is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other
part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture
before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be
able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by
someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has
superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. .
. . The Dallas Police were the culprits. . . . The small picture was
reduced from the larger one, made by some persons unknown to me. . . .
Since I have been photographed at City Hall, with people taking my picture
while being transferred from the office to the jail door, someone has been
able to get a picture of my face, and with that, they have made this
picture."
In a narration for the HSCA Robert Blakey wrote about the backyard photo:
"According to officers present, Oswald denied repeatedly that he had ever
seen the photograph and claimed that someone had superimposed his head on
another's body" (p.320)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/pdf/HSCA_Vol2_0914_2_Narration.pdf
If we believe the notes of Captain Will Fritz Oswald told him that his
head was superimposed on the photo:
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz5-5.jpg
The other people present during this round of interrogation were
postal inspector Harry Holmes, SS agent Sorrels, SS inspector Kelley
“et al”.
In his first WC testimony Holmes said that in addition to the people
mentioned above three detectives (i.e. the “et al”) were in the room
guarding Oswald:
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page297.php
On page 299 of Holmes’ WC testimony he said that Oswald, when asked
about a picture showing him with a rifle, replied: "Well, I don't know
what you are talking about." Holmes said that at that point no photo
was shown by Fritz:
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page299.php
Sorrels didn’t mention any specifics about Oswald’s denials re. the
photo:
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page357.php
Alex Foyle
> It depends on whether he had access to the originals, and if he was
> looking at more than just the inconsistant shadows, ie shape of
> Oswalds chin etc.
"The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Perception"
and I assume that Professor Farid will specify which copies or originals
he analyzed and what features he looked at closely.
Regardless of this study and moreover, as we all know, Marina has
maintained to this day that she took the photos.
Thalia
>
> Regardless of this study and moreover, as we all know, Marina has
> maintained to this day that she took the photos.
Yes but she said she only took one, and then later she said two, and that
she took the photos with a hand held camera, and yet the photos appear to
have been taken with a tripod camera (we can tell by the consistant
backgrounds) Later, more photos have appeared, one in the belongings of
Roscoe White, a deceased Dallas policeman, and one in the belongings of
George DeM.
Also, regarding the "shadows" - the shadows underneath Oswald's nose do
not change in the different photos despite his face changing angles - this
is impossible unless the one head photo had been pasted onto someone's
elses body.
And, Life magazine photoshopped the images for its magazine article, so I
believe that the technology would have existed to complete forgeries circa
1963.
John McAdams
>
>>
>> Regardless of this study and moreover, as we all know, Marina has
>> maintained to this day that she took the photos.
>
>Yes but she said she only took one, and then later she said two,
It doesn't matter what she said, three poses exist, and they were all
shot with Oswald's Imperial Reflex Camera.
>and that
>she took the photos with a hand held camera, and yet the photos appear to
>have been taken with a tripod camera (we can tell by the consistant
>backgrounds)
That's flatly untrue. 133-A and 133-B constitute a "stereo pair"
because the camera was held in a slightly different location.
>Later, more photos have appeared, one in the belongings of
>Roscoe White, a deceased Dallas policeman, and one in the belongings of
>George DeM.
>
Yep, and Oswald wrote on the back of the deM photos.
And all come from Oswald's camera.
>Also, regarding the "shadows" - the shadows underneath Oswald's nose do
>not change in the different photos despite his face changing angles - this
>is impossible unless the one head photo had been pasted onto someone's
>elses body.
>
Look . . . you are *always* going to be ignorant if all you read is
conspiracy books.
Read this:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.htm
It's real science.
Do you really want to know the truth, or is this just a game for you?
>And, Life magazine photoshopped the images for its magazine article, so I
>believe that the technology would have existed to complete forgeries circa
>1963.
>
I hate to break this to you, but Photoshop did not exist in 1963.
LIFE retouched the photo to make it reproduce better. They did not
alter it in any substantive way.
And even if they had, that would be irrelevant. The originals are in
the National Archives.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Alex Foyle
> > Regardless of this study and moreover, as we all know, Marina has
> > maintained to this day that she took the photos.
>
> Yes but she said she only took one, and then later she said two ...
She took all the existing photos! Why would anybody even try to create
additional fake ones? Please.
Anthony Marsh
She took at least 4. She only destroyed the one she could get her hands on
quickly.
What do they call that in the law when a wife destroys evidence of her
husband's guilt? Burning his bloodstained clothes for example.
Alex Foyle
> What do they call that in the law when a wife destroys evidence of her
> husband's guilt? Burning his bloodstained clothes for example.
Destruction of evidence? Maybe yeuhd can offer his legal expertise on
this question.
Ray
Mae Brussell made a useful summary of what he allegedly said here:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Last%20Words%20o...
I WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY.
Can anyone please provide the actual source for this statement?
Ray
I WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY.
Thanks to anyone who replied. I just found this in Bookhout's
testimony:
Mr. STERN - Did he have any comment at this interview about counsel?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - None other than at the outset of being first asked if
that was his photograph, he first made the statement that he wouldn't
make any comment about it without the advice of counsel....
Of course there are reasons to believe that steps were already in
motion to make certain that, if he ever did receive the advice of
counsel, it would not be in his lifetime.
yeuhd
> Of course there are reasons to believe that steps were already in
> motion to make certain that, if he ever did receive the advice of
> counsel, it would not be in his lifetime.
Oswald asked for legal representation several times during his
interrogations and when passing by reporters. But when representatives of
the Dallas Bar Association met with Oswald in his cell on Saturday
afternoon, he declined their services and said he wanted to be represented
by John Abt, who was chief counsel to the Communist Party USA, or by
lawyers who were members of the American Civil Liberties Union:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0168b.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0154a.htm
Oswald and Ruth Paine tried to reach Abt by telephone several times on
Saturday and Sunday:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0048b.htm
But Abt had gone away for the weekend and did not return the calls:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh10/html/WC_Vol10_0062b.htm
Oswald also declined his brother Robert's offer on Saturday afternoon to
get him a local attorney, per Robert's memoir.
Ray
Oswald asked for legal representation several times during his
interrogations and when passing by reporters. But when representatives
of
the Dallas Bar Association met with Oswald in his cell on Saturday
afternoon, he declined their services and said he wanted to be
represented
by John Abt, who was chief counsel to the Communist Party USA, or by
lawyers who were members of the American Civil Liberties Union:
One of the clients of the The Dallas Bar Association guy was the city
of Dallas, which made him an adversary of Lee Oswald. When Oz told him
he wanted an ACLU lawyer, this guy DID NOT contact the ACLU and did
NOTHING to help him with his request. Raises doubts about this guys
good faith.
Oswald also declined his brother Robert's offer on Saturday afternoon
to
get him a local attorney, per Robert's memoir.
I have not read Robert's memoir, but as I recall he and Lee had spoken
for only a very short while when an SS man broke up the meeting and
dragged Robert away on some "urgent" pretext.
Also, police lied to to the Dallas ACLU guy, and claimed that OZ did
not want a lawyer. The ACLU guy was so dumb that he believed it and
did nothing.
Are you also suggesting, like the DPD, that Oz was lying when he told
reporters that he wanted an attorney?
yeuhd
> One of the clients of the The Dallas Bar Association guy was the city
> of Dallas, which made him an adversary of Lee Oswald.
H. Louis Nichols did not offer is own services, he asked Oswald if he
had a lawyer and if he would like the Bar association to find him a
lawyer.
Mr. NICHOLS. I said, "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?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of
these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to
represent me."
I said, "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."
And he said, "No."
> I have not read Robert's memoir, but as I recall he and Lee had spoken
> for only a very short while when an SS man broke up the meeting and
> dragged Robert away on some "urgent" pretext.
Assuming this is true (it's not, read Robert Oswald's memoir), what
would that have to do with the fact that Robert asked Lee if he wanted
him to find a local attorney, and Lee said no and to "stay out of it"?
"I'm not going to have anyone from down here" is what Lee told him.
bigdog
H. Louis Nichols was the president of the Dallas Bar Association and
when he met with Oswald, he had no intention of offering to represent
him because he was not a criminal lawyer. He offered to refer Oswald
to criminal lawyers who could represent him. He therefore had no
conflict of interest. His sole concern was to see to it that Oswald's
rights were being respected and after meeting with Oswald, he was
assured that they were. Oswald told him that at he did not want
Nichols to get him a lawyer at that time. The meeting assured Nichols
that Oswald was in control of his faculties and that he was not being
denied legal representation. He was simply refusing it at the time.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 11, 8:11 am, Ray<j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One of the clients of the The Dallas Bar Association guy was the city
>> of Dallas, which made him an adversary of Lee Oswald.
>
> H. Louis Nichols did not offer is own services, he asked Oswald if he
> had a lawyer and if he would like the Bar association to find him a
> lawyer.
>
> Mr. NICHOLS. I said, "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?"
> He said, "No, not now."
> He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of
> these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to
> represent me."
> I said, "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."
> And he said, "No."
That's not quite the whole story. He told a reporter that Oswald asked
for help in getting an attorney, but did not want anyone local.
yeuhd
> of Dallas, which made him an adversary of Lee Oswald.
False.
H. Louis Nichols represented the City of Dallas Credit Union, not the
City of Dallas.
Ray
Nichols Claimed to be offering his help, yet he did NOTHING about
contacting the ACLU on Lee's behalf.
No wonder lawyers have a bad name.
Meanwhile Lee is locked up and the police confiscated all his money.
"I'm not going to have anyone from down here" is what Lee told him
(Robert).
Yeah well before they got to discuss how Robert might contact the ACLU
on his behalf, the SS stepped in and dragged Robert away.
Repeat: Are you suggesting that he was lying when he said he wanted an
attorney?
Thats what the DPD (Capt. King, I think) told Greg Olds of the Dallas
ACLU.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 10, 9:48 am, Ray<j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course there are reasons to believe that steps were already in
>> motion to make certain that, if he ever did receive the advice of
>> counsel, it would not be in his lifetime.
>
> Oswald asked for legal representation several times during his
> interrogations and when passing by reporters. But when representatives of
> the Dallas Bar Association met with Oswald in his cell on Saturday
> afternoon, he declined their services and said he wanted to be represented
> by John Abt, who was chief counsel to the Communist Party USA, or by
> lawyers who were members of the American Civil Liberties Union:
>
Oswald said he would accept any lawyer who was not local.
yeuhd
> Nichols Claimed to be offering his help, yet he did NOTHING about
> contacting the ACLU on Lee's behalf.
Oswald was allowed to use a jailhouse telephone. He called directory
assistance and got the number for New York attorney John Abt. Then he
called John Abt — no answer. Then he called Ruth Paine, twice, asking
if she would call John Abt for him.
At no time did Oswald call either the local office of the ACLU or the
national office of the ACLU. Nor did he ask Ruth Paine to call the
ACLU on his behalf. Nor did he ask his brother Robert to get an ACLU
lawyer on his behalf.
Ray
H. Louis Nichols represented the City of Dallas Credit Union, not the
City of Dallas.
Great point Yehud. And would it surprise you if a good percentage of
depositors in said Credit Union were members of the Dallas Police Dept
and the now world-renowned office of DA Henry Wade?
(World-renowned for accusing innocent people)
Mr. Nichols claimed that he came to help Lee Oswald find legal
representation. By Nichols's own admission Lee Oswald told him he
wanted a lawyer from the ACLU.
Mr. Nichols did NOTHING about contacting the ACLU on Lee's behalf, did
he?
As JFK famously said, SINCERITY IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO PROOF, and the
words and deeds of Mr. Nichols speak volumes about his "sincerity".
This thread relates to the backyard photos, and there is undisputed
evidence (Bookhout, Fritz's notes) that when asked about these photos
Lee Oswald said
I WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS PHOTO WITHOUT ADVICE OF COUNSEL
Yet his interrogators continued to harass him.
He had already been charged with two murders on the previous day and
told reporters
THESE PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN ME A HEARING WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION OR
ANYTHING.
I gather you are the legal maven here Yehud, and perhaps you could
tell us under what law Lee Oswald's comments about the backyard photos
(AFTER he demanded to speak to counsel) might be considered admissable
evidence, and why this poor Dartmouth prof is not wasting his own and
everyone else's time?
yeuhd
> I gather you are the legal maven here Yehud, and perhaps you could
> tell us under what law Lee Oswald's comments about the backyard photos
> (AFTER he demanded to speak to counsel) might be considered admissable
> evidence,
You're assuming that the police were looking for statements by Oswald that
would be admissible in court. I disagree. The police knew from daily
experience what was admissible and what was not admissible. They were more
likely looking for two things:
(1) Clues from Oswald that would help them further investigate the crimes.
A pattern of lies and deception would indicate consciousness of guilt. By
the time the police showed the photos to Oswald on Saturday evening, they
knew (from Michael Paine, who had been there) that the photos were taken
at the Oswalds' Neeley St. residence in Dallas. Oswald denied both having
lived on Neeley St., and that he was in the photos. The first statement
was provably false, and strongly suggested the second denial was also
false. Likewise, Oswald's denial that he carried anything but a lunch bag
to work on Nov. 22 indicated a consciousness of guilt. The accretion of
lies indicates that the police have the right suspect, and that they are
following the right evidence.
(2) A possible formal confession in the face of the evidence against him.
The mechanics of a formal confession are another subject for another time.
But a formal confession was, and is, admissible in Texas, and does not
require legal counsel to be present. Although, of course the defendant's
legal counsel can later fight to prevent the confession from being
admitted in court.
Ray
Yehud says:
They (the police) were more likely looking for two things:
(1) Clues from Oswald that would help them further investigate the
crimes.
A pattern of lies and deception would indicate consciousness of
guilt.
(2) A possible formal confession in the face of the evidence
against him.
Well I would agree that a confession indicates a consciousness of
guilt, but now the police can claim
that a DENIAL also indicates a consciousness of guilt?
No wonder Dallas police convicted so many innocent people. If I admit
the crime
I'm guilty, and if I deny the crime I am also guilty. I can't win, can
I?
And if I ask to be advised by counsel before I answer any more
questions, that really clinches my guilt, doesn't it?
I submit that what happened here is this: THe police produced this
photo, Oz said I am not answering any more questions without my
attorney being present.
Until such time as my attorney advises me, I am NOT ADMITTING
ANYTHING. You people are going to have to prove these charges against
me, and you will get no help from me in doing so. I am not even going
to admit these photos are even genuine UNTIL SUCH TIME AS I HAVE
DISCUSSED THIS WITH MY ATTORNEY.
I agree that it is the duty of the police to investigate crimes, but
don't police also have a duty to uphold the law?
Doesn't the law say (then & now) that when a man is FORMALLY CHARGED
with a serious felony he is entitled to be represented by counsel?
I submit that all the further questions about the backyard photo
amounted to nothing more than harassment. Instead of holding him in a
tiny room and continuing to harass him, they should have given him
back his money and given him a MEANINGFUL opportunity to retain
counsel.
(I take it you are conceding that the entire incident with Mr. Nichols
was nothing more than a charade).
It must be a great comfort for the LN community that there are so many
nut-jobs on the CT side. Jack WHite still has followers, I am sad to
say, so there are still some people who claim the backyard photos are
fake, and this poor Dartmouth prof. thinks he is dealing with a live
issue.
Lee Oswald never did get the legal representation he kept asking for,
and it appears that plans were in the works to make certain that he
was never going to, in his own lifetime at least.
yeuhd
> On Nov 12, 10:22 pm, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yehud says:
>
> They (the police) were more likely looking for two things:
>
> (1) Clues from Oswald that would help them further investigate the
> crimes.
> A pattern of lies and deception would indicate consciousness of
> guilt.
>
> (2) A possible formal confession in the face of the evidence
> against him.
>
> Well I would agree that a confession indicates a consciousness of
> guilt, but now the police can claim
>
> that a DENIAL also indicates a consciousness of guilt?
No. Read what I wrote above. A pattern of lies and deception indicates
a consciousness of guilt.
> And if I ask to be advised by counsel before I answer any more
> questions, that really clinches my guilt, doesn't it?
Straw man argument. No one said that but you.
> I submit that what happened here is this: THe police produced this
> photo, Oz said I am not answering any more questions without my
> attorney being present.
> Until such time as my attorney advises me, I am NOT ADMITTING
> ANYTHING. You people are going to have to prove these charges against
> me, and you will get no help from me in doing so. I am not even going
> to admit these photos are even genuine UNTIL SUCH TIME AS I HAVE
> DISCUSSED THIS WITH MY ATTORNEY.
You're free to imagine that.
But after a suspect has been told of his right to remain silent, the
suspect waives his right to remain silent by speaking. It's that
simple.
> I agree that it is the duty of the police to investigate crimes, but
> don't police also have a duty to uphold the law?
Police are entirely within the law to interrogate a suspect without
counsel present. That's one of the reasons the hearsay rule exists.
Texas has a stronger than average hearsay rule.
> Doesn't the law say (then & now) that when a man is FORMALLY CHARGED
> with a serious felony he is entitled to be represented by counsel?
A suspect is entitled to be represented by counsel before he enters a
plea in court. If the suspect appears in court without counsel, a plea
of "not guilty" will be automatically be entered for him by the court,
unless the suspect explicitly waives the right to counsel.
But there was no requirement that a suspect be provided with counsel
during police interrogation. Oswald was allowed use of the jailhouse
telephone to obtain counsel, and to meet with his wife and brother.
> (I take it you are conceding that the entire incident with Mr. Nichols
> was nothing more than a charade).
False. Oswald told Nichols he wanted to be represented by New York
lawyer John Abt, or by an attorney who was a member of the ACLU.
Nichols said he did not know any attorneys who were members of the
ACLU. Did Oswald ask Nichols to contact Abt? No. Did Oswald asked
Nichols to contact the ACLU? No. Did Oswald refuse Robert's offer to
get him a local attorney? Yes. Did Oswald ask his brother Robert to
contact the ACLU? No. Did Oswald ask Ruth Paine to contact the ACLU?
No. Did Oswald ask her to contact John Abt? Yes. Did Oswald himself
use the jailhouse phone to call directory assistance to get John Abt's
telephone number? Yes. Did he call John Abt's office? Yes, without
answer. Did Oswald use the jailhouse phone to call the local ACLU? No.
Did he use it to call the national ACLU? No.
Mr. NICHOLS. I said, "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?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of
these other people [John Abt or an ACLU lawyer] to represent me, I
Anthony Marsh
>> with a serious felony he is entitled to be represented by counsel?
>
> A suspect is entitled to be represented by counsel before he enters a
> plea in court. If the suspect appears in court without counsel, a plea
You are talking about the state of the law today, not 1963. That's
called an anachronism.
> of "not guilty" will be automatically be entered for him by the court,
> unless the suspect explicitly waives the right to counsel.
>
> But there was no requirement that a suspect be provided with counsel
> during police interrogation. Oswald was allowed use of the jailhouse
> telephone to obtain counsel, and to meet with his wife and brother.
>
>> (I take it you are conceding that the entire incident with Mr. Nichols
>> was nothing more than a charade).
>
> False. Oswald told Nichols he wanted to be represented by New York
> lawyer John Abt, or by an attorney who was a member of the ACLU.
Nichols said that he wanted any lawyer who was not local.
> Nichols said he did not know any attorneys who were members of the
> ACLU. Did Oswald ask Nichols to contact Abt? No. Did Oswald asked
You really believe that? If Oswald had asked for a black attorney you
would believe Nichols if he said that he didn't know any black people?
> Nichols to contact the ACLU? No. Did Oswald refuse Robert's offer to
> get him a local attorney? Yes. Did Oswald ask his brother Robert to
> contact the ACLU? No. Did Oswald ask Ruth Paine to contact the ACLU?
> No. Did Oswald ask her to contact John Abt? Yes. Did Oswald himself
> use the jailhouse phone to call directory assistance to get John Abt's
> telephone number? Yes. Did he call John Abt's office? Yes, without
> answer. Did Oswald use the jailhouse phone to call the local ACLU? No.
> Did he use it to call the national ACLU? No.
>
Oswald did not want a local attorney.
> Mr. NICHOLS. I said, "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?"
> He said, "No, not now."
> He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of
> these other people [John Abt or an ACLU lawyer] to represent me, I
> might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
> I said, "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."
> And he said, "No."
>
Lie. Oswald made a public appeal for a lawyer to come forward and
represent him.
Ray
I said, "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."
> And he said, "No."
Keep on kidding yourself, sir. Nichols had no intention of lifting a
finger to help him. Nichols bread was buttered by the city of Dallas
and the police department.
He made sure he went ALONE to see Oz, so no one can contradict his
claims.
But the point, for purposes of this thread, is that Oz's denial that
the backyard photo was genuine was merely a "formal" denial, a refusal
to admit, PENDING THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.
So this poor Datmouth prof. is wasting his own and everybody else's
time if he thinks he is shedding any light on the unsolved murder of
JFK.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 12, 8:39 pm, Ray<j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I gather you are the legal maven here Yehud, and perhaps you could
>> tell us under what law Lee Oswald's comments about the backyard photos
>> (AFTER he demanded to speak to counsel) might be considered admissable
>> evidence,
>
> You're assuming that the police were looking for statements by Oswald that
> would be admissible in court. I disagree. The police knew from daily
> experience what was admissible and what was not admissible. They were more
> likely looking for two things:
>
> (1) Clues from Oswald that would help them further investigate the crimes.
> A pattern of lies and deception would indicate consciousness of guilt. By
> the time the police showed the photos to Oswald on Saturday evening, they
> knew (from Michael Paine, who had been there) that the photos were taken
> at the Oswalds' Neeley St. residence in Dallas. Oswald denied both having
> lived on Neeley St., and that he was in the photos. The first statement
> was provably false, and strongly suggested the second denial was also
> false. Likewise, Oswald's denial that he carried anything but a lunch bag
> to work on Nov. 22 indicated a consciousness of guilt. The accretion of
> lies indicates that the police have the right suspect, and that they are
> following the right evidence.
>
The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with being part
of an International Communist Conspiracy.
yeuhd
> On 11/13/2009 3:34 PM, yeuhd wrote:
> > A suspect is entitled to be represented by counsel before he enters a
> > plea in court. If the suspect appears in court without counsel, a plea
>
> You are talking about the state of the law today, not 1963. That's
> called an anachronism.
No, I am talking about the state of the law in Texas in 1963. See
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
> > of "not guilty" will be automatically be entered for him by the court,
> > unless the suspect explicitly waives the right to counsel.
> > Mr. NICHOLS. I said, "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?"
> > He said, "No, not now."
> > He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of
> > these other people [John Abt or an ACLU lawyer] to represent me, I
> > might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
> > I said, "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."
> > And he said, "No."
>
> Lie. Oswald made a public appeal for a lawyer to come forward and
> represent him.
The two facts are not incompatible. The reason Nichols went to see
Oswald was because he heard from others that Oswald *had* been making
that public appeal for a lawyer to come forward.
yeuhd
> On 11/12/2009 10:22 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 8:39 pm, Ray<j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I gather you are the legal maven here Yehud, and perhaps you could
> >> tell us under what law Lee Oswald's comments about the backyard photos
> >> (AFTER he demanded to speak to counsel) might be considered admissable
> >> evidence,
>
> > You're assuming that the police were looking for statements by Oswald that
> > would be admissible in court. I disagree. The police knew from daily
> > experience what was admissible and what was not admissible. They were more
> > likely looking for two things:
>
> > (1) Clues from Oswald that would help them further investigate the crimes.
> > A pattern of lies and deception would indicate consciousness of guilt. By
> > the time the police showed the photos to Oswald on Saturday evening, they
> > knew (from Michael Paine, who had been there) that the photos were taken
> > at the Oswalds' Neeley St. residence in Dallas. Oswald denied both having
> > lived on Neeley St., and that he was in the photos. The first statement
> > was provably false, and strongly suggested the second denial was also
> > false. Likewise, Oswald's denial that he carried anything but a lunch bag
> > to work on Nov. 22 indicated a consciousness of guilt. The accretion of
> > lies indicates that the police have the right suspect, and that they are
> > following the right evidence.
>
> The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with being part
> of an International Communist Conspiracy.
That rumor has been debunked long ago. There was never a serious
intention to do any such thing. The only person who could authorize
charges against Oswald was the district attorney, Henry Wade.
Vincent Bugliosi interviewed Bill Alexander for "Reclaiming History",
p. 169:
No sooner than [Dallas police Captain Will] Fritz and [Assistant
District Attorney Bill] Alexander get back to City Hall from dinner
than the telephone rings in the Homicide and Robbery office of Dallas
police headquarters and Alexander takes the call. It's Joe Goulden, a
former reporter for the Dallas Morning News who is now on the city
desk of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"What's going on down there? We're not getting anything straight. It's
all garbled. Is Oswald going to be charged with killing the
president?" the reporter asks.
"Yeah, we're getting ready to file on the Communist son of a bitch,"
Alexander tells him. When Goulden asks Alexander why he called Oswald
a Communist, Alexander tells him about all the Communist literature
and correspondence they found at Oswald's Beckley address. "We have
the killer," Alexander says, "but we're not sure what his connections
are."
Goulden wants to know exactly when the charges will be filed against
Oswald. "As soon as I can draw up the complaint," Alexander replies.
Goulden says his editor won't print the part about Oswald being a
Communist for fear of a libel suit. The only way he'd print that is if
he could say it was part of the formal charge.
Alexander, who would later allow that "I let my mouth overload my
ass," says sarcastically, "Well, how about if I charge him with being
part of an international Communist conspiracy? Could you run with
that?"
----------------------------
Alexander quickly realized he had stepped out of bounds, and when his
boss Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade asked him if he
started the rumor that Oswald was going to be charged with being part
of an international communist conspiracy, he lied and denied it.
From the Warren Commission testimony of Henry Wade:
Mr. WADE. I got home, say, 9:30 or 10, after eating dinner, and I
believe I talked to the U.S. attorney or at least I saw it come on the
radio that they are going to file on Oswald as part of an
international conspiracy in murdering the U.S. President, and I think
I talked to [Dallas-based United States Attorney] Barefoot Sanders. He
called me or I called him.
Mr. RANKIN. I wanted to get for the record, Mr. Wade, who would be
trying to file like that.
Mr. WADE. I don't know. All I know it wasn't me. It was told to me at
one time that the justice of the peace said something about it and
another one, one of my assistants, Alexander had said something about
it and I have talked to both of them since and both of them deny so I
don't know who suggested it or anything but it was on the radio and I
think on television.
I know I heard it and I am not sure where.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us whether it was from your office or from a
Federal office that such an idea was developing as far as you know?
Mr. WADE. Well, on that score it doesn't make any sense at all to me
because THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME IN TEXAS, being part of an
international conspiracy, it is just murder with malice in Texas…
. . . .
Senator COOPER. As I understand it then, one of the reasons that no
warrant of indictment was rendered upon, touching upon an
international conspiracy is that there is just no such crime in Texas
as an international conspiracy?
Mr. WADE. THERE WAS NO SUCH CRIME. If it was any such crime it would
be a Federal rather than a State offense. If there is such crime as
being a part of an international conspiracy it would deal with treason
rather than murder, I would think.
yeuhd
> But the point, for purposes of this thread, is that Oz's denial that
> the backyard photo was genuine was merely a "formal" denial, a refusal
> to admit, PENDING THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.
I don't believe it was any such provisional denial. When Oswald was
asked to list his addresses since he returned to the United States, he
omitted the Neeley St. address, where the photos were taken. Then when
asked later, specifically, about the Neeley St. address, he denied
having lived there. There is no innocuous explanation for why Oswald
lied about such an easily provable fact. It was not a crime to have
lived at an address on Neeley St. in Dallas.
tomnln
See Henry Wade Volume V page 218.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6087afc7-6efe-4aad...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------
international conspiracy, it is just murder with malice in Texas�
John McAdams
>Dallas WAS gonna file charges of International Conspiracy.
>
>See Henry Wade Volume V page 218.
>
>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
>
International Communist Conspiracy.
So you think an international Communist conspiracy killed JFK?
If not, this this only proves the irresponsibility of Bill Alexander,
and not anything about the assassination.
There is other silliness on that page.
Of course Wade was the "Wade" in Roe v. Wade.
So what? He lost that case because the U.S. Supreme Court decided to
legalize abortion. But his job was to prosecute abortionists under
Texas law.
As for the "recording room:" that has nothing to do with *tape*
recording.
>international conspiracy, it is just murder with malice in Texas�
>. . . .
>Senator COOPER. As I understand it then, one of the reasons that no
>warrant of indictment was rendered upon, touching upon an
>international conspiracy is that there is just no such crime in Texas
>as an international conspiracy?
>Mr. WADE. THERE WAS NO SUCH CRIME. If it was any such crime it would
>be a Federal rather than a State offense. If there is such crime as
>being a part of an international conspiracy it would deal with treason
>rather than murder, I would think.
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
John thinks "Recording Room" translates into the room in which they make
"Ham and Eggs".
"Dallas authorities" WAS gonna file charges of International Conspiracy.
John's "Questionable" thinking>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:pmrtf5hv2j8qp66e3...@4ax.com...
>>international conspiracy, it is just murder with malice in Texas.
tomnln
Didn't my quote state that>>> "Dallas WAS gonna file charges of
International Conspiracy."
You know darn well that that was NEVER "My Claim".
As for the DPD "Recording Room".
John apparently thinks "Recording Room" is where the DPD makes "Tapioca"
Right across the hall from Captain Fritz's office on the third floor of
the DPD ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:pmrtf5hv2j8qp66e3...@4ax.com...
>>international conspiracy, it is just murder with malice in Texas.
yeuhd
> Dallas WAS gonna file charges of International Conspiracy.
>
> See Henry Wade Volume V page 218.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
Once again, the testimony you link to does not agree with what you claim.
I quoted the same testimony by Henry Wade, above, where he says the
*opposite* of what you claim. I also quoted Assistant D.A. Bill Alexnader,
who started the rumor, and who never had any intention to file such a
charge (and he couldn't without Henry Wade's approval). What was said
flippantly by Alexander got out of hand once the press heard it. There is
no such crime under Texas law.
But you can continue to pretend that black is white and up is down. Just
don't look too closely at the testimony you keep linking to.
John McAdams
>Hey John;
>
>Didn't my quote state that>>> "Dallas WAS gonna file charges of
>International Conspiracy."
>
>You know darn well that that was NEVER "My Claim".
>
Then you comment was irrelevant to any notion of conspiracy, was it
not?
>As for the DPD "Recording Room".
>
>John apparently thinks "Recording Room" is where the DPD makes "Tapioca"
>
I hate to break this to you, but people "record" things in all sorts
of ways, of which audio tape is only one.
Check this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22recorder+of+deeds%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10
>Right across the hall from Captain Fritz's office on the third floor of
>the DPD ! ! !
>
So what?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
You're STILL in DENIAL ! ! !
The official records speak for themselves.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/carr.htm
Only YOU would believe that Carr received a call from D C from "SOMEONE I
CAN'T REMEMBER"
"THEN, I CALLED HIM BACK" ! ! !
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bud
> John thinks "Recording Room" translates into the room in which they make
> "Ham and Eggs".
Tom thinks that when the police say a suspect has a record, it means he
has an album.
> "Dallas authorities" WAS gonna file charges of International Conspiracy.
>
> John's "Questionable" thinking>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:pmrtf5hv2j8qp66e3...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 14 Nov 2009 12:52:18 -0500, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>Dallas WAS gonna file charges of International Conspiracy.
>
> >>See Henry Wade Volume V page 218.
>
> >>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
>
> > International Communist Conspiracy.
>
> > So you think an international Communist conspiracy killed JFK?
>
> > If not, this this only proves the irresponsibility of Bill Alexander,
> > and not anything about the assassination.
>
> > There is other silliness on that page.
>
> > Of course Wade was the "Wade" in Roe v. Wade.
>
> > So what? He lost that case because the U.S. Supreme Court decided to
> > legalize abortion. But his job was to prosecute abortionists under
> > Texas law.
>
> > As for the "recording room:" that has nothing to do with *tape*
> > recording.
>
> >>"yeuhd" <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 14, 12:52 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Dallas WAS gonna file charges of International Conspiracy.
>>
>> See Henry Wade Volume V page 218.
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
>
> Once again, the testimony you link to does not agree with what you claim.
> I quoted the same testimony by Henry Wade, above, where he says the
> *opposite* of what you claim. I also quoted Assistant D.A. Bill Alexnader,
> who started the rumor, and who never had any intention to file such a
> charge (and he couldn't without Henry Wade's approval). What was said
> flippantly by Alexander got out of hand once the press heard it. There is
> no such crime under Texas law.
>
Conspiracy to murder is not a crime in Texas?
Again, the documentary the other night included a reporter saying that the
Dallas authorities had intended to charge Oswald with being part of an
International Communist Conspiracy. Ain't you got no damn TV? You can's
watch it on YouTube?
Anthony Marsh
> Hey John;
>
> Didn't my quote state that>>> "Dallas WAS gonna file charges of
> International Conspiracy."
>
> You know darn well that that was NEVER "My Claim".
>
> As for the DPD "Recording Room".
>
> John apparently thinks "Recording Room" is where the DPD makes "Tapioca"
>
> Right across the hall from Captain Fritz's office on the third floor of
> the DPD ! ! !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
>
>
>
You have a floorplan. What you don't know is whether that is an office
or a storage room.
Anthony Marsh
> On 14 Nov 2009 12:52:18 -0500, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Dallas WAS gonna file charges of International Conspiracy.
>>
>> See Henry Wade Volume V page 218.
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
>>
>
> International Communist Conspiracy.
>
> So you think an international Communist conspiracy killed JFK?
>
No, YOU do.
> If not, this this only proves the irresponsibility of Bill Alexander,
> and not anything about the assassination.
>
Alexander did it as a hoax to give the FBI a hotfoot.
>> international conspiracy, it is just murder with malice in Texas�
yeuhd
> The official records speak for themselves.
And say the exact opposite of what you are claiming they do.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 13, 3:34 pm, yeuhd<needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I said, "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."
>> And he said, "No."
>
> Keep on kidding yourself, sir. Nichols had no intention of lifting a
> finger to help him. Nichols bread was buttered by the city of Dallas
> and the police department.
>
Ever hear the expression, "just going through the motions"?
> He made sure he went ALONE to see Oz, so no one can contradict his
> claims.
>
That is not why an attorney always meets privately with a client.
tomnln
If you're referring to the "Written" Records I suggest you look down the
hall to the Left for "Records Room".
Unless you think the DPD were cutting their own Rap Songs ! ! !
ps;
Somehow my Citation for "Recording Room" on the 3rd floor of the DPD got
SNIPPED ! ! !
HERE it is AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:i89uf5d38lvmstf5e...@4ax.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4aff39ac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
On Nov 14, 6:24 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> The official records speak for themselves.
And say the exact opposite of what you are claiming they do.
If that were true, you wouldn't need to SNIP my Citation would you Rob?
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/3126%20%20HARLENDALE.htm
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4aff39ac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
yeuhd
> If that were true, you wouldn't need to SNIP my Citation would you Rob?
Who is "Rob"?
tomnln
On Nov 14, 9:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> If that were true, you wouldn't need to SNIP my Citation would you Rob?
Who is "Rob"?
A "NOBODY"
A REAL "NOBODY".
ps Loser;
You Snipped it AGAIN>>> SEE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/3126%20%20HARLENDALE.htm
yeuhd
> If you're referring to the "Written" Records I suggest you look down the
> hall to the Left for "Records Room".
One room for storage of written records, the other room for the
creation of those same written records.
yeuhd
> hall to the Left for "Records Room".
The "records" room on the west side of the third floor of the Dallas
Police Department was for employee personnel records.
What was the "recording room" on the third floor used for? Well, the
burden of proof is on you if you are claiming that sound recordings were
made in there. So far, you have offered no evidence of sound recordings
vs. textual records being created there.
In fact, the one type of records we can *rule out* are sound recordings,
because the Dallas police did not own any tape recorders at the time:
From the WC testimony of Captain J.W. Fritz:
Mr. BALL. Did you have any tape recorder?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we
had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far
better.
Mr. BALL. The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they
haven't gotten me one.
It should be fairly easy to ask someone who worked at the Dallas Police
Department in 1963 what was done in the third-floor "recording room"
between the "property files" room and the "burglary and theft" room.
But it's even easier to make claims without providing any evidence to
support them. So, like I said, if you are claiming that sound recordings
were created there, versus textual records, the burden of proof is on you
to support that claim with evidence. You have not done so.
Anthony Marsh
> WHICH Room on that DPD floor plan is designated as "storage room"???
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
>
English please. Several rooms can be for storage. The one marked
"supplies" is for storage rather than an office. Do you understand the
difference between an office and a storage room?
tomnln
Show us the room named "storage" OR, "written records" ! ! ! !
ps;
You keep SNIPPING Citations & I'll keep Supplying it ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm (photo 3)
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f413096-0ceb-47a0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Fritz also said there were NO notes taken during Oswald's Interrogations.
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce0a7573-bbd9-4c68...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b00539d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
yeuhd
>
> Show us the room named "storage" OR, "written records" ! ! ! !
Show us the room named "tape recordings" or "sound recordings".
tomnln
!
To Illustrate your FEAR of official records you SNIPPED my Citation.
HERE it is AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
3rd photo down from the top !
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce0a7573-bbd9-4c68...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Show us the room named "storage" OR, "written records" ! ! ! !
ps;
You keep SNIPPING Citations & I'll keep Supplying it ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm (photo 3)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b00539d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
>
> "yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6f413096-0ceb-47a0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 9:49 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> If you're referring to the "Written" Records I suggest you look down the
>> hall to the Left for "Records Room".
>
> One room for storage of written records, the other room for the
> creation of those same written records.
>
>
"Storage" is a description of the room called "records." It is where the
records are stored. That's not LPs. Written records. The room called
"Supplies" is where various supplies are stored.
tomnln
On Nov 15, 3:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Show us the room named "storage" OR, "written records" ! ! ! !
Show us the room named "tape recordings" or "sound recordings".
I already showed you "Recording Room".
You SNIPPED Again;
I Supply AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
(3RD PHOTO DOWN FROM TOP)
yeuhd
> "yeuhd" <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Shoe us the room named "tape recordings" or "sound recordings".
Mitch Todd
http://www.observer.com/2007/end-era-times-kills-recording-room
Please notice the recurring use of the word "dictate," and the
implications thereof.
tomnln
On Nov 16, 10:16 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "yeuhd" <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:07c0746f-9a2f-4c56...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 3:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Show us the room named "storage" OR, "written records" ! ! ! !
>
> Show us the room named "tape recordings" or "sound recordings".
>
> I already showed you "Recording Room".
>
> You SNIPPED Again;
>
> I Supply AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
> (3RD PHOTO DOWN FROM TOP)
yeuhd wrote;
Shoe us the room named "tape recordings" or "sound recordings".
I write;
Aren't you the guy who chides others for typo's???? "Shoe us" "Shoe us"
I Supply AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
(3RD PHOTO DOWN FROM TOP)
yeuhd thinks "Recording Room" is where they produce PORN ! ! !
yeuhd thinks "Records Room" is where the DPD makes Record Gallons of
Moonshine ! ! !
The same yeuhd who RUNS from an invitation to debate me LIVE ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
yeuhd
>
> I Supply AGAIN>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
> (3RD PHOTO DOWN FROM TOP)
>
Nothing there says "tape recording" or "sound recording". No matter
how many times you claim it does.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd982b49-afff-4ef3...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ndLLm.14128$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
Ray
> On Nov 13, 9:59 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But the point, for purposes of this thread, is that Oz's denial that
> > the backyard photo was genuine was merely a "formal" denial, a refusal
> > to admit, PENDING THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.
>
> asked to list his addresses since he returned to the United States, he
> omitted the Neeley St. address, where the photos were taken. Then when
> asked later, specifically, about the Neeley St. address, he denied
> having lived there. There is no innocuous explanation for why Oswald
> lied about such an easily provable fact. It was not a crime to have
> lived at an address on Neeley St. in Dallas.
Thank you Yehud for helping to reinforce my point.
Oz wisely told police that he would not answer questions UNTIL HE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL. When falsely accused of a crime,
especially in a STRANGE PLACE (like Dallas 1963) everyman should deny
everything, no matter HOW INNOCUOUS the question may seem, UNTIL he is
represented by counsel.
Lee Oswald basically refused to admit ANYTHING, and he was quite right
too.
Now about that plan to murder him before he could speak to an
attorney.......
yeuhd
> On Nov 14, 10:11 am, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 9:59 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But the point, for purposes of this thread, is that Oz's denial that
> > > the backyard photo was genuine was merely a "formal" denial, a refusal
> > > to admit, PENDING THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.
>
> > I don't believe it was any such provisional denial. When Oswald was
> > asked to list his addresses since he returned to the United States, he
> > omitted the Neeley St. address, where the photos were taken. Then when
> > asked later, specifically, about the Neeley St. address, he denied
> > having lived there. There is no innocuous explanation for why Oswald
> > lied about such an easily provable fact. It was not a crime to have
> > lived at an address on Neeley St. in Dallas.
>
> Thank you Yehud for helping to reinforce my point.
>
> Oz wisely told police that he would not answer questions UNTIL HE HAD AN
> OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL. When falsely accused of a crime,
> especially in a STRANGE PLACE (like Dallas 1963) everyman should deny
> everything, no matter HOW INNOCUOUS the question may seem, UNTIL he is
> represented by counsel.
That is exceedingly bad advice that no good lawyer would recommend. If
the defendant were ever on the witness stand at trial, every false
denial he told to police could be repeated in court against him.
Ray
> That is exceedingly bad advice that no good lawyer would recommend. If
> the defendant were ever on the witness stand at trial, every false
> denial he told to police could be repeated in court against him.
Nonsense.
The issue at trial (assuming there was enough evidence to bring the
case to trial)
is whether he murdered JFK.
He would have no trouble explaining to the jury that
I TOLD POLICE OVER AND OVER THAT I WOULD NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS,
UNTIL I SPOKE TO A LAWYER. THEY KEPT ON HARASSING ME HOWEVER SO I JUST
DENIED
EVERYTHING. Now that I have a legal defense I am advised that it is OK
to admit that I lived at Neely Street
and it is OK to admit that Marina took the backyard photos.
Case Dismissed.
Now go find the REAL KILLERS
yeuhd
> too.
False. Oswald talked about everything from his political beliefs to
his religious beliefs to what he thought of President Kennedy. He
talked about why he lived in Dallas while his wife and child lived in
Irving. He talked about his post office boxes and who was authorized
to receive mail at each. He talked about what he brought to eat at
lunch on Nov. 22. He talked about where he ate lunch that day. He
talked about why he left work. He admitted to carrying a gun on him in
the Texas Theater. He admitted striking the police officer in the
theater.
If, as you claim, "Oswald basically refused to admit ANYTHING", he
would have refused to list any address at which he lived since his
return to the U.S. But that's not what he did. He listed every address
he lived at except the Neeley Street address. And that was *before* he
had been confronted with the backyard photos.
Anthony Marsh
> Apparently FIVE (5) days is NOT long enough for Marsh to reply ! ! !
>
>
Apparently I did reply already several times and you refused to read.
Ray
He listed every address
he lived at except the Neeley Street address. And that was *before*
he
had been confronted with the backyard photos.
Oh so you were there, were you?
Or did you read the secret transcript of what he said, and when he
said it?
And do you think the fact that Oz once lived at Neely Street is a
MATERIAL FACT that tells us something about the true identity of JFK's
assassins?
I think you are engaged in a game of TRIVIAL PURSUIT.
tomnln
Just post it Again HERE>>>
WHICH Room on that DPD floor plan is designated as "storage room"???
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b061c2a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, Ray<j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lee Oswald basically refused to admit ANYTHING, and he was quite right
>> too.
>
> False. Oswald talked about everything from his political beliefs to
> his religious beliefs to what he thought of President Kennedy. He
> talked about why he lived in Dallas while his wife and child lived in
> Irving. He talked about his post office boxes and who was authorized
> to receive mail at each. He talked about what he brought to eat at
> lunch on Nov. 22. He talked about where he ate lunch that day. He
> talked about why he left work. He admitted to carrying a gun on him in
> the Texas Theater. He admitted striking the police officer in the
> theater.
>
You don't know for a fact what Oswald said. You have to base you opinion
on self-serving lies of the Dallas authorities.
Anthony Marsh
Perjury.
tomnln
"Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e12b60cb-c784-407a...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The authorities discussed the back yard photos BEFORE they were found with
TWO different people.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/b_y_photos.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
yeuhd
> On Nov 20, 10:25 am, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He listed every address
> he lived at except the Neeley Street address. And that was *before*
> he
> had been confronted with the backyard photos.
>
> Oh so you were there, were you?
>
> Or did you read the secret transcript of what he said, and when he
> said it?
See reports of Oswald's interrogations.
> And do you think the fact that Oz once lived at Neely Street is a
> MATERIAL FACT that tells us something about the true identity of JFK's
> assassins?
It is evidence of Oswald's consciousness of guilt that he denied living at
the Neeley St. address but no other address, especially after he was shown
the backyard photographs. That he lied about so easily a provable fact
suggests he also lied when he claimed that was not him in the photographs.
The photographs show him posing with the rifle that was used to
assassinate President Kennedy, so yes, a material fact is at issue.
tomnln
"Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e12b60cb-c784-407a...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authorities discussed the back yard photos with Oswald at 12:30 p.m.
on Saturday.
The authorities showed the back yard photos to Michael Pain on Friday
night.
The authorities found the back yard photos at 4:30 p.m. on Saturday
Afternoon ! ! !
SEE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/b_y_photos.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray
It is evidence of Oswald's consciousness of guilt that he denied
living at
the Neeley St. address but no other address, especially after he was
shown
the backyard photographs. That he lied about so easily a provable
fact
suggests he also lied when he claimed that was not him in the
photographs.
The photographs show him posing with the rifle that was used to
assassinate President Kennedy, so yes, a material fact is at issue.
>
We have already established, via Fritz's notes and Bookhout's
testimony, that he did not LIE
about the backyard photos. Fritz's notes say "refused to discuss"
and Bookhout testified that he said he would not discuss the photo
UNTIL he had spoken to an attorney.
THat is really all there is to say about his reaction to the backyard
photo.
What is MATERIAL is that he was murdered BEFORE HE COULD SPEAK TO AN
ATTORNEY and,
according to the HSCA investigation, it looks like he was murdered
WITH THE CONNIVANCE of someone in the DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
It looks like he was murdered to prevent him from speaking to an
attorney.
But you don't care about the basic civil rights of some poor and
insignificant individual, do you?
yeuhd
> On Nov 20, 11:29 pm, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is evidence of Oswald's consciousness of guilt that he denied
> living at
> the Neeley St. address but no other address, especially after he was
> shown
> the backyard photographs. That he lied about so easily a provable
> fact
> suggests he also lied when he claimed that was not him in the
> photographs.
> The photographs show him posing with the rifle that was used to
> assassinate President Kennedy, so yes, a material fact is at issue.
>
>
>
> We have already established, via Fritz's notes and Bookhout's
> testimony, that he did not LIE
> about the backyard photos. Fritz's notes say "refused to discuss"
> and Bookhout testified that he said he would not discuss the photo
> UNTIL he had spoken to an attorney.
You had better recheck James Bookhout's testimony, especially the last
question and answer quoted here:
Mr. STERN. It was at this interview, was it not, that Oswald was shown
photographs of himself holding a rifle and wearing a pistol in a
holster?
Mr. BOOKHOUT. That's correct.
Mr. STERN. What was his comment about the photograph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT. His comment, as I recall, he was asked if this was his
photograph, and his comment was that the head of the photograph was
his, but that it could have been superimposed over the body of someone
else. He pointed out that he had been apparently photographed by news
media numerous times in proceeding from the homicide and robbery
bureau to the lineup and back, and that is how they probably got the
photograph of his face, and he went into a long discussion of how much
he knew about photography, and knew that this — his face could be
superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and
so forth.
Mr. STERN. Now, was his appearance and demeanor at this interview —
Mr. BOOKHOUT. No different than it was during the previous
interviews.
Mr. STERN. Did he have any comment at this interview about counsel?
Mr. BOOKHOUT. None other than at the outset of being first asked if
that was his photograph, he first made the statement that he wouldn't
make any comment about it without the advice of counsel, but then
subsequently is when he went into the story about his face had been
superimposed over somebody else's body.
From Captain Fritz's testimony:
Mr. BALL. In the meantime your officers had brought back from Irving
some pictures that they found in the garage, hadn't they?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you had had them blown up, hadn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right.
Mr. BALL. What pictures — and you showed Oswald a picture at this
time?
Mr. FRITZ. A picture of him holding a rifle and wearing the pistol. It
showed a picture of him holding a rifle and wearing the pistol. I
showed him first an enlarged picture.
Mr. BALL. I will show you Commission Exhibit No. 135.
Mr. FRITZ. That is the picture.
Mr. BALL. That is the picture you showed him?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; that is a similar picture, that is a copy of the
picture I showed him.
Mr. BALL. You had had your laboratory enlarge the picture that your
men had brought back from Irving?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he said that wasn't his picture, he said, "I have
been through that whole deal with all people in the cameras," he said,
"One has taken my picture and that is my face and put a different body
on it." He said, I know all about photography, I worked with
photography for a long time. That is a picture that someone else has
made. I never saw that picture in my life."
I said, "Wait just a minute, and I will show you one you have seen
probably," and I showed him the little one this one was made from and
when I showed him the little one he said, "I never have seen that
picture, either." He said, "That is a picture that has been reduced
from the big one."
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 20, 11:29 pm, yeuhd<needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is evidence of Oswald's consciousness of guilt that he denied
> living at
> the Neeley St. address but no other address, especially after he was
> shown
> the backyard photographs. That he lied about so easily a provable
> fact
> suggests he also lied when he claimed that was not him in the
> photographs.
> The photographs show him posing with the rifle that was used to
> assassinate President Kennedy, so yes, a material fact is at issue.
We don't know for a fact what Oswald said in the interrogations.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0fc0d845-219a-4640...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
he knew about photography, and knew that this ? his face could be
superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and
so forth.
Mr. STERN. Now, was his appearance and demeanor at this interview ?
Mr. BOOKHOUT. No different than it was during the previous
interviews.
Mr. STERN. Did he have any comment at this interview about counsel?
Mr. BOOKHOUT. None other than at the outset of being first asked if
that was his photograph, he first made the statement that he wouldn't
make any comment about it without the advice of counsel, but then
subsequently is when he went into the story about his face had been
superimposed over somebody else's body.
From Captain Fritz's testimony:
Mr. BALL. In the meantime your officers had brought back from Irving
some pictures that they found in the garage, hadn't they?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you had had them blown up, hadn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right.
Mr. BALL. What pictures ? and you showed Oswald a picture at this
Ray
> You had better recheck James Bookhout's testimony,
> Mr. BOOKHOUT. None other than at the outset of being first asked if
> that was his photograph, he first made the statement that he wouldn't
> make any comment about it without the advice of counsel,
That is the most legally significant part of Bookhout's testimony.
All the rest is just HARASSMENT of a falsely imprisoned man.
From Fritz's notes, NOTE 5:
"Shows photo of gun. Would not discuss photo"
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes5.htm
It is quite clear that he wanted to speak to an attorney before he
discussed this photo
and it is equally clear that someone did not want him to EVER speak to
an attorney.
Do you feel something in common with that someone?
yeuhd
> It is quite clear that he wanted to speak to an attorney before he
> discussed this photo
> and it is equally clear that someone did not want him to EVER speak to
> an attorney.
That interrogation re the backyard photos was on Saturday evening. Oswald
had access to the jailhouse telephone all day Saturday before then to call
any attorney he wished. He called only one attorney, John Abt of New York.
He turned town his brother Robert's offer on Saturday afternoon to find
him a local attorney. He turned down the Dallas Bar Association's offer
Saturday afternoon to find him a local attorney. He called Ruth Paine
twice on Saturday afternoon, but each time asked her to call John Abt on
his behalf.
Let's make this point clear: Then and now, it is the *defendant's*
responsibility to secure the services of an attorney. Not the police's.
The police allowed Oswald free access to a jailhouse telephone to do that.
By early Saturday morning, Oswald had been told at least three times that
he had the right to remain silent (once during his first interrogation on
Friday, and during each of his arraignments for the Tippit and Kennedy
murders). Oswald chose again and again to waive that right.
tomnln
On Saturday night Oswald called a Mr. Hunt in Raleigh N. C.
It was later discovered that Mr. Hunt had connections to U S Intelligence.
SEE>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lho.htm
(half way down the page)
No wonder you refuse to debate me in my chat room>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e77e6595-0ab7-47f0...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Ray
> On Nov 22, 9:33 am, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is quite clear that he wanted to speak to an attorney before he
> > discussed this photo
> By early Saturday morning, Oswald had been told at least three times that
> he had the right to remain silent (once during his first interrogation on
> Friday, and during each of his arraignments for the Tippit and Kennedy
> murders). Oswald chose again and again to waive that right.
I GET IT : He repeatedly asserted his post-indictment constitutional right
to confer with counsel as a precondition to further questioning, (as we
know from himself on YouTube, etc.and from Bookhout )
but he gave up his right to silence, as we know from Mr. Yehud.
Congratulations, Yehud, You must be a legal genius!
yeuhd
> WRONG AGAIN ! ! !
>
> On Saturday night Oswald called a Mr. Hunt in Raleigh N. C.
Wrong about what?
1. His name was John Hurt, not "Hunt".
2. I said that Oswald called only one attorney. John Hurt was an
insurance claims adjuster, not an attorney.
So, who was wrong, you or me?
Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History", endnotes, p. 93–94:
A slip of paper with two telephone numbers on it that was apparently
written by a Dallas Police Department switchboard operator and
allegedly discarded in a trash can was recovered and for several years
stirred the hearts of conspiracy theorists everywhere, since the
operator believed that one of the numbers was a number that Oswald had
supposedly called on Saturday night (however, no one was
ever 100 percent sure whether the call was an incoming or outgoing
call), belonging to a John David Hurt in Raleigh, North Carolina. When
it was later learned that Hurt served in U.S. Military Intelligence
during World War II, the theorists felt that finally they had solid
evidence linking Oswald and the assassination to U.S. intelligence.
(Summers, "Conspiracy", pp.145–146)
As late as April 11, 1978, three investigators for the HSCA
interviewed Hurt in Raleigh. They showed Hurt the telephone slip with
the two numbers on it and Hurt, who was in declining health and on
government disability, acknowledged that one of them, 919-834-7430,
was his number and had been so for the last twenty years. (He did not
know to whom the other number on the paper, 919-833-1253,
belonged.) Hurt, who told the investigators that he had served in the
Army Counterintelligence
Corps in Europe and Japan from 1942 to 1946, and had no connection
with the military since, said that people from the news media had
called him about this, but that he had never received a telephone call
from Oswald and had never even heard of Oswald prior to the
assassination. It was a “complete mystery” to him how his phone number
had turned up on the slip of paper. (HSCA Record 180-10071-10162,
April 11, 1978, pp.1–4)
The “mystery” of John Hurt was cleared up, ironically, by another Hurt
three years later. A few months after John Hurt died in 1981, his
widow told author Henry Hurt that her husband had admitted the truth
to her before he died—that on the day of the assassination he was so
upset that he got extremely drunk, a habitual problem he had, and
tried to get in touch with Oswald at the city jail. When he
couldn’t get connected to Oswald, he left his phone number, and had
been too embarrassed about it ever since to tell anyone about it.
(Hurt, "Reasonable Doubt", pp.244–245)
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:SkzNm.33263$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...