Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Oswald Line-up
105 views
Skip to first unread message
Research
Oct 10, 2012, 4:12:30 PM10/10/12
to
When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
Ace Kefford
Oct 11, 2012, 11:05:51 AM10/11/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:12:30 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
>
> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
Well to start off you could read the Warren Report.
> When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
>
> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
timstter
Oct 11, 2012, 11:06:03 AM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
> When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Ace Kefford
Oct 11, 2012, 4:12:59 PM10/11/12
to
Timster, how could I miss that one?!
Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
something else altogether.
Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
something else altogether.
John Reagor King
Oct 11, 2012, 10:47:58 PM10/11/12
to
In article
<76c615ce-4053-4247...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
on the Tippit part.
<76c615ce-4053-4247...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 7:12�am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
> > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
No sh*t. The answer to that is absurdly easy to find, most especially
> On Oct 11, 7:12�am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
> > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
on the Tippit part.
Research
Oct 11, 2012, 10:50:44 PM10/11/12
to
"Ace Kefford" <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:623abfd7-26af-4084...@googlegroups.com...
Timster, how could I miss that one?!
Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
something else altogether.
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
>
> > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
>
>
> Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
Well Tim Brennan from Sydney, Australia I do have a copy of the WR. And I
Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
something else altogether.
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
>
> > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
>
>
> Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
have read it many years ago. I just wanted to see what dumb answers you
LNers would come up with. HA HA HA. But none answers is all you got. Sorry
if you wasted your valuable time reading my joke. But really sorry I
wasted my time, which is more important.
>
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator* MY ass!
Bud
Oct 12, 2012, 5:06:20 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 11, 10:50 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Ace Kefford" <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Oswald killed both of the men you named.
> "Ace Kefford" <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:623abfd7-26af-4084...@googlegroups.com...
> Timster, how could I miss that one?!
>
> Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
> thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
> something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> something else altogether.
>
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
>
> > > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> > Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
>
> Well Tim Brennan from Sydney, Australia I do have a copy of the WR. And I
> have read it many years ago. I just wanted to see what dumb answers you
> LNers would come up with. HA HA HA. But none answers is all you got. Sorry
> if you wasted your valuable time reading my joke.
Almost as funny as your inability to determine that Lee Harvey
> news:623abfd7-26af-4084...@googlegroups.com...
> Timster, how could I miss that one?!
>
> Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
> thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
> something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> something else altogether.
>
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
>
> > > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> > Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
>
> Well Tim Brennan from Sydney, Australia I do have a copy of the WR. And I
> have read it many years ago. I just wanted to see what dumb answers you
> LNers would come up with. HA HA HA. But none answers is all you got. Sorry
> if you wasted your valuable time reading my joke.
Oswald killed both of the men you named.
Ace Kefford
Oct 12, 2012, 5:07:37 PM10/12/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:12:30 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify Oswald
>
> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
So you admit that you are a "troll". Just posting to try to provoke
>
> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
responses. I am sure most people already believed that, but it's good to
have the confession. Thanks.
Research
Oct 13, 2012, 11:30:11 AM10/13/12
to
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:6bb24bb8-49f7-4b24...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
was not involved, at this or any other point. But the way it occurred and
lame evidence you guys propose just don't add up to a conviction as easily
for me as it does for the WC followers. This vast investigation you all
was a frame up job from the very start. Johnson hand picked the
"investigators" to the preconceived that Oswald was the lone nut. And he
may have been, but the case they framed doesn't hold truth. Any piece of
WC evidence can be debated out of existence.
Just like the beginning of this post where I asked about the line up, for
example. All I've gotten was insulted from the LNers. Because that is all
you got. The very eye witnesses the LNers cling to. The Tippit eye
witnesses or the dep witnesses could not pick Oswald out of the line-up.
Brennen testified he saw Oswald on the TV news, twice and still could not
identify Oswald. And the biggest majority of the Tippit witnesses could
not identify Oswald. But the LNers love to cry their were witnesses. But
the line-ups prove a different tale.
Research
Oct 13, 2012, 11:30:49 AM10/13/12
to
news:9aeedb46-d560-4ee3...@googlegroups.com...
So someone that does not blindly follow the WC say so is a troll. I
suppose those who still cling on the fake reports aren't? There are people
who say Adolf Hitler was a victim of circumstance and knew nothing about
the hallocaust. And we really don't have a sound bite or a paper trail
that leads back to him. But with all the evidence that has turned up, we
know it was him pulling the strings. But there are STILL cling to the
theory that Hitler was a framed saint.
Instead of repeating myself, just read my reply to Bud.
suppose those who still cling on the fake reports aren't? There are people
who say Adolf Hitler was a victim of circumstance and knew nothing about
the hallocaust. And we really don't have a sound bite or a paper trail
that leads back to him. But with all the evidence that has turned up, we
know it was him pulling the strings. But there are STILL cling to the
theory that Hitler was a framed saint.
Instead of repeating myself, just read my reply to Bud.
Bud
Oct 13, 2012, 11:00:09 PM10/13/12
to
On Oct 13, 11:30 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
it`s you guys. It would be impossible for there to be so many
indications of Oswald`s guilt and him be innocent.
> Again, I am not saying Oswald
> was not involved, at this or any other point. But the way it occurred and
> lame evidence you guys propose just don't add up to a conviction as easily
> for me as it does for the WC followers.
In other words even given him every benefit of doubt you can muster
you still can`t clear him of culpability.
> This vast investigation you all
> was a frame up job from the very start.
Can`t be. Much of the evidence indicating Oswald`s guilt was in
evidence before the WC was formed.
> Johnson hand picked the
> "investigators" to the preconceived that Oswald was the lone nut. And he
> may have been, but the case they framed doesn't hold truth. Any piece of
> WC evidence can be debated out of existence.
Only to the satisfaction of those determined to pretend Oswald was
innocent.
> Just like the beginning of this post where I asked about the line up, for
> example. All I've gotten was insulted from the LNers. Because that is all
> you got.
All you have is carefully framed questions that have nothing to do
with the reality of the event. 5 or 6 people said they saw Oswald
running from a gunned down policeman with a gun. You question doesn`t
encompass this meaningful information, it tries to get around it by
purposely focusing on the wrong information. I garantee you if you
purposely focus on the wrong information you will never be able to
figure these things out. And I can also gaurantee you that that is
what you intend.
> The very eye witnesses the LNers cling to. The Tippit eye
> witnesses or the dep witnesses could not pick Oswald out of the line-up.
Actually everyone who could make an identification in both these
murders said it was Oswald they saw commit them.
> Brennen testified he saw Oswald on the TV news, twice and still could not
> identify Oswald.
Did not, not could not. He explained why he didn`t.
> And the biggest majority of the Tippit witnesses could
> not identify Oswald.
Not true. Calloway, Scoggins, Markham and the two Davis girls all
picked Oswald out of lineups.
> But the LNers love to cry their were witnesses. But
> the line-ups prove a different tale.
They lead to the conclusion you can`t bring yourself to come to.
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6bb24bb8-49f7-4b24...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 10:50 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ace Kefford" <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:623abfd7-26af-4084...@googlegroups.com...
> > Timster, how could I miss that one?!
>
> > Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
> > thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
> > something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> > something else altogether.
>
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify
> > > > Oswald
>
> > > > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> > > Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
>
> > Well Tim Brennan from Sydney, Australia I do have a copy of the WR. And I
> > have read it many years ago. I just wanted to see what dumb answers you
> > LNers would come up with. HA HA HA. But none answers is all you got. Sorry
> > if you wasted your valuable time reading my joke.
>
> Almost as funny as your inability to determine that Lee Harvey
> Oswald killed both of the men you named.
>
> But not as funny as you guys blind faith.
What do you mean "blind faith"? If anyone is blind to the evidence
> news:6bb24bb8-49f7-4b24...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 10:50 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ace Kefford" <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:623abfd7-26af-4084...@googlegroups.com...
> > Timster, how could I miss that one?!
>
> > Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
> > thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
> > something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> > something else altogether.
>
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify
> > > > Oswald
>
> > > > as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> > > Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
>
> > Well Tim Brennan from Sydney, Australia I do have a copy of the WR. And I
> > have read it many years ago. I just wanted to see what dumb answers you
> > LNers would come up with. HA HA HA. But none answers is all you got. Sorry
> > if you wasted your valuable time reading my joke.
>
> Almost as funny as your inability to determine that Lee Harvey
> Oswald killed both of the men you named.
>
> But not as funny as you guys blind faith.
it`s you guys. It would be impossible for there to be so many
indications of Oswald`s guilt and him be innocent.
> Again, I am not saying Oswald
> was not involved, at this or any other point. But the way it occurred and
> lame evidence you guys propose just don't add up to a conviction as easily
> for me as it does for the WC followers.
you still can`t clear him of culpability.
> This vast investigation you all
> was a frame up job from the very start.
evidence before the WC was formed.
> Johnson hand picked the
> "investigators" to the preconceived that Oswald was the lone nut. And he
> may have been, but the case they framed doesn't hold truth. Any piece of
> WC evidence can be debated out of existence.
innocent.
> Just like the beginning of this post where I asked about the line up, for
> example. All I've gotten was insulted from the LNers. Because that is all
> you got.
with the reality of the event. 5 or 6 people said they saw Oswald
running from a gunned down policeman with a gun. You question doesn`t
encompass this meaningful information, it tries to get around it by
purposely focusing on the wrong information. I garantee you if you
purposely focus on the wrong information you will never be able to
figure these things out. And I can also gaurantee you that that is
what you intend.
> The very eye witnesses the LNers cling to. The Tippit eye
> witnesses or the dep witnesses could not pick Oswald out of the line-up.
murders said it was Oswald they saw commit them.
> Brennen testified he saw Oswald on the TV news, twice and still could not
> identify Oswald.
> And the biggest majority of the Tippit witnesses could
> not identify Oswald.
picked Oswald out of lineups.
> But the LNers love to cry their were witnesses. But
> the line-ups prove a different tale.
Research
Oct 14, 2012, 3:04:05 PM10/14/12
to
news:9fe5352b-0e82-4467...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
behind the statements.
referrence them. Why?
> Again, I am not saying Oswald
> was not involved, at this or any other point. But the way it occurred and
> lame evidence you guys propose just don't add up to a conviction as easily
> for me as it does for the WC followers.
In other words even given him every benefit of doubt you can muster
you still can`t clear him of culpability.
That's what the LNers do. They name witnesses. But when the statements are
closely looked after, these witnesses don't say what the LNers claimed they
said.
> This vast investigation you all
> was a frame up job from the very start.
Can`t be. Much of the evidence indicating Oswald`s guilt was in
evidence before the WC was formed.
I'm in no way saying Oswald was not involved. YET. He could have been, and
probably was. But I just don't think he did it by himself. CTer you say.
Well let's not forget the LNT is a theory too.
> Johnson hand picked the "investigators" to the preconceived that Oswald
> was the lone nut. And he
> may have been, but the case they framed doesn't hold truth. Any piece of
> WC evidence can be debated out of existence.
Only to the satisfaction of those determined to pretend Oswald was
innocent.
That is a preconclusion of LNers. That everybody thinks Oswald was innocent.
But there is some out here that don't believe in the nut theory.
> Just like the beginning of this post where I asked about the line up, for
> example. All I've gotten was insulted from the LNers. Because that is all
> you got.
All you have is carefully framed questions that have nothing to do
with the reality of the event. 5 or 6 people said they saw Oswald
running from a gunned down policeman with a gun. You question doesn`t
encompass this meaningful information, it tries to get around it by
purposely focusing on the wrong information. I garantee you if you
purposely focus on the wrong information you will never be able to
figure these things out. And I can also gaurantee you that that is
what you intend.
What good is your garantee? 4 out of 5 witnesses you site, described Oswald
as wearing a dark wool coat. All the witnesses stated he man had dark hair.
One said he was short and chunky. Yet when the light colored jacket was
found in an unrelated location in a parking lot, that is suddenly was
Oswald's. Even though the witnesses you site described just the opposite.
> The very eye witnesses the LNers cling to. The Tippit eye
> witnesses or the dep witnesses could not pick Oswald out of the line-up.
Actually everyone who could make an identification in both these
murders said it was Oswald they saw commit them.
> Brennen testified he saw Oswald on the TV news, twice and still could not
> identify Oswald.
Did not, not could not. He explained why he didn`t.
> And the biggest majority of the Tippit witnesses could
> not identify Oswald.
Not true. Calloway, Scoggins, Markham and the two Davis girls all
picked Oswald out of lineups.
Funny how the descriptions of these witnesses didn't identify Oswald. Even
though the LNers claim they did. All of these witnesses could not and did
not identify Oswald until the DPD pressured them and made remarks like this
is the man we think killed the president. Calloway said he chose Oswald
because of the statements made by the police.
> But the LNers love to cry their were witnesses. But
> the line-ups prove a different tale.
They lead to the conclusion you can`t bring yourself to come to.
And some of the line ups were totally fake. Oswald was placed in one line up
with all teenagers. It was overwhelming that Oswald was the prime suspect.
In one of the line ups Oswald was placed in was with men in business suites
and Oswald was dressed in a t-shirt and jeans. Again he was the most likely
suspect.
I thought the police were supposed to be impartial. But it seems they were
out to frame Oswald cause he was the only suspect they had? And this
evidence wouldn't be allowed in court, but now we have the public opinion to
contend with. What is it up to now? 96% CT and 4% LNer. Wow it is almost
even steven.
On Oct 13, 11:30 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6bb24bb8-49f7-4b24...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 10:50 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ace Kefford" <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:623abfd7-26af-4084...@googlegroups.com...
> > Timster, how could I miss that one?!
>
> > Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
> > thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
> > something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> > something else altogether.
>
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify
> > > > Oswald as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> > > Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
Taking this advice I looked up the witness evidence and found some of truth
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6bb24bb8-49f7-4b24...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 10:50 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ace Kefford" <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:623abfd7-26af-4084...@googlegroups.com...
> > Timster, how could I miss that one?!
>
> > Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something that you
> > thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask about
> > something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> > something else altogether.
>
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone identify
> > > > Oswald as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
> > > Er, couldn't you RESEARCH some of this stuff for yourself, Research?
behind the statements.
>
> > Well Tim Brennan from Sydney, Australia I do have a copy of the WR. And
> > I
> > have read it many years ago. I just wanted to see what dumb answers you
> > LNers would come up with. HA HA HA. But none answers is all you got.
> > Sorry
> > if you wasted your valuable time reading my joke.
>
> Almost as funny as your inability to determine that Lee Harvey
> Oswald killed both of the men you named.
>
> But not as funny as you guys blind faith.
What do you mean "blind faith"? If anyone is blind to the evidence
it`s you guys. It would be impossible for there to be so many
indications of Oswald`s guilt and him be innocent.
It's blind faith you have because you quote the names but you can't
> > Well Tim Brennan from Sydney, Australia I do have a copy of the WR. And
> > I
> > have read it many years ago. I just wanted to see what dumb answers you
> > LNers would come up with. HA HA HA. But none answers is all you got.
> > Sorry
> > if you wasted your valuable time reading my joke.
>
> Almost as funny as your inability to determine that Lee Harvey
> Oswald killed both of the men you named.
>
> But not as funny as you guys blind faith.
What do you mean "blind faith"? If anyone is blind to the evidence
it`s you guys. It would be impossible for there to be so many
indications of Oswald`s guilt and him be innocent.
referrence them. Why?
> Again, I am not saying Oswald
> was not involved, at this or any other point. But the way it occurred and
> lame evidence you guys propose just don't add up to a conviction as easily
> for me as it does for the WC followers.
In other words even given him every benefit of doubt you can muster
you still can`t clear him of culpability.
closely looked after, these witnesses don't say what the LNers claimed they
said.
> This vast investigation you all
> was a frame up job from the very start.
Can`t be. Much of the evidence indicating Oswald`s guilt was in
evidence before the WC was formed.
probably was. But I just don't think he did it by himself. CTer you say.
Well let's not forget the LNT is a theory too.
> Johnson hand picked the "investigators" to the preconceived that Oswald
> was the lone nut. And he
> may have been, but the case they framed doesn't hold truth. Any piece of
> WC evidence can be debated out of existence.
Only to the satisfaction of those determined to pretend Oswald was
innocent.
But there is some out here that don't believe in the nut theory.
> Just like the beginning of this post where I asked about the line up, for
> example. All I've gotten was insulted from the LNers. Because that is all
> you got.
All you have is carefully framed questions that have nothing to do
with the reality of the event. 5 or 6 people said they saw Oswald
running from a gunned down policeman with a gun. You question doesn`t
encompass this meaningful information, it tries to get around it by
purposely focusing on the wrong information. I garantee you if you
purposely focus on the wrong information you will never be able to
figure these things out. And I can also gaurantee you that that is
what you intend.
as wearing a dark wool coat. All the witnesses stated he man had dark hair.
One said he was short and chunky. Yet when the light colored jacket was
found in an unrelated location in a parking lot, that is suddenly was
Oswald's. Even though the witnesses you site described just the opposite.
> The very eye witnesses the LNers cling to. The Tippit eye
> witnesses or the dep witnesses could not pick Oswald out of the line-up.
Actually everyone who could make an identification in both these
murders said it was Oswald they saw commit them.
> Brennen testified he saw Oswald on the TV news, twice and still could not
> identify Oswald.
Did not, not could not. He explained why he didn`t.
> And the biggest majority of the Tippit witnesses could
> not identify Oswald.
Not true. Calloway, Scoggins, Markham and the two Davis girls all
picked Oswald out of lineups.
though the LNers claim they did. All of these witnesses could not and did
not identify Oswald until the DPD pressured them and made remarks like this
is the man we think killed the president. Calloway said he chose Oswald
because of the statements made by the police.
> But the LNers love to cry their were witnesses. But
> the line-ups prove a different tale.
They lead to the conclusion you can`t bring yourself to come to.
with all teenagers. It was overwhelming that Oswald was the prime suspect.
In one of the line ups Oswald was placed in was with men in business suites
and Oswald was dressed in a t-shirt and jeans. Again he was the most likely
suspect.
I thought the police were supposed to be impartial. But it seems they were
out to frame Oswald cause he was the only suspect they had? And this
evidence wouldn't be allowed in court, but now we have the public opinion to
contend with. What is it up to now? 96% CT and 4% LNer. Wow it is almost
even steven.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 6:51:21 PM10/14/12
to
Oswald. The only one in a T-shirt with a wound on his forehead and
ranting out is rights being violated.
Bud
Oct 14, 2012, 10:53:53 PM10/14/12
to
select the person they saw previously.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 15, 2012, 1:46:10 PM10/15/12
to
taking about real life. They frame innocent people.
curtjester1
Oct 15, 2012, 3:35:42 PM10/15/12
to
CJ
Ace Kefford
Oct 15, 2012, 3:49:10 PM10/15/12
to
Bud
Oct 15, 2012, 9:31:50 PM10/15/12
to
having them yell at the line-up?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 16, 2012, 4:21:42 PM10/16/12
to
the suspect.
There was a 48 Hours special which showed how police use these tricks
every day. The Boston police do the same thing. No one every gets into
any trouble for it. Only a few times have cases been thrown out of court.
This is what real life looks like. Not your My Little Pony World.
Bud
Oct 16, 2012, 10:59:59 PM10/16/12
to
him yell so he would stand out in the line-up?
Research
Oct 17, 2012, 4:23:33 PM10/17/12
to
news:b7681d0c-a0b1-4dac...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
lights? More than likely he was still screaming that he wanted an
attorney. He wanted his Constitutional rights to have an attorney present
at the line ups and during the interrogation.
Some officers stated Oswald didn't say anything during these interrogation
and they said he was arrogant and uncooperative. That is probably true.
Cause he was not as dumb as the police tried to make him out to be. Sure
he wasn't the brightest bulb, but he did know enough to keep his mouth
shut. Every time he was dragged down the hallway in front of the cameras,
he was asking for an attorney. And I'm sure he repeated his rights behind
closed doors.
Yes by then they had the rifle and the shells. But they didn't have the
paper trail, yet. Which lead to the line up! And here the witnesses could
not pick him out. Even though the line ups were made to show anyone that
he was the one they wanted the witness to chose.
By law, if Oswald said anything to sway anything the witness in either
direction the line up should have been scraped. But the DPD did the
opposite. They even encouraged the witnesses to pick out Oswald even
though it was already obvious he was the suspect. And at court the line up
evidence would have been thrown out.
On Oct 16, 4:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 9:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something
> >>>>>>> that you
> >>>>>>> thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> >>>>>>> something else altogether.
>
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone
> >>>>>>>>> identify
> >>>>>>>>> Oswald
>
> >>>>>>>>> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
>
> On 10/15/2012 9:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Y'know it's one thing to ask about some odd detail or something
> >>>>>>> that you
> >>>>>>> thought you might have heard and wanted to check out. But to ask
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> something that the Warren Report itself gave a bit of space to is
> >>>>>>> something else altogether.
>
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:06:03 AM UTC-4, timstter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 7:12 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> When was Oswald place in the witness line-up? Did anyone
> >>>>>>>>> identify
> >>>>>>>>> Oswald
>
> >>>>>>>>> as the President's assassin? Or Tippit murderer?
>
>
> >>>>>> Again, I am not saying Oswald
> >>>>>> was not involved, at this or any other point. But the way it
> >>>>>> occurred and
> >>>>>> lame evidence you guys propose just don't add up to a conviction as
> >>>>>> easily
> >>>>>> for me as it does for the WC followers.
>
> >>>>>> was not involved, at this or any other point. But the way it
> >>>>>> occurred and
> >>>>>> lame evidence you guys propose just don't add up to a conviction as
> >>>>>> easily
> >>>>>> for me as it does for the WC followers.
>
> >>>>>> This vast investigation you all
> >>>>>> was a frame up job from the very start.
>
> >>>>>> was a frame up job from the very start.
>
> >>>>> All you have is carefully framed questions that have nothing to do
> >>>>> with the reality of the event. 5 or 6 people said they saw Oswald
> >>>>> running from a gunned down policeman with a gun. You question
> >>>>> doesn`t
> >>>>> encompass this meaningful information, it tries to get around it by
> >>>>> purposely focusing on the wrong information. I garantee you if you
> >>>>> purposely focus on the wrong information you will never be able to
> >>>>> figure these things out. And I can also gaurantee you that that is
> >>>>> what you intend.
>
> >>>>>> The very eye witnesses the LNers cling to. The Tippit eye
> >>>>>> witnesses or the dep witnesses could not pick Oswald out of the
> >>>>>> line-up.
>
> >>>>> Actually everyone who could make an identification in both these
> >>>>> murders said it was Oswald they saw commit them.
>
> >>>>>> Brennen testified he saw Oswald on the TV news, twice and still
> >>>>>> could not
> >>>>>> identify Oswald.
>
> >>>>> with the reality of the event. 5 or 6 people said they saw Oswald
> >>>>> running from a gunned down policeman with a gun. You question
> >>>>> doesn`t
> >>>>> encompass this meaningful information, it tries to get around it by
> >>>>> purposely focusing on the wrong information. I garantee you if you
> >>>>> purposely focus on the wrong information you will never be able to
> >>>>> figure these things out. And I can also gaurantee you that that is
> >>>>> what you intend.
>
> >>>>>> The very eye witnesses the LNers cling to. The Tippit eye
> >>>>>> witnesses or the dep witnesses could not pick Oswald out of the
> >>>>>> line-up.
>
> >>>>> Actually everyone who could make an identification in both these
> >>>>> murders said it was Oswald they saw commit them.
>
> >>>>>> Brennen testified he saw Oswald on the TV news, twice and still
> >>>>>> could not
> >>>>>> identify Oswald.
>
> >>>>>> And the biggest majority of the Tippit witnesses could
> >>>>>> not identify Oswald.
>
> >>>>> Not true. Calloway, Scoggins, Markham and the two Davis girls all
> >>>>> picked Oswald out of lineups.
>
> >>>> Someone who was not even preset at the crime scene could have picked
> >>>> out
> >>>> Oswald. The only one in a T-shirt with a wound on his forehead and
> >>>> ranting out is rights being violated.
>
> >>> You don`t understand line-ups. They are conducted so the witness can
> >>> select the person they saw previously.
>
> >> You don't understand Dallas. You are talking about theoretically. I am
> >> taking about real life. They frame innocent people.
>
> > And somehow this framing is aided by beating the suspects up and
> > having them yell at the line-up?
>
> Yes, so that people who weren't even in Dallas that day could pick out
> the suspect.
This is your idea, that the Dallas police beat Oswald up and made
him yell so he would stand out in the line-up?
> There was a 48 Hours special which showed how police use these tricks
> every day. The Boston police do the same thing. No one every gets into
> any trouble for it. Only a few times have cases been thrown out of court.
> This is what real life looks like. Not your My Little Pony World.
>
Why would Oswald just simply stand there in the line up looking at the
> >>>>>> not identify Oswald.
>
> >>>>> Not true. Calloway, Scoggins, Markham and the two Davis girls all
> >>>>> picked Oswald out of lineups.
>
> >>>> Someone who was not even preset at the crime scene could have picked
> >>>> out
> >>>> Oswald. The only one in a T-shirt with a wound on his forehead and
> >>>> ranting out is rights being violated.
>
> >>> You don`t understand line-ups. They are conducted so the witness can
> >>> select the person they saw previously.
>
> >> You don't understand Dallas. You are talking about theoretically. I am
> >> taking about real life. They frame innocent people.
>
> > And somehow this framing is aided by beating the suspects up and
> > having them yell at the line-up?
>
> Yes, so that people who weren't even in Dallas that day could pick out
> the suspect.
This is your idea, that the Dallas police beat Oswald up and made
him yell so he would stand out in the line-up?
> There was a 48 Hours special which showed how police use these tricks
> every day. The Boston police do the same thing. No one every gets into
> any trouble for it. Only a few times have cases been thrown out of court.
> This is what real life looks like. Not your My Little Pony World.
>
lights? More than likely he was still screaming that he wanted an
attorney. He wanted his Constitutional rights to have an attorney present
at the line ups and during the interrogation.
Some officers stated Oswald didn't say anything during these interrogation
and they said he was arrogant and uncooperative. That is probably true.
Cause he was not as dumb as the police tried to make him out to be. Sure
he wasn't the brightest bulb, but he did know enough to keep his mouth
shut. Every time he was dragged down the hallway in front of the cameras,
he was asking for an attorney. And I'm sure he repeated his rights behind
closed doors.
Yes by then they had the rifle and the shells. But they didn't have the
paper trail, yet. Which lead to the line up! And here the witnesses could
not pick him out. Even though the line ups were made to show anyone that
he was the one they wanted the witness to chose.
By law, if Oswald said anything to sway anything the witness in either
direction the line up should have been scraped. But the DPD did the
opposite. They even encouraged the witnesses to pick out Oswald even
though it was already obvious he was the suspect. And at court the line up
evidence would have been thrown out.
John Blubaugh
Oct 17, 2012, 10:12:53 PM10/17/12
to
JB
Bud
Oct 17, 2012, 10:17:32 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 17, 4:23 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
Some people suggest that Oswald`s antics made him easy to select as
the suspect. Likely he would have appeared more guilty cuffed and
gagged.
> More than likely he was still screaming that he wanted an
> attorney.
There is some film of his protests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk
> He wanted his Constitutional rights to have an attorney present
> at the line ups and during the interrogation.
He should have exercised that right when it was offered to him.
> Some officers stated Oswald didn't say anything during these interrogation
> and they said he was arrogant and uncooperative.
Who are the officers and what did they say exactly?
>That is probably true.
> Cause he was not as dumb as the police tried to make him out to be. Sure
> he wasn't the brightest bulb, but he did know enough to keep his mouth
> shut. Every time he was dragged down the hallway in front of the cameras,
> he was asking for an attorney. And I'm sure he repeated his rights behind
> closed doors.
You figure he didn`t talk despite so many people saying he did. As
usual a CTer chooses his own figuring over the evidence.
> Yes by then they had the rifle and the shells. But they didn't have the
> paper trail, yet. Which lead to the line up!
It`s routine to show suspects to the people who witnessed the crime,
but you see it as part of some master plan to railroad Oswald. It`s
how you guys think that is the problem.
> And here the witnesses could
> not pick him out.
You need to get up to speed on the evidence.
> Even though the line ups were made to show anyone that
> he was the one they wanted the witness to chose.
Is that what you think you would have done, select someone even if
you knew it wasn`t the person you saw?
> By law, if Oswald said anything to sway anything the witness in either
> direction the line up should have been scraped.
You`re making stuff up now.
> But the DPD did the
> opposite. They even encouraged the witnesses to pick out Oswald even
> though it was already obvious he was the suspect. And at court the line up
> evidence would have been thrown out.
You think that all a guilty person needs to do is kick up a fuss and
he can nullify any attempt at identification?
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
the suspect. Likely he would have appeared more guilty cuffed and
gagged.
> More than likely he was still screaming that he wanted an
> attorney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk
> He wanted his Constitutional rights to have an attorney present
> at the line ups and during the interrogation.
> Some officers stated Oswald didn't say anything during these interrogation
> and they said he was arrogant and uncooperative.
>That is probably true.
> Cause he was not as dumb as the police tried to make him out to be. Sure
> he wasn't the brightest bulb, but he did know enough to keep his mouth
> shut. Every time he was dragged down the hallway in front of the cameras,
> he was asking for an attorney. And I'm sure he repeated his rights behind
> closed doors.
usual a CTer chooses his own figuring over the evidence.
> Yes by then they had the rifle and the shells. But they didn't have the
> paper trail, yet. Which lead to the line up!
but you see it as part of some master plan to railroad Oswald. It`s
how you guys think that is the problem.
> And here the witnesses could
> not pick him out.
> Even though the line ups were made to show anyone that
> he was the one they wanted the witness to chose.
you knew it wasn`t the person you saw?
> By law, if Oswald said anything to sway anything the witness in either
> direction the line up should have been scraped.
> But the DPD did the
> opposite. They even encouraged the witnesses to pick out Oswald even
> though it was already obvious he was the suspect. And at court the line up
> evidence would have been thrown out.
he can nullify any attempt at identification?
Research
Oct 19, 2012, 7:58:54 PM10/19/12
to
news:9fcb1dc9-210b-43c5...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
If he had done that he would have stuck out like a red rose. And what about
the police telling the witnesses that Oswald was the one "they" thought
killed the President and Tippit? That didn't have any effect on the
witnesses. Reguardless of Oswald's actions, that police statement at the
time would have cause them to chose Oswald.
> More than likely he was still screaming that he wanted an
> attorney.
There is some film of his protests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk
Why wouldn't Oswald protest this line up? He was being placed with the two
mexicans. No, no violation there?
> He wanted his Constitutional rights to have an attorney present
> at the line ups and during the interrogation.
He should have exercised that right when it was offered to him.
Besides why wasn't the FBI in charge of interrogating Oswald? That was a
violation of federal law procedure. Federal law takes presidence over
state law. The murder of the president would surely be more important than
murdering a policeman. In any case Oswald did have the right to an
attorney, once a charge is made.
Being in a line up is not the place to plead for an attorney, even though
he was right. He refused to answer questions and demanded his
consitutional right to have an attorney.
We only have police reports filled out by the police that were violating
Oswald's rights. Oswald did not declined the very rights he wanted
observed. Maranda rights is once the suspects request an attorney, one
must be appointed immediately and all procedures must be stopped. That is
common law. Everybody knows that. And where is the police report stating
Oswald was served with his Maranda rights.
He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
Ruby.
> Some officers stated Oswald didn't say anything during these interrogation
> and they said he was arrogant and uncooperative.
Who are the officers and what did they say exactly?
That is what I want you to say. You point your finger, and you can't site
the very argument you propose. But I do remember Hill stating that before
the Dallas cameras. Along with others.
>That is probably true.
> Cause he was not as dumb as the police tried to make him out to be. Sure
> he wasn't the brightest bulb, but he did know enough to keep his mouth
> shut. Every time he was dragged down the hallway in front of the cameras,
> he was asking for an attorney. And I'm sure he repeated his rights behind
> closed doors.
You figure he didn`t talk despite so many people saying he did. As
usual a CTer chooses his own figuring over the evidence.
Just yesterday I was reviewing the DPD reports and saw what Oswald had
said. He did talk and he did deny a lot. The Q&A's were not recorded, word
for word like police procedure calls for. The officier was smart enough to
place the police disclaimer at the end of his report.
> Yes by then they had the rifle and the shells. But they didn't have the
> paper trail, yet. Which lead to the line up!
It`s routine to show suspects to the people who witnessed the crime, but
you see it as part of some master plan to railroad Oswald. It`s how you
guys think that is the problem.
They did not have time to put the case together. He was arrested just
after noon and was in a line up just a few hours later? What was the rush?
Did the keystoners think Oswald was going for a breakout?
> And here the witnesses could
> not pick him out.
You need to get up to speed on the evidence.
Like I already said I read some of the witnesses reports. They did sign
DPD statements saying that the #2 man was the man they saw. All of them
did. Now was that the line up with the teenagers or the one with the
business suites? Or did they say the #2 man because the police told them
the #2 man was the one they (the police) thought killed the president?
> Even though the line ups were made to show anyone that
> he was the one they wanted the witness to chose.
Is that what you think you would have done, select someone even if
you knew it wasn`t the person you saw?
> By law, if Oswald said anything to sway anything the witness in either
> direction the line up should have been scraped.
You`re making stuff up now.
> But the DPD did the
> opposite. They even encouraged the witnesses to pick out Oswald even
> though it was already obvious he was the suspect. And at court the line up
> evidence would have been thrown out.
You think that all a guilty person needs to do is kick up a fuss and
he can nullify any attempt at identification?
Any two bit attorney could get this evidence thrown out.
On Oct 17, 4:23 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
the police telling the witnesses that Oswald was the one "they" thought
killed the President and Tippit? That didn't have any effect on the
witnesses. Reguardless of Oswald's actions, that police statement at the
time would have cause them to chose Oswald.
> More than likely he was still screaming that he wanted an
> attorney.
There is some film of his protests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk
mexicans. No, no violation there?
> He wanted his Constitutional rights to have an attorney present
> at the line ups and during the interrogation.
He should have exercised that right when it was offered to him.
violation of federal law procedure. Federal law takes presidence over
state law. The murder of the president would surely be more important than
murdering a policeman. In any case Oswald did have the right to an
attorney, once a charge is made.
Being in a line up is not the place to plead for an attorney, even though
he was right. He refused to answer questions and demanded his
consitutional right to have an attorney.
We only have police reports filled out by the police that were violating
Oswald's rights. Oswald did not declined the very rights he wanted
observed. Maranda rights is once the suspects request an attorney, one
must be appointed immediately and all procedures must be stopped. That is
common law. Everybody knows that. And where is the police report stating
Oswald was served with his Maranda rights.
He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
Ruby.
> Some officers stated Oswald didn't say anything during these interrogation
> and they said he was arrogant and uncooperative.
Who are the officers and what did they say exactly?
the very argument you propose. But I do remember Hill stating that before
the Dallas cameras. Along with others.
>That is probably true.
> Cause he was not as dumb as the police tried to make him out to be. Sure
> he wasn't the brightest bulb, but he did know enough to keep his mouth
> shut. Every time he was dragged down the hallway in front of the cameras,
> he was asking for an attorney. And I'm sure he repeated his rights behind
> closed doors.
You figure he didn`t talk despite so many people saying he did. As
usual a CTer chooses his own figuring over the evidence.
said. He did talk and he did deny a lot. The Q&A's were not recorded, word
for word like police procedure calls for. The officier was smart enough to
place the police disclaimer at the end of his report.
> Yes by then they had the rifle and the shells. But they didn't have the
> paper trail, yet. Which lead to the line up!
It`s routine to show suspects to the people who witnessed the crime, but
you see it as part of some master plan to railroad Oswald. It`s how you
guys think that is the problem.
after noon and was in a line up just a few hours later? What was the rush?
Did the keystoners think Oswald was going for a breakout?
> And here the witnesses could
> not pick him out.
You need to get up to speed on the evidence.
DPD statements saying that the #2 man was the man they saw. All of them
did. Now was that the line up with the teenagers or the one with the
business suites? Or did they say the #2 man because the police told them
the #2 man was the one they (the police) thought killed the president?
> Even though the line ups were made to show anyone that
> he was the one they wanted the witness to chose.
Is that what you think you would have done, select someone even if
you knew it wasn`t the person you saw?
> By law, if Oswald said anything to sway anything the witness in either
> direction the line up should have been scraped.
You`re making stuff up now.
> But the DPD did the
> opposite. They even encouraged the witnesses to pick out Oswald even
> though it was already obvious he was the suspect. And at court the line up
> evidence would have been thrown out.
You think that all a guilty person needs to do is kick up a fuss and
he can nullify any attempt at identification?
Bud
Oct 20, 2012, 8:53:14 PM10/20/12
to
> And what about
> the police telling the witnesses that Oswald was the one "they" thought
> killed the President and Tippit?
> That didn't have any effect on the
> witnesses. Reguardless of Oswald's actions, that police statement at the
> time would have cause them to chose Oswald.
have selected anyone unless they were the person I saw.
> > More than likely he was still screaming that he wanted an
> > attorney.
>
> There is some film of his protests.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk
>
> Why wouldn't Oswald protest this line up? He was being placed with the two
> mexicans. No, no violation there?
have people on hand that are close to every size, shape and color of
suspect?
> > He wanted his Constitutional rights to have an attorney present
> > at the line ups and during the interrogation.
>
> He should have exercised that right when it was offered to him.
>
> Besides why wasn't the FBI in charge of interrogating Oswald?
> That was a
> violation of federal law procedure.
>Federal law takes presidence over
> state law.
> The murder of the president would surely be more important than
> murdering a policeman.
> In any case Oswald did have the right to an
> attorney, once a charge is made.
> Being in a line up is not the place to plead for an attorney, even though
> he was right. He refused to answer questions and demanded his
> consitutional right to have an attorney.
> We only have police reports filled out by the police that were violating
> Oswald's rights.
investigators who sat in on the interrogations.
>Oswald did not declined the very rights he wanted
> observed.
> Maranda rights is once the suspects request an attorney, one
> must be appointed immediately and all procedures must be stopped. That is
> common law. Everybody knows that.
1966.
> And where is the police report stating
> Oswald was served with his Maranda rights.
talk, but by talking he waved that right.
> He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
> conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
> Ruby.
himself as a victim. Some people bought into it.
> > Some officers stated Oswald didn't say anything during these interrogation
> > and they said he was arrogant and uncooperative.
>
> Who are the officers and what did they say exactly?
>
> That is what I want you to say. You point your finger, and you can't site
> the very argument you propose. But I do remember Hill stating that before
> the Dallas cameras. Along with others.
questions in a radio interview...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqkSV1TyYao
But he is talking about questions he asked him on the ride to the
station, not the interrogations conducted by Fritz.
> >That is probably true.
> > Cause he was not as dumb as the police tried to make him out to be. Sure
> > he wasn't the brightest bulb, but he did know enough to keep his mouth
> > shut. Every time he was dragged down the hallway in front of the cameras,
> > he was asking for an attorney. And I'm sure he repeated his rights behind
> > closed doors.
>
> You figure he didn`t talk despite so many people saying he did. As
> usual a CTer chooses his own figuring over the evidence.
>
> Just yesterday I was reviewing the DPD reports and saw what Oswald had
> said. He did talk and he did deny a lot.
pick him out of line-ups. If you cure yourself of enough ignorance you
might be able to figure this crime out.
>The Q&A's were not recorded, word
> for word like police procedure calls for.
>The officier was smart enough to
> place the police disclaimer at the end of his report.
> > Yes by then they had the rifle and the shells. But they didn't have the
> > paper trail, yet. Which lead to the line up!
>
> It`s routine to show suspects to the people who witnessed the crime, but
> you see it as part of some master plan to railroad Oswald. It`s how you
> guys think that is the problem.
>
> They did not have time to put the case together. He was arrested just
> after noon and was in a line up just a few hours later? What was the rush?
evidence and all that.
> Did the keystoners think Oswald was going for a breakout?
> > And here the witnesses could
> > not pick him out.
>
> You need to get up to speed on the evidence.
>
> Like I already said I read some of the witnesses reports. They did sign
> DPD statements saying that the #2 man was the man they saw. All of them
> did. Now was that the line up with the teenagers or the one with the
> business suites? Or did they say the #2 man because the police told them
> the #2 man was the one they (the police) thought killed the president?
least that is what they say. You can imagine that everyone was out to
get Oswald if you like.
> > Even though the line ups were made to show anyone that
> > he was the one they wanted the witness to chose.
>
> Is that what you think you would have done, select someone even if
> you knew it wasn`t the person you saw?
he wasn`t the person you saw previously?
> > By law, if Oswald said anything to sway anything the witness in either
> > direction the line up should have been scraped.
>
> You`re making stuff up now.
your assertion.
> > But the DPD did the
> > opposite. They even encouraged the witnesses to pick out Oswald even
> > though it was already obvious he was the suspect. And at court the line up
> > evidence would have been thrown out.
>
> You think that all a guilty person needs to do is kick up a fuss and
> he can nullify any attempt at identification?
>
> Any two bit attorney could get this evidence thrown out.
kick up a fuss at a line-up and no identification is possible?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 20, 2012, 10:58:07 PM10/20/12
to
>> Maranda rights is once the suspects request an attorney, one
>> must be appointed immediately and all procedures must be stopped. That is
>> common law. Everybody knows that.
>
> What everyone doesn`t know is that it didn`t come into effect intil
> 1966.
>
>> And where is the police report stating
>> Oswald was served with his Maranda rights.
>
> It wouldn`t matter if he decided to talk. He had the right not to
> talk, but by talking he waved that right.
>
decision would not come for a couple of years.
>> He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
>> conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
>> Ruby.
>
> Yah, he said a lot of things that weren`t true, trying to portray
> himself as a victim. Some people bought into it.
>
means that he is guilty?
Bud
Oct 21, 2012, 7:13:57 PM10/21/12
to
> >> Maranda rights is once the suspects request an attorney, one
> >> must be appointed immediately and all procedures must be stopped. That is
> >> common law. Everybody knows that.
>
> > What everyone doesn`t know is that it didn`t come into effect intil
> > 1966.
>
> >> And where is the police report stating
> >> Oswald was served with his Maranda rights.
>
> > It wouldn`t matter if he decided to talk. He had the right not to
> > talk, but by talking he waved that right.
>
> What ruling granted him that right? Be very explicit. The Miranda
> decision would not come for a couple of years.
very explicit.
> >> He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
> >> conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
> >> Ruby.
>
> > Yah, he said a lot of things that weren`t true, trying to portray
> > himself as a victim. Some people bought into it.
>
> So in your world when a suspect says that he is innocent you think that
> means that he is guilty?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 21, 2012, 9:52:14 PM10/21/12
to
Refuse to allow him to see his family or a lawyer.
Put him in a phony line-up.
Forcibly take his fingerprints and rip out his hair and pubic hair for
samples. Refuse to let him use the bathroom.
SOP for Dallas cops.
>>>> He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
>>>> conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
>>>> Ruby.
>>
>>> Yah, he said a lot of things that weren`t true, trying to portray
>>> himself as a victim. Some people bought into it.
>>
>> So in your world when a suspect says that he is innocent you think that
>> means that he is guilty?
>
> What do you is it establishes when a suspect claims he is innocent?
>
Bud
Oct 22, 2012, 4:55:59 PM10/22/12
to
his rights. Maybe a good waterboarding.
> Refuse to allow him to see his family or a lawyer.
Oswald, incidentally was allowed to see his family and was offered a
lawyer.
> Put him in a phony line-up.
Don`t see how that would get him to talk about the crimes he was a
> Put him in a phony line-up.
suspect in. You ideas don`t seem to hold up under scrutiny.
> Forcibly take his fingerprints and rip out his hair and pubic hair for
> samples.
>Refuse to let him use the bathroom.
Oswald was allowed use of the bathroom, though.
> SOP for Dallas cops.
Making spurious charges is SOP for you.
> >>>> He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
> >>>> conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
> >>>> Ruby.
>
> >>> Yah, he said a lot of things that weren`t true, trying to portray
> >>> himself as a victim. Some people bought into it.
>
> >> So in your world when a suspect says that he is innocent you think that
> >> means that he is guilty?
>
> > What do you is it establishes when a suspect claims he is innocent?
>
> What I believe is not on trial. Only what you believe.
my beliefs matter, I believe nothing much is established when a suspect
claims to be innocent (see Sandusky`s recent claims of innocence). Now,
had Oswald offered anything to back up his claims, this might be
meaningful. I find it meaningful that he didn`t do what would be expected
of an innocent person to do in his situation, find out the facts of the
crime so he could show he wasn`t involved.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 22, 2012, 8:14:27 PM10/22/12
to
are police methods. Do you mean that you agree that police should torture
suspects? No revelation there.
>> Refuse to allow him to see his family or a lawyer.
>
> How would this make him talk?
>
> Oswald, incidentally was allowed to see his family and was offered a
> lawyer.
>
>> Put him in a phony line-up.
>
> Don`t see how that would get him to talk about the crimes he was a
> suspect in. You ideas don`t seem to hold up under scrutiny.
>
Remember that in the case of Galileo all they had to do is SHOW him the
instruments of torture, not actually torture him.
>> Forcibly take his fingerprints and rip out his hair and pubic hair for
>> samples.
>
> How would this standard collection of evidence make him talk?
>
You approve of torturing suspects.
>> Refuse to let him use the bathroom.
>
> This might make him talk, but only about how bad he had to go.
>
> Oswald was allowed use of the bathroom, though.
>
loudly about the police violating his rights, including basic sanitary.
>> SOP for Dallas cops.
>
> Making spurious charges is SOP for you.
>
>>>>>> He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
>>>>>> conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
>>>>>> Ruby.
>>
>>>>> Yah, he said a lot of things that weren`t true, trying to portray
>>>>> himself as a victim. Some people bought into it.
>>
>>>> So in your world when a suspect says that he is innocent you think that
>>>> means that he is guilty?
>>
>>> What do you is it establishes when a suspect claims he is innocent?
>>
>> What I believe is not on trial. Only what you believe.
>
> It`s good to see you admit that your beliefs are meaningless. Since only
> my beliefs matter, I believe nothing much is established when a suspect
police should torture suspects to force confessions out of them.
> claims to be innocent (see Sandusky`s recent claims of innocence). Now,
> had Oswald offered anything to back up his claims, this might be
> meaningful. I find it meaningful that he didn`t do what would be expected
> of an innocent person to do in his situation, find out the facts of the
> crime so he could show he wasn`t involved.
>
lawyer's job to go out and find the evidence.
Bud
Oct 22, 2012, 10:41:48 PM10/22/12
to
taken that smirk off his face.
> >> Refuse to allow him to see his family or a lawyer.
>
> > How would this make him talk?
>
> Pressure, isolation.
him to talk.
> > Oswald, incidentally was allowed to see his family and was offered a
> > lawyer.
>
> Yes, he was. Maybe because he cooperated with the police.
> >> Put him in a phony line-up.
>
> > Don`t see how that would get him to talk about the crimes he was a
> > suspect in. You ideas don`t seem to hold up under scrutiny.
>
> I didn't say to force him to talk. Used as a punishment if he didn't.
> Remember that in the case of Galileo all they had to do is SHOW him the
> instruments of torture, not actually torture him.
don`t seem to stand up to scrutiny.
> >> Forcibly take his fingerprints and rip out his hair and pubic hair for
> >> samples.
>
> > How would this standard collection of evidence make him talk?
>
> You know absolutely nothing about standard police procedure.
routine evidence collection. Don`t you?
> You approve of torturing suspects.
to Oswald. It took it upon himself to kill and President and got what
he deserved.
> >> Refuse to let him use the bathroom.
>
> > This might make him talk, but only about how bad he had to go.
>
> > Oswald was allowed use of the bathroom, though.
>
> Because he cooperated and answered their questions. But he did complain
> loudly about the police violating his rights, including basic sanitary.
cannot afford one a stylist will be appointed to you?
> >> SOP for Dallas cops.
>
> > Making spurious charges is SOP for you.
>
> We've seen it year after year.
> >>>>>> He was still asking for ANY ATTORNEY to come forward at his press
> >>>>>> conference the evening before the police allowed him to be executed by
> >>>>>> Ruby.
>
> >>>>> Yah, he said a lot of things that weren`t true, trying to portray
> >>>>> himself as a victim. Some people bought into it.
>
> >>>> So in your world when a suspect says that he is innocent you think that
> >>>> means that he is guilty?
>
> >>> What do you is it establishes when a suspect claims he is innocent?
>
> >> What I believe is not on trial. Only what you believe.
>
> > It`s good to see you admit that your beliefs are meaningless. Since only
>
> Not meaningless. Not on trial.
> > my beliefs matter, I believe nothing much is established when a suspect
>
> Your beliefs mean nothing. You have already admitted that you think the
> police should torture suspects to force confessions out of them.
really trying to get information.
> > claims to be innocent (see Sandusky`s recent claims of innocence). Now,
> > had Oswald offered anything to back up his claims, this might be
>
> He did. He offered alibis.
said.
> > meaningful. I find it meaningful that he didn`t do what would be expected
> > of an innocent person to do in his situation, find out the facts of the
> > crime so he could show he wasn`t involved.
>
> He had no way to do that because he was denied a lawyer.
> It is the
> lawyer's job to go out and find the evidence.
could not have committed the crime. To do this he would need the
particulars, to show he couldn`t have done it. Oswald`s lack of
curiosity is a strong indication of guilt.
John Reagor King
Oct 23, 2012, 8:23:33 PM10/23/12
to
In article <14e0570b-c3c7-4e23...@googlegroups.com>,
Oh, so are you saying that you post things just to try to provoke
responses, Mr. Blubaugh? Research, characteristically, misunderstood what
Ace said and interpreted the "troll" accusation as being a criticism of a
failure to go along with the WC, when in fact Ace was criticizing
something entirely different: Research at first acting as if he "didn't
know" the answer to the question he asked and then subsequently revealing
that he knew the answer all along and posted the question just to provoke
responses and for no other reason.
responses, Mr. Blubaugh? Research, characteristically, misunderstood what
Ace said and interpreted the "troll" accusation as being a criticism of a
failure to go along with the WC, when in fact Ace was criticizing
something entirely different: Research at first acting as if he "didn't
know" the answer to the question he asked and then subsequently revealing
that he knew the answer all along and posted the question just to provoke
responses and for no other reason.
Research
Oct 26, 2012, 3:40:19 PM10/26/12
to
"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-4E0854...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
your insults. You are a defender also. You try to cover it up but we can
read. King is one of those diligent that is told what to think but trys to
make it look like it was his idea all along. I did know about the DPD list
of witnesses. I didn't know where it was. When one of the posters made
aware where it was, I read most of the statements. I found none of the
LNers said anything about the witnesses who actually identified Oswald as
the Tippit or Kennedy murderer. They ALL just augured mute points. All
that back and forth nonsense, usual as usual.
Referring to the DPD witness list is very funny. Cause, like I said the
DPD statements signed by the witnesses stated they chose # 2 as the man
they saw to so-n-so. The report never said it was actually Oswald only #2.
But lead the reader to believe Oswald was #2 but may not have been Oswald
at all. Cause when called to the hearings most of the witnesses the LNers
claimed identified Oswald, DIDN'T. But the LNers keep claiming the
witnesses did identify Oswald. But out of all the post you guys wrote not
one of the LNers actually sited any evidence that proved or disproved
evidence. Just a back&forth malarkey. As I DID suspect would happen. As it
happens in every discussion with you guys.
I was asking (regardless of what King thinks) for the actual evidence. But
so far mostly criticism has surfaced, because a logical discussion can't
be found here. (In most cases.) After reading the DPD statements I came to
the conclusion that the reports were falsified by the DPD when they
claimed the witnesses identified Oswald. Sort of like the CIA claiming to
have photo evidence of Oswald at the Cuban embassy. Then it turned out to
be an imposter. The CIA then claimed the "equipment" was down that day?
Then denied there was an imposter. And this photo evidence has NEVER
surfaced, BUT the LNers still claim it was Oswald based on that very
evidence. SOOO HELL YEAH I think the DPD did make up whatever evidence
they needed to frame Oswald. He may have been in the window. The evidence
is not there. I don't know if it was the patsy in the window. And you
don't either. /:)
John Reagor King
Oct 28, 2012, 6:21:15 PM10/28/12
to
In article <508a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
That sounds just like you. Yet again you accuse others of things of which
you are at least equally guilty, if not more so. Remember when you kept
accusing me falsely of posting links "incorrectly" and refusing to ever
admit that it was really you who was not going to those links correctly?
> You are a defender also.
I defend what I honestly believe to be the truth, yes.
> You try to cover it up but we can
> read.
I cover up nothing.
> King is one of those diligent that is told what to think
No one tells me what to think, and you cannot come within a million
light-years of proving otherwise.
> but trys
You mean "tries."
> to
> make it look like it was his idea all along.
Nonsense.
> I did know about the DPD list
> of witnesses. I didn't know where it was. When one of the posters made
> aware where it was, I read most of the statements. I found none of the
> LNers said anything about the witnesses who actually identified Oswald as
> the Tippit or Kennedy murderer. They ALL just augured mute points. All
> that back and forth nonsense, usual as usual.
Just like you.
you are at least equally guilty, if not more so. Remember when you kept
accusing me falsely of posting links "incorrectly" and refusing to ever
admit that it was really you who was not going to those links correctly?
> You are a defender also.
> You try to cover it up but we can
> read.
> King is one of those diligent that is told what to think
light-years of proving otherwise.
> but trys
You mean "tries."
> to
> make it look like it was his idea all along.
> I did know about the DPD list
> of witnesses. I didn't know where it was. When one of the posters made
> aware where it was, I read most of the statements. I found none of the
> LNers said anything about the witnesses who actually identified Oswald as
> the Tippit or Kennedy murderer. They ALL just augured mute points. All
> that back and forth nonsense, usual as usual.
0 new messages