Evidence for conspiracy in the murder of JFK

[charles wallace]

Below are three incidences of people exhibiting knowledge that they
should not have. LNers will say its a fluke or some sort of
coincidence. There are no coincidences when investigating a murder.


If I can put someone who was not an employee of the TSBD on the sixth
floor at noon after the sixth floor crew had left for lunch, would
that convince anyone of conspiracy or Oswald's innocence? If this same
person made an overt attempt to name Oswald as the sixth floor shooter
to authorities before Tippit was even shot, would this convince anyone
of conspiracy or Oswald's innocence? These two facts being
established as having happened, would doubt be created as to Oswald
being the shooter in the minds of the 'Oswald did it crowd'? After all
he said to reporters after his arrest 'No, I didn't shoot anybody'. He
also said 'I don't know what this is all about'.
......................................................................

Evidence for incident no. 1:

Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer pulled up and parked in
front of the TSBD a few minutes after the last shot in the
assassination of JFK. He took charge of the scene and ordered the
building sealed off. He directed officers and witnesses as to where to
go to have their information recorded.

Below is the testimony excerpt that proves that Givens and Oswald's
encounter was witnessed by someone on the sixth floor as it
happened.This was not an employee of the TSBD because an employee
would just say I saw Oswald on the sixth floor and Givens was a
witness also. This non-TSBD employee said only to Sawyer that he
should talk to Charles Givens for the name of the man that was on the
sixth floor knowing that Givens would name Oswald. This information
given to Sawyer did not come from Givens or Oswald, therefore it had
to come from a hidden person on the sixth floor at noon.


Testimony of Dallas police inspector J. Herbert Sawyer:
(excerpt)
Mr. SAWYER. No. There is another broadcast in there somewhere, though.
I put out another description on the colored boy that worked in that
department.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean the colored boy that worked in that
depository?
Mr. SAWYER. He is one that had a previous record in the narcotics, and
he was supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor.
He was supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there.
Mr. BELIN. Would Charles Givens have been that boy?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I think that is the name, and I put out a description
on him.
Mr. BELIN. How do you know he was supposed to be a witness on that?
Mr. SAWYER. Somebody told me that. Somebody came to me with the
information. And again, that particular party, whoever it was, I don't
know. I remember that a deputy sheriff came up to me who had been over
taking these affidavits, that I sent them over there, and he came over
from the sheriff's office with a picture and a description of this
colored boy and he said that he was supposed to have worked at the
Texas Book Depository, and he was the one employee who was missing, or
he was missing from the building.
He wasn't accounted for, and that he was suppose to have some
information about the man that did the shooting.
Mr. BELIN. When you say about the man who did the shooting, did you
know at that time who did the shooting?
Mr. SAWYER. No.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know about what time in the afternoon this was?
Mr. SAWYER. Somewhere along in here; let's see if we can't find it.
Mr. BELIN. This doesn't go past 1:53 p.m.
Mr. SAWYER. What about your other transcript?
Mr. BELIN. I have a transcript of another one here, at least I did
have.
Mr. SAWYER. I think we caught the man in the crowd later and sent him
down. We sent him directly down to Captain Fritz's office.
Mr. BELIN. Well, just a minute now. I see here on No. 1, you have two
channels there.
Mr. SAWYER. This is Channel 1, yes.
Mr. BELIN. We will call this Sawyer's Deposition Exhibit B.
I see here that you go on at 12:45 p.m., with this statement by your
No. 9. You want to read it?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes.
(excerpt)
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. SAWYER. Later that afternoon one of our colored officer detectives
saw this colored man in this crowd across the street and we had
previously broadcast a description on, and he took him into custody
and sent him immediately down to Captain Fritz' office.
Mr. BELIN. He gave a statement, is that it?
Mr. SAWYER. This I don't know. I presume he did, but I didn't stop to
talk to him or take any information. I just sent him on down there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The important thing about the Givens and Oswald encounter at noon is
that no one else was supposed to have this knowledge at the time that
it was given to Sawyer. This means someone else was on the sixth floor
that knew Givens and Oswald and most likely he was the real sixth
floor shooter. The real shooter had to get Oswald's rifle from him
somehow. There was an anonymous poster in the year 2000 who said the
sixth floor shooter managed to make a deal with Oswald to trade his
rifle to him. This trade was supposed to take place after work on
Friday.

I think this sixth floor shooter had to know where Oswald lived in
order to make the deal Wednesday afternoon/evening or early Thursday
morning because Oswald arranged with Wesley Frazier about 8:30
Thursday for a ride to Irving that afternoon. The FBI didn't know
about the room on Beckley and the Dallas Police learned about it
through Captain Fritz. Here is how Fritz learned about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence for incident no.2:

WC testimony (excerpt)

Mr. BALL. Yes. What did you do after you had sent the officers to
Irving?
Mr. FRITZ. When I started to talk to this prisoner or maybe just
before I started to talk to him, some officer told me outside of my
office that he had a room on Beckley, I don't know who that officer
was, I think we can find out, I have since I have talked to you this
morning I have talked to Lieutenant Baker and he says I know maybe who
that officer was, but I am not sure yet.
Mr. BALL. Some officer told you that he thought this man had a room on
Beckley?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Had he been brought into the station by that time?
Mr. FRITZ. He was at the station when we got there, you know.
Mr. BALL. He was?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; so then I talked to him and I asked him where his
room was on Beckley.
Mr. BALL. Then you started to interrogate Oswald, did you?
Mr. FRITZ. yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you called him into your room?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

(excerpt)
Mr. BALL. Was there anything said about where he lived?
Mr. FRITZ. Where he lived? Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. FRITZ. I am sure I had no way of asking him where he lived but I
am not too sure about that--just how quick he told me because he
corrected me, I thought he lived in Irving and he told me he didn't
live in Irving. He lived on Beckley as the officer had told me
outside.
(quote off)
......................................................................

Here we have another example of a person who has knowledge that he is
not supposed to have. Oswald when arrested did not have any written
information on him that listed his room address nor did he tell any of
the arresting officers about his room on Beckley. Fritz referred to
this person as an officer so I believe this person was in a Dallas
police uniform. Sawyer said and I quote "Somebody told me that.
Somebody came to me with the information. And again, that particular
party, whoever it was, I don't know.". This could also be the same
person Fritz talked to dressed in a Dallas police uniform because in
Sawyer's testimony he refers to bystanders with information as
witnesses not just 'somebody'.

The third incident of someone having knowledge that they are not
supposed to have is displayed by Oswald's roominghouse housekeeper
Earlene Roberts in her testimony to the Warren Commission. Here are
pertinent excerpts:
......................................................................

Evidence for incident no. 3:


WC Testimony of Earlene Roberts

Mr. BALL. Did a police car pass the house there and honked?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. When was that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He came in the house.
Mr. BALL. When he came in the house ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. When he came in the house and went to his room, you know
how the sidewalk runs?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Right direct in front of that door-there was a police
car stopped and honked. I had worked for some policemen and sometimes
they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want
me to know, and I thought it was them, and I just glanced out and saw
the number, and I said, "Oh, that's not their car," for I knew their
car.
Mr. BALL. You mean, it was not the car of the policemen you knew?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It wasn't the police car I knew, because their number
was 170 and it wasn't 170 and I ignored it.
Mr. BALL. And who was in the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I didn't pay any attention to it after I
noticed it wasn't them-I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Where was it parked ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It was parked in front of the house.
Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?
Mrs. ROBERTS. And then they just eased on--the way it is-it was the
third house off of Zangs and they just went on around the corner that
way.
Mr. BALL. Went around what corner?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Went around the corner off of Beckley on Zangs.
(Excerpt)
Mr. BALL. Where was Oswald when this happened?
Mrs. ROBERTS. In his room.
(excerpt)
Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this
incident to anyone?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when
they was out there.
Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I did--I'm not sure. I think I
did because there was so much happened then until my brains was in a
whirl.
Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and
James Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you
and you told them that "after Oswald had entered his room about 1 p.m.
on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front window and saw police
car No. 207?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.
Mr. BALL. Is that the number?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that
106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.
Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the
car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident
squad car at all.
Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the horn ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.
Mr. BALL. And then drove on from Beckley toward Zangs Boulevard, is
that right?
(quote off)
......................................................................

So we have here people dressed in police uniforms or real policemen
who knew where Oswald lived. The FBI and the Dallas police did not
know that Oswald lived on Beckley. The FBI and the DPD could not
determine what police car came by Oswald's room thirty minutes after
JFK had been shot in Dealey Plaza. This testimony to me proves
conspiracy because it is two people in the car which meets the
definition of conspiracy. The above 3 factual incidents along with
many other pieces of evidence prove to me that Oswald was not part of
the conspiracy. I believe Oswald shot DPD Officer Tippit because he
mistakenly thought Tippit was part of the conspiracy and was about to
kill him.

I urge the authorities to at least declare that JFK's murder was a
conspiracy and for LNers to educate themselves and realize that Oswald
was not a lone nut.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth.....persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic," John Fitzgerald Kennedy

President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred and
bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas
Morning News

" I'm just a patsy " Lee H. Oswald,1963; "Thomas Jefferson once said
that if you expect a people to be ignorant and free you expect what
never was and never will be." JFK, 1962.

http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK


http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

[John King]

In article
<813008a6-0c06-43bf...@w9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

charles wallace <chas1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Below are three incidences of people exhibiting knowledge that they
> should not have. LNers will say its a fluke or some sort of
> coincidence. There are no coincidences when investigating a murder.
>
> If I can put someone who was not an employee of the TSBD on the sixth
> floor at noon after the sixth floor crew had left for lunch, would
> that convince anyone of conspiracy or Oswald's innocence?

***IF*** you can. Below, you utterly fail to do so.

> If this same
> person made an overt attempt to name Oswald as the sixth floor shooter
> to authorities before Tippit was even shot, would this convince anyone
> of conspiracy or Oswald's innocence? These two facts being
> established as having happened, would doubt be created as to Oswald
> being the shooter in the minds of the 'Oswald did it crowd'? After all
> he said to reporters after his arrest 'No, I didn't shoot anybody'. He
> also said 'I don't know what this is all about'.
> ......................................................................
>
> Evidence for incident no. 1:
>
> Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer pulled up and parked in
> front of the TSBD a few minutes after the last shot in the
> assassination of JFK. He took charge of the scene and ordered the
> building sealed off. He directed officers and witnesses as to where to
> go to have their information recorded.
>
> Below is the testimony excerpt that proves that Givens

Oh duh, this is all about Sawyer's broadcast that Givens had "gone
missing," or something to that effect, and when I reminded some
ridiculous LN about that in 2003, who had made the provably erroneous
claim that Oswald was the only person reported as "missing" from the
TSBD, he falsely accused me of believing that Givens was involved in the
assassination

Surely this cannot be the sum and total of your evidence of a
conspiracy? Let us all join hands and read further:

Yes, yes, Sawyer was talking about Givens the whole time here,
obviously. I'm astonished that there is still even one CT on this
planet, even CTs who don't speak, read, or write English, who still
believes this is significant. But wait, maybe I'm mistaken. Let us all
join hands and read further:

> The important thing about the Givens and Oswald encounter at noon is
> that no one else was supposed to have this knowledge at the time that
> it was given to Sawyer. This means someone else was on the sixth floor
> that knew Givens and Oswald and most likely he was the real sixth
> floor shooter.

I am at a loss to determine how any reasonable person, even a reasonable
conspiracy-believer, could come to this conclusion. All Sawyer did was
put out an alert on Charles Givens, and then, as is plainly stated in
the above testimony that you yourself quoted above, Givens was found
merely standing across the street. You "didn't see" this statement,
even though you quoted it?

"Later that afternoon one of our colored officer detectives saw this
colored man in this crowd across the street and we had previously
broadcast a description on, and he took him into custody and sent him
immediately down to Captain Fritz' office."

Or are you irrationally harping on this part?

"He is one that had a previous record in the narcotics, and he was
supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor. He was
supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there."

That's not evidence of a non-employee of the TSBD being there. I assume
you knew long before today that Oswald really, really *was* an employee
of the TSBD? And so was Givens??

> The real shooter had to get Oswald's rifle from him
> somehow.

One would think. Sadly (for you alone) not one word, phrase, or
sentence you quoted above gives the slightest imaginable evidence, pro
or con, as to whether or not Oswald was the shooter.

When I quote WC testimony, at least most of the time I quote testimony
that is relevant to my argument, as hundreds of regular readers of this
newsgroup have seen since I first began posting here in 2002. You might
consider doing the same.

> There was an anonymous poster in the year 2000 who said the
> sixth floor shooter managed to make a deal with Oswald to trade his
> rifle to him. This trade was supposed to take place after work on
> Friday.

This, this, is credible evidence? An anonymous poster? Making this
totally unsupported claim c.37 years after the event?

You people believe just anything, no matter what it is, correct?

(And Mr. Blubaugh sez LNs ignore evidence. Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha!)

> I think this sixth floor shooter had to know where Oswald lived in
> order to make the deal Wednesday afternoon/evening or early Thursday
> morning because Oswald arranged with Wesley Frazier about 8:30
> Thursday for a ride to Irving that afternoon.

One would think the shooter would need to know where the rifle was in
order to use it, yes.

But wait, there has just *got* to be credible evidence further down in
this article, there just *has* to be. Not what I alone would consider
to be credible, nor what this poster alone would consider to be
credible, but what the majority of humans worldwide would consider to be
credible. Let's join hands again and read further:

I'm sorry, come again? Why on ***EARTH*** was Fritz "not supposed" to
know this??? He had a suspect in custody, and found out where the
suspect was living at the time. That is merely standard procedure for
any criminal investigation, in 1963, ***AND*** still today in 2012, in
all fifty states. Would you have preferred that the Aurora police not
have learned from James Holmes that his apartment was so full of
tripwires, explosives, and incendiaries, so that the first person who
opened the door (did you conveniently forget that one woman who lived
downstairs nearly opened the door?) would almost certainly been killed
or seriously burned beyond recognition, and that the entire building
almost certainly would have been burned to the ground, with humans
inside it at the time? Did you conveniently forget that Mr. Holmes
allegedly murdered a six-year-old child, and also shot her pregnant
mother, who subsequently lost her unborn child?

I have some severe problems with how Captain Will Fritz handled this
investigation, but what you have absurdly brought up is not one of them.
***ANY*** police investigator, in the United States, or any other
country which has ever existed, including countries which no longer
exist today, is merely doing her/his job in trying to learn where any
murder suspect lives at the time the murder(s) was/were committed. Will
Fritz was quite obviously doing the right thing here, even if he didn't
do the right thing elsewhere.

> Oswald when arrested did not have any written
> information on him that listed his room address nor did he tell any of
> the arresting officers about his room on Beckley.

So we are told. How on earth does this support your premise, indicated
at the beginning of your article, that you "can put someone who was not

an employee of the TSBD on the sixth floor at noon after the sixth floor

crew had left for lunch"? (Your exact words, I didn't make them up.)
None of this is even slightly relevant to that precise claim, not even
slightly. That would be the case even if it is *true* that the DPD
learned of the Beckley address through any type of unethical/illegal
method, and even if it is *true* that they were involved in a conspiracy
to assassinate the President. Even then, you are still failing to place
even one non-employee of the TSBD on the 6th floor as you said you were
going to.

When I start a thread with an initial sentence, at least usually I
fulfill the implication of that sentence somewhere later in the article,
and at least usually I do that somewhere within the first ten to twenty
sentences. I have gone through a lot more than ten to twenty sentences
of your article, and I am still waiting, and waiting, and waiting to
see, for the first time ever, just something, anything, that confirms
your initial claim that you "can put someone who was not an employee of

the TSBD on the sixth floor at noon after the sixth floor crew had left

for lunch."

But surely it must finally, at long last, appear below. Let us all
continue to join hands and read further:

Ok...well, that's the stuff about Roberts...but what on earth does that
have to do with your claim that you "can put someone who was not an

employee of the TSBD on the sixth floor at noon after the sixth floor

crew had left for lunch"?

You've gone after everything ***EXCEPT*** what you told us at the
beginning you were going after. You almost had me. I was willing to
give you the benefit of the doubt. But then you wrote about everything
*except* what you said you were going to write about. But, oh lordy,
everybody, we only have a few lines left. *Surely* the proof is in the
tiny remainder of this article. Join hands again (yes, yes, I know my
palms are disgustingly sweaty) and read the remainder:

> I urge the authorities to at least declare that JFK's murder was a
> conspiracy and for LNers to educate themselves and realize that Oswald
> was not a lone nut.

Educate themselves? On what, exactly? The non-evidence you have given
us?

> "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
> contrived and dishonest, but the myth.....persistent, persuasive and
> unrealistic," John Fitzgerald Kennedy
>
> President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred and
> bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
> bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas
> Morning News
>
> " I'm just a patsy " Lee H. Oswald,1963; "Thomas Jefferson once said
> that if you expect a people to be ignorant and free you expect what
> never was and never will be." JFK, 1962.
>
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

Oh dear.

Even after we CTs and LNs joined hands in abject servility, not one of
us saw even the slightest evidence to support the claim that the entity

"can put someone who was not an employee of the TSBD on the sixth

floor at noon after the sixth floor crew had left for lunch." The
poster instead wrote about everything *but* that.

Your initial claim should have instead been something like this:

"I can demonstrate that there are serious discrepancies as to how the
Dallas Police Department found out about Oswald's Beckley address."

I might have been with you on that. But why did you chose to make a
claim, and then talk about everything else *except* that claim??