> > On Oct 19, 7:58 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message

> >>news:9fcb1dc9-210b-43c5-a230-e09d22553c5f@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 17, 4:23 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>> lights?

> >>    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.

> >> If he had done that he would have stuck out like a red rose.

> >    He stuck out by making a fuss. Maybe he wanted to stick out.

> >> And what about
> >> the police telling the witnesses that Oswald was the one "they" thought
> >> killed the President and Tippit?

> >    Who said this and what did they say exactly?

> >> 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.

> >    You say this because that is what you would have done. I wouldn`t
> > 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?

> >    What makes you say they are Mexicans? And what makes you think they
> > 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?

> >    Dallas police had jurisdiction.

> >> That was a
> >> violation of federal law procedure.

> >    You are making stuff up.

> >> Federal law takes presidence over
> >> state law.

> >    You are making stuff up.

> >> The murder of the president would surely be more important than
> >> murdering a policeman.

> >    Is this part of your imaginary Federal law also?

> >> In any case Oswald did have the right to an
> >> attorney, once a charge is made.

> >    He was offered representation. He declined.

> >> 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.

> >    He did answer questions and he declined an offer of representation.

> >> We only have police reports filled out by the police that were violating
> >> Oswald's rights.

> >    No, we also have reports by SS agents, FBI agents and postal
> > investigators who sat in on the interrogations.

> >> Oswald did not declined the very rights he wanted
> >> observed.

> >    Are you calling the President of the Dallas ACLU a liar?

> Oswald told him he did not want a local lawyer.

> >    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.

> >    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?

> >>    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.

> >    Here is Hill talking about Oswald being arrogant and not answering
> > 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.

> >    Now you discover he talked. And you`ve discovered that witnesses did
> > 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.

> >    You`re making stuff up again.

> >> The officier was smart enough to
> >> place the police disclaimer at the end of his report.

> >    Huh?

> >>> 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?

> >    Identification is part of putting a case together. Gathering
> > evidence and all that.

> >> Did the keystoners think Oswald was going for a breakout?

> >    He might die suddenly in custody.

> >>> 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?

> >    I think they picked Oswald because Oswald is the man they saw. At
> > 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?

> >    "Reasearch", is it what you would have done, selected Oswald even if
> > 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.

> >    Seems I was right, since you`ve offered no such law in support of
> > 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.

> >    Non-responsive to the point. Do you think all a suspect has to do is
> > kick up a fuss at a line-up and no identification is possible?