Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #267
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 24, 2013, 8:59:28 AM5/24/13
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued to demonstrate how the Warren
Commission lied about Ruby contacts with the Dallas PD.
"Walter C. Clewis, the manager of the Municipal Auditorium in Mobile, Alabama,
told FBI agents that he had known Ruby in Dallas 'over a period of several
years'. Ruby had said 'not only to him but to other people in his presence that
he could do anything he wanted in Dallas as he had enough information on the
Police Department and judges that he could not be convicted'.
Whether Ruby's boast was true or not, the facts show that he was not convicted
of any of the charges filed against him during the ten-year period from 1953 to
1963, and that most of the charges against him were not even processed. Neither
was he arrested for many of the illegal acts that he committed publicly. Why
should this have been so? The Commission's unwillingness to explore or even to
acknowledge this question has made it difficult for us to find the answer.
However, certain Dallas police and court records do offer a clue.
Ruby was arrested on December 5, 1954, for a violation of the state liquor law,
and the case was dismissed on February 8, 1955. The records of the
Identification Bureau of the Dallas police reveal that Ruby was arrested at 1.30
a.m. on December 5 by Police Officers E. E. Carlson and D. L. Blankenship for
permitting consumption of alcoholic beverages during forbidden hours on a
Sunday. In the 'Summary of Case' appears the allegation that two persons, named
in the document, were permitted by Ruby to drink beer. The 'Arresting Officer's
Report' says that the two officers actually saw beer on the table after hours
and that a customer attempted 'to hold the bottle and said that it was her
beer'. The charge may seem trivial, but Ruby was the holder of a retail dealer's
on-premises license and he must have known that his right to continue operating
the nightclub was in jeopardy.
On February 8, 1955, a motion to dismiss the case was filed in the County Court
and was granted. It was filed not by Ruby's lawyer but by the Dallas District
Attorney's office, and it was signed by District Attorney Wade and an assistant.
According to their motion:
The witnesses in this case, Officers Blankenship and Carleon [sic] advised that
they conducted the investigation, but that it was filed without their knowledge.
The police report states that they observed customers consuming beer after
hours. Both officers stated that this is incorrect and they did not observe the
customers consuming beer. It is recommended that this case be dismissed because
of insufficient evidence.
After the assassination, agents of the FBI questioned the two police officers
and both stated that the allegations made by the District Attorney were untrue.
Blankenship told the FBI that the details set out in the police report were
'true and correct'. He would not arrest a nightclub owner, he said, unless he
actually saw the customers consuming beer after hours; he 'had nothing to do
with the dismissal' of the charges against Ruby; and no one from the District
Attorney's office had contacted him to ask about the validity of the charges.
Blankenship also said he did not know that the charges had been dismissed until
after Ruby was arrested for the murder of Oswald. Wade had told the Court that
the officers were in error in stating that a violation had taken place, but
Blankenship said that that allegation was untrue.
Detective Carlson told the FBI that 'he never withdrew' the charge and that he
had not been contacted by the District Attorney. Carlson believed he had typed
the police report himself, and he maintained it was accurate. Wade had told the
Court that the report was incorrect, but Carlson said that that allegation was
untrue.
If the arresting officers told the truth to the FBI, then the charge was
dismissed as the result of a series of incorrect statements made to the Court by
the District Attorney. If they did not tell the FBI the truth, then the case was
dismissed even though they agreed that there was no reason for the dismissal.
Ruby had predicted that he would never be convicted. His prediction for the time
being had been fulfilled. "
Mark Lane is showing just how far the Warren Commission was willing to go to lie
about the facts in this case. Billy Clarke continues his cowardice...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Commission lied about Ruby contacts with the Dallas PD.
"Walter C. Clewis, the manager of the Municipal Auditorium in Mobile, Alabama,
told FBI agents that he had known Ruby in Dallas 'over a period of several
years'. Ruby had said 'not only to him but to other people in his presence that
he could do anything he wanted in Dallas as he had enough information on the
Police Department and judges that he could not be convicted'.
Whether Ruby's boast was true or not, the facts show that he was not convicted
of any of the charges filed against him during the ten-year period from 1953 to
1963, and that most of the charges against him were not even processed. Neither
was he arrested for many of the illegal acts that he committed publicly. Why
should this have been so? The Commission's unwillingness to explore or even to
acknowledge this question has made it difficult for us to find the answer.
However, certain Dallas police and court records do offer a clue.
Ruby was arrested on December 5, 1954, for a violation of the state liquor law,
and the case was dismissed on February 8, 1955. The records of the
Identification Bureau of the Dallas police reveal that Ruby was arrested at 1.30
a.m. on December 5 by Police Officers E. E. Carlson and D. L. Blankenship for
permitting consumption of alcoholic beverages during forbidden hours on a
Sunday. In the 'Summary of Case' appears the allegation that two persons, named
in the document, were permitted by Ruby to drink beer. The 'Arresting Officer's
Report' says that the two officers actually saw beer on the table after hours
and that a customer attempted 'to hold the bottle and said that it was her
beer'. The charge may seem trivial, but Ruby was the holder of a retail dealer's
on-premises license and he must have known that his right to continue operating
the nightclub was in jeopardy.
On February 8, 1955, a motion to dismiss the case was filed in the County Court
and was granted. It was filed not by Ruby's lawyer but by the Dallas District
Attorney's office, and it was signed by District Attorney Wade and an assistant.
According to their motion:
The witnesses in this case, Officers Blankenship and Carleon [sic] advised that
they conducted the investigation, but that it was filed without their knowledge.
The police report states that they observed customers consuming beer after
hours. Both officers stated that this is incorrect and they did not observe the
customers consuming beer. It is recommended that this case be dismissed because
of insufficient evidence.
After the assassination, agents of the FBI questioned the two police officers
and both stated that the allegations made by the District Attorney were untrue.
Blankenship told the FBI that the details set out in the police report were
'true and correct'. He would not arrest a nightclub owner, he said, unless he
actually saw the customers consuming beer after hours; he 'had nothing to do
with the dismissal' of the charges against Ruby; and no one from the District
Attorney's office had contacted him to ask about the validity of the charges.
Blankenship also said he did not know that the charges had been dismissed until
after Ruby was arrested for the murder of Oswald. Wade had told the Court that
the officers were in error in stating that a violation had taken place, but
Blankenship said that that allegation was untrue.
Detective Carlson told the FBI that 'he never withdrew' the charge and that he
had not been contacted by the District Attorney. Carlson believed he had typed
the police report himself, and he maintained it was accurate. Wade had told the
Court that the report was incorrect, but Carlson said that that allegation was
untrue.
If the arresting officers told the truth to the FBI, then the charge was
dismissed as the result of a series of incorrect statements made to the Court by
the District Attorney. If they did not tell the FBI the truth, then the case was
dismissed even though they agreed that there was no reason for the dismissal.
Ruby had predicted that he would never be convicted. His prediction for the time
being had been fulfilled. "
Mark Lane is showing just how far the Warren Commission was willing to go to lie
about the facts in this case. Billy Clarke continues his cowardice...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
May 24, 2013, 5:50:08 PM5/24/13
to
Holmes, as you labour fruitlessly to make an obscure and unsupportable
point.
The leaden prose in Rush To Judgment must be some of the WORST ever
concocted, all designed to OBSCURE the quite obvious FACT of Oswald's
guilt and bury it under a mass of meaningless detail.
BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matter,
even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, and
gird those beer-gutted loins.
Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated RTJ
lie.
And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY behind
your killfilter.
Informative 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!
timstter
May 27, 2013, 8:46:13 AM5/27/13
to
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
TB
aeffects
May 27, 2013, 6:20:16 PM5/27/13
to
too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
fools do when back into a corner with case evidence!
Carry on hon!
> TB
Ben Holmes
May 28, 2013, 9:10:10 AM5/28/13
to
In article <50bef86a-8f61-4408...@z10g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 27, 5:46=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 25, 7:50=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 24, 10:59=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued to demonstrate how th=
> Alabama,
>> > > told FBI agents that he had known Ruby in Dallas 'over a period of se=
>veral
>> > > years'. Ruby had said 'not only to him but to other people in his pre=
>sence that
>> > > he could do anything he wanted in Dallas as he had enough information=
>convicted
>> > > of any of the charges filed against him during the ten-year period fr=
>om 1953 to
>> > > 1963, and that most of the charges against him were not even processe=
>d. Neither
>> > > was he arrested for many of the illegal acts that he committed public=
>ly. Why
>> > > should this have been so? The Commission's unwillingness to explore o=
>r even to
>> > > acknowledge this question has made it difficult for us to find the an=
>ted at 1.30
>> > > a.m. on December 5 by Police Officers E. E. Carlson and D. L. Blanken=
>ship for
>> > > permitting consumption of alcoholic beverages during forbidden hours =
>on a
>> > > Sunday. In the 'Summary of Case' appears the allegation that two pers=
>ons, named
>> > > in the document, were permitted by Ruby to drink beer. The 'Arresting=
> Officer's
>> > > Report' says that the two officers actually saw beer on the table aft=
>er hours
>> > > and that a customer attempted 'to hold the bottle and said that it wa=
>s her
>> > > beer'. The charge may seem trivial, but Ruby was the holder of a reta=
>il dealer's
>> > > on-premises license =A0and he must have known that his right to conti=
>unty Court
>> > > and was granted. It was filed not by Ruby's lawyer but by the Dallas =
>District
>> > > Attorney's office, and it was signed by District Attorney Wade and an=
>vised that
>> > > they conducted the investigation, but that it was filed without their=
> knowledge.
>> > > The police report states that they observed customers consuming beer =
>after
>> > > hours. Both officers stated that this is incorrect and they did not o=
>bserve the
>> > > customers consuming beer. It is recommended that this case be dismiss=
>officers
>> > > and both stated that the allegations made by the District Attorney we=
>re untrue.
>> > > Blankenship told the FBI that the details set out in the police repor=
>t were
>> > > 'true and correct'. He would not arrest a nightclub owner, he said, u=
>nless he
>> > > actually saw the customers consuming beer after hours; he 'had nothin=
>g to do
>> > > with the dismissal' of the charges against Ruby; and no one from the =
>District
>> > > Attorney's office had contacted him to ask about the validity of the =
>charges.
>> > > Blankenship also said he did not know that the charges had been dismi=
>ssed until
>> > > after Ruby was arrested for the murder of Oswald. Wade had told the C=
>ourt that
>> > > the officers were in error in stating that a violation had taken plac=
>d that he
>> > > had not been contacted by the District Attorney. Carlson believed he =
>had typed
>> > > the police report himself, and he maintained it was accurate. Wade ha=
>d told the
>> > > Court that the report was incorrect, but Carlson said that that alleg=
>ation was
>> > > untrue.
>>
>> > > If the arresting officers told the truth to the FBI, then the charge =
>was
>> > > dismissed as the result of a series of incorrect statements made to t=
>he Court by
>> > > the District Attorney. If they did not tell the FBI the truth, then t=
>he case was
>> > > dismissed even though they agreed that there was no reason for the di=
>smissal.
>> > > Ruby had predicted that he would never be convicted. His prediction f=
But you can't.
>> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matter,
>> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
He couldn't have... he's too much of a coward to step into an uncensored forum.
>> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, and
>> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>>
>> > Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated RTJ
>> > lie.
>>
>> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY behind
>> > your killfilter.
>>
they?
aeffects says...
>
>On May 27, 5:46=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 25, 7:50=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 24, 10:59=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued to demonstrate how th=
>e Warren
>> > > Commission lied about Ruby contacts with the Dallas PD.
>>
>> > > "Walter C. Clewis, the manager of the Municipal Auditorium in Mobile,=
>> > > Commission lied about Ruby contacts with the Dallas PD.
>>
> Alabama,
>> > > told FBI agents that he had known Ruby in Dallas 'over a period of se=
>veral
>> > > years'. Ruby had said 'not only to him but to other people in his pre=
>sence that
>> > > he could do anything he wanted in Dallas as he had enough information=
> on the
>> > > Police Department and judges that he could not be convicted'.
>>
>> > > Whether Ruby's boast was true or not, the facts show that he was not =
>> > > Police Department and judges that he could not be convicted'.
>>
>convicted
>> > > of any of the charges filed against him during the ten-year period fr=
>om 1953 to
>> > > 1963, and that most of the charges against him were not even processe=
>d. Neither
>> > > was he arrested for many of the illegal acts that he committed public=
>ly. Why
>> > > should this have been so? The Commission's unwillingness to explore o=
>r even to
>> > > acknowledge this question has made it difficult for us to find the an=
>swer.
>> > > However, certain Dallas police and court records do offer a clue.
>>
>> > > Ruby was arrested on December 5, 1954, for a violation of the state l=
>> > > However, certain Dallas police and court records do offer a clue.
>>
>iquor law,
>> > > and the case was dismissed on February 8, 1955. The records of the
>> > > Identification Bureau of the Dallas police reveal that Ruby was arres=
>> > > and the case was dismissed on February 8, 1955. The records of the
>ted at 1.30
>> > > a.m. on December 5 by Police Officers E. E. Carlson and D. L. Blanken=
>ship for
>> > > permitting consumption of alcoholic beverages during forbidden hours =
>on a
>> > > Sunday. In the 'Summary of Case' appears the allegation that two pers=
>ons, named
>> > > in the document, were permitted by Ruby to drink beer. The 'Arresting=
> Officer's
>> > > Report' says that the two officers actually saw beer on the table aft=
>er hours
>> > > and that a customer attempted 'to hold the bottle and said that it wa=
>s her
>> > > beer'. The charge may seem trivial, but Ruby was the holder of a reta=
>il dealer's
>> > > on-premises license =A0and he must have known that his right to conti=
>nue operating
>> > > the nightclub was in jeopardy.
>>
>> > > On February 8, 1955, a motion to dismiss the case was filed in the Co=
>> > > the nightclub was in jeopardy.
>>
>unty Court
>> > > and was granted. It was filed not by Ruby's lawyer but by the Dallas =
>District
>> > > Attorney's office, and it was signed by District Attorney Wade and an=
> assistant.
>> > > According to their motion:
>>
>> > > The witnesses in this case, Officers Blankenship and Carleon [sic] ad=
>> > > According to their motion:
>>
>vised that
>> > > they conducted the investigation, but that it was filed without their=
> knowledge.
>> > > The police report states that they observed customers consuming beer =
>after
>> > > hours. Both officers stated that this is incorrect and they did not o=
>bserve the
>> > > customers consuming beer. It is recommended that this case be dismiss=
>ed because
>> > > of insufficient evidence.
>>
>> > > After the assassination, agents of the FBI questioned the two police =
>> > > of insufficient evidence.
>>
>officers
>> > > and both stated that the allegations made by the District Attorney we=
>re untrue.
>> > > Blankenship told the FBI that the details set out in the police repor=
>t were
>> > > 'true and correct'. He would not arrest a nightclub owner, he said, u=
>nless he
>> > > actually saw the customers consuming beer after hours; he 'had nothin=
>g to do
>> > > with the dismissal' of the charges against Ruby; and no one from the =
>District
>> > > Attorney's office had contacted him to ask about the validity of the =
>charges.
>> > > Blankenship also said he did not know that the charges had been dismi=
>ssed until
>> > > after Ruby was arrested for the murder of Oswald. Wade had told the C=
>ourt that
>> > > the officers were in error in stating that a violation had taken plac=
>e, but
>> > > Blankenship said that that allegation was untrue.
>>
>> > > Detective Carlson told the FBI that 'he never withdrew' the charge an=
>> > > Blankenship said that that allegation was untrue.
>>
>d that he
>> > > had not been contacted by the District Attorney. Carlson believed he =
>had typed
>> > > the police report himself, and he maintained it was accurate. Wade ha=
>d told the
>> > > Court that the report was incorrect, but Carlson said that that alleg=
>ation was
>> > > untrue.
>>
>> > > If the arresting officers told the truth to the FBI, then the charge =
>was
>> > > dismissed as the result of a series of incorrect statements made to t=
>he Court by
>> > > the District Attorney. If they did not tell the FBI the truth, then t=
>he case was
>> > > dismissed even though they agreed that there was no reason for the di=
>smissal.
>> > > Ruby had predicted that he would never be convicted. His prediction f=
>or the time
>> > > being had been fulfilled. "
>>
>> > > Mark Lane is showing just how far the Warren Commission was willing t=
>> > > being had been fulfilled. "
>>
>o go to lie
>> > > about the facts in this case. Billy Clarke continues his cowardice...
>>
>>
>> > > about the facts in this case. Billy Clarke continues his cowardice...
>>
>>
>> > It must be tiresome having to retype all this Mark Lane stodge,
>> > Holmes, as you labour fruitlessly to make an obscure and unsupportable
>> > point.
>>
>> > The leaden prose in Rush To Judgment must be some of the WORST ever
>> > concocted, all designed to OBSCURE the quite obvious FACT of Oswald's
>> > guilt and bury it under a mass of meaningless detail.
If this were true, you'd be refuting what Mark Lane states.
>> > Holmes, as you labour fruitlessly to make an obscure and unsupportable
>> > point.
>>
>> > The leaden prose in Rush To Judgment must be some of the WORST ever
>> > concocted, all designed to OBSCURE the quite obvious FACT of Oswald's
>> > guilt and bury it under a mass of meaningless detail.
But you can't.
>> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matter,
>> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
>> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, and
>> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>>
>> > Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated RTJ
>> > lie.
>>
>> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY behind
>> > your killfilter.
>>
>> BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
>>
>> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>
>idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
>too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
>fools do when back into a corner with case evidence!
>
>Carry on hon!
>
>> TB
Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... they *are* fools, aren't
>>
>> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>
>idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
>too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
>fools do when back into a corner with case evidence!
>
>Carry on hon!
>
>> TB
they?
Bud
May 28, 2013, 1:03:03 PM5/28/13
to
On May 28, 9:10 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <50bef86a-8f61-4408-956c-c8ff7847f...@z10g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
You`re lying.
> >> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matter,
> >> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
>
> He couldn't have... he's too much of a coward to step into an uncensored forum.
You`re projecting.
> >> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, and
> >> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>
> >> > Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated RTJ
> >> > lie.
>
> >> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY behind
> >> > your killfilter.
>
> >> BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
>
> >> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>
> >idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
> >too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
> >fools do when back into a corner with case evidence!
>
> >Carry on hon!
>
> >> TB
>
> Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... they *are* fools, aren't
> they?
You`re retarded.
> In article <50bef86a-8f61-4408-956c-c8ff7847f...@z10g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matter,
> >> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
>
> He couldn't have... he's too much of a coward to step into an uncensored forum.
> >> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, and
> >> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>
> >> > Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated RTJ
> >> > lie.
>
> >> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY behind
> >> > your killfilter.
>
> >> BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
>
> >> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>
> >idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
> >too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
> >fools do when back into a corner with case evidence!
>
> >Carry on hon!
>
> >> TB
>
> Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... they *are* fools, aren't
> they?
aeffects
May 28, 2013, 10:10:15 PM5/28/13
to
eh? No zip anymore, son? Perhaps its time for you to join Tim Brennan
(aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) an open a $39.95 massage palace
in Fresno. I bet between you two ya could knock out an honest $300 a
week, now THAT is cruise control!
Ben Holmes
May 29, 2013, 8:42:30 AM5/29/13
to
In article <c09703f5-974c-4eab...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 28, 10:03=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 28, 9:10=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <50bef86a-8f61-4408-956c-c8ff7847f...@z10g2000pbn.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 27, 5:46=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 25, 7:50=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On May 24, 10:59=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > >> > > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued to demonstrate h=
>ow th=3D
>bile,=3D
>> > > Alabama,
>> > >> > > told FBI agents that he had known Ruby in Dallas 'over a period =
>of se=3D
>> > >veral
>> > >> > > years'. Ruby had said 'not only to him but to other people in hi=
>s pre=3D
>> > >sence that
>> > >> > > he could do anything he wanted in Dallas as he had enough inform=
>ation=3D
> not =3D
>> > >convicted
>> > >> > > of any of the charges filed against him during the ten-year peri=
>od fr=3D
>> > >om 1953 to
>> > >> > > 1963, and that most of the charges against him were not even pro=
>cesse=3D
>> > >d. Neither
>> > >> > > was he arrested for many of the illegal acts that he committed p=
>ublic=3D
>> > >ly. Why
>> > >> > > should this have been so? The Commission's unwillingness to expl=
>ore o=3D
>> > >r even to
>> > >> > > acknowledge this question has made it difficult for us to find t=
>he an=3D
>> > >swer.
>> > >> > > However, certain Dallas police and court records do offer a clue=
>.
>>
>> > >> > > Ruby was arrested on December 5, 1954, for a violation of the st=
>ate l=3D
>> > >iquor law,
>> > >> > > and the case was dismissed on February 8, 1955. The records of t=
>he
>> > >> > > Identification Bureau of the Dallas police reveal that Ruby was =
>arres=3D
>> > >ted at 1.30
>> > >> > > a.m. on December 5 by Police Officers E. E. Carlson and D. L. Bl=
>anken=3D
>> > >ship for
>> > >> > > permitting consumption of alcoholic beverages during forbidden h=
>ours =3D
>> > >on a
>> > >> > > Sunday. In the 'Summary of Case' appears the allegation that two=
> pers=3D
>> > >ons, named
>> > >> > > in the document, were permitted by Ruby to drink beer. The 'Arre=
>sting=3D
>> > > Officer's
>> > >> > > Report' says that the two officers actually saw beer on the tabl=
>e aft=3D
>> > >er hours
>> > >> > > and that a customer attempted 'to hold the bottle and said that =
>it wa=3D
>> > >s her
>> > >> > > beer'. The charge may seem trivial, but Ruby was the holder of a=
> reta=3D
>> > >il dealer's
>> > >> > > on-premises license =3DA0and he must have known that his right t=
>o conti=3D
>he Co=3D
>> > >unty Court
>> > >> > > and was granted. It was filed not by Ruby's lawyer but by the Da=
>llas =3D
>> > >District
>> > >> > > Attorney's office, and it was signed by District Attorney Wade a=
>nd an=3D
>c] ad=3D
>> > >vised that
>> > >> > > they conducted the investigation, but that it was filed without =
>their=3D
>> > > knowledge.
>> > >> > > The police report states that they observed customers consuming =
>beer =3D
>> > >after
>> > >> > > hours. Both officers stated that this is incorrect and they did =
>not o=3D
>> > >bserve the
>> > >> > > customers consuming beer. It is recommended that this case be di=
>smiss=3D
>lice =3D
>> > >officers
>> > >> > > and both stated that the allegations made by the District Attorn=
>ey we=3D
>> > >re untrue.
>> > >> > > Blankenship told the FBI that the details set out in the police =
>repor=3D
>> > >t were
>> > >> > > 'true and correct'. He would not arrest a nightclub owner, he sa=
>id, u=3D
>> > >nless he
>> > >> > > actually saw the customers consuming beer after hours; he 'had n=
>othin=3D
>> > >g to do
>> > >> > > with the dismissal' of the charges against Ruby; and no one from=
> the =3D
>> > >District
>> > >> > > Attorney's office had contacted him to ask about the validity of=
> the =3D
>> > >charges.
>> > >> > > Blankenship also said he did not know that the charges had been =
>dismi=3D
>> > >ssed until
>> > >> > > after Ruby was arrested for the murder of Oswald. Wade had told =
>the C=3D
>> > >ourt that
>> > >> > > the officers were in error in stating that a violation had taken=
> plac=3D
>ge an=3D
>> > >d that he
>> > >> > > had not been contacted by the District Attorney. Carlson believe=
>d he =3D
>> > >had typed
>> > >> > > the police report himself, and he maintained it was accurate. Wa=
>de ha=3D
>> > >d told the
>> > >> > > Court that the report was incorrect, but Carlson said that that =
>alleg=3D
>> > >ation was
>> > >> > > untrue.
>>
>> > >> > > If the arresting officers told the truth to the FBI, then the ch=
>arge =3D
>> > >was
>> > >> > > dismissed as the result of a series of incorrect statements made=
> to t=3D
>> > >he Court by
>> > >> > > the District Attorney. If they did not tell the FBI the truth, t=
>hen t=3D
>> > >he case was
>> > >> > > dismissed even though they agreed that there was no reason for t=
>he di=3D
>> > >smissal.
>> > >> > > Ruby had predicted that he would never be convicted. His predict=
>ion f=3D
>ing t=3D
>> > >o go to lie
>> > >> > > about the facts in this case. Billy Clarke continues his cowardi=
>able
>> > >> > point.
>>
>> > >> > The leaden prose in Rush To Judgment must be some of the WORST eve=
>r
>> > >> > concocted, all designed to OBSCURE the quite obvious FACT of Oswal=
>> > >> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matte=
>d forum.
>>
>> You`re projecting.
It's the simple truth. As anyone can quickly discover for themselves - Johnny
refuses to post in this forum.
He get's slaughtered on the evidence each time in the past that he dared...
He's learned his lesson...
>sounds like you just turned 70, Dudster--- lone nut cruise control,
>eh? No zip anymore, son? Perhaps its time for you to join Tim Brennan
>(aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) an open a $39.95 massage palace
>in Fresno. I bet between you two ya could knock out an honest $300 a
>week, now THAT is cruise control!
"Bud" isn't going anywhere with Mark Lane either, it seems...
>> > >> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, =
>RTJ
>> > >> > lie.
>>
>> > >> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY be=
>>
>> > >Carry on hon!
>>
>> > >> TB
>>
>> > Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... they *are* fools, ar=
aeffects says...
>
>On May 28, 10:03=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 28, 9:10=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <50bef86a-8f61-4408-956c-c8ff7847f...@z10g2000pbn.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 27, 5:46=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 25, 7:50=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On May 24, 10:59=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > >> > > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued to demonstrate h=
>ow th=3D
>> > >e Warren
>> > >> > > Commission lied about Ruby contacts with the Dallas PD.
>>
>> > >> > > "Walter C. Clewis, the manager of the Municipal Auditorium in Mo=
>> > >> > > Commission lied about Ruby contacts with the Dallas PD.
>>
>bile,=3D
>> > > Alabama,
>> > >> > > told FBI agents that he had known Ruby in Dallas 'over a period =
>of se=3D
>> > >veral
>> > >> > > years'. Ruby had said 'not only to him but to other people in hi=
>s pre=3D
>> > >sence that
>> > >> > > he could do anything he wanted in Dallas as he had enough inform=
>ation=3D
>> > > on the
>> > >> > > Police Department and judges that he could not be convicted'.
>>
>> > >> > > Whether Ruby's boast was true or not, the facts show that he was=
>> > >> > > Police Department and judges that he could not be convicted'.
>>
> not =3D
>> > >convicted
>> > >> > > of any of the charges filed against him during the ten-year peri=
>od fr=3D
>> > >om 1953 to
>> > >> > > 1963, and that most of the charges against him were not even pro=
>cesse=3D
>> > >d. Neither
>> > >> > > was he arrested for many of the illegal acts that he committed p=
>ublic=3D
>> > >ly. Why
>> > >> > > should this have been so? The Commission's unwillingness to expl=
>ore o=3D
>> > >r even to
>> > >> > > acknowledge this question has made it difficult for us to find t=
>he an=3D
>> > >swer.
>> > >> > > However, certain Dallas police and court records do offer a clue=
>.
>>
>> > >> > > Ruby was arrested on December 5, 1954, for a violation of the st=
>ate l=3D
>> > >iquor law,
>> > >> > > and the case was dismissed on February 8, 1955. The records of t=
>he
>> > >> > > Identification Bureau of the Dallas police reveal that Ruby was =
>arres=3D
>> > >ted at 1.30
>> > >> > > a.m. on December 5 by Police Officers E. E. Carlson and D. L. Bl=
>anken=3D
>> > >ship for
>> > >> > > permitting consumption of alcoholic beverages during forbidden h=
>ours =3D
>> > >on a
>> > >> > > Sunday. In the 'Summary of Case' appears the allegation that two=
> pers=3D
>> > >ons, named
>> > >> > > in the document, were permitted by Ruby to drink beer. The 'Arre=
>sting=3D
>> > > Officer's
>> > >> > > Report' says that the two officers actually saw beer on the tabl=
>e aft=3D
>> > >er hours
>> > >> > > and that a customer attempted 'to hold the bottle and said that =
>it wa=3D
>> > >s her
>> > >> > > beer'. The charge may seem trivial, but Ruby was the holder of a=
> reta=3D
>> > >il dealer's
>> > >> > > on-premises license =3DA0and he must have known that his right t=
>o conti=3D
>> > >nue operating
>> > >> > > the nightclub was in jeopardy.
>>
>> > >> > > On February 8, 1955, a motion to dismiss the case was filed in t=
>> > >> > > the nightclub was in jeopardy.
>>
>he Co=3D
>> > >unty Court
>> > >> > > and was granted. It was filed not by Ruby's lawyer but by the Da=
>llas =3D
>> > >District
>> > >> > > Attorney's office, and it was signed by District Attorney Wade a=
>nd an=3D
>> > > assistant.
>> > >> > > According to their motion:
>>
>> > >> > > The witnesses in this case, Officers Blankenship and Carleon [si=
>> > >> > > According to their motion:
>>
>c] ad=3D
>> > >vised that
>> > >> > > they conducted the investigation, but that it was filed without =
>their=3D
>> > > knowledge.
>> > >> > > The police report states that they observed customers consuming =
>beer =3D
>> > >after
>> > >> > > hours. Both officers stated that this is incorrect and they did =
>not o=3D
>> > >bserve the
>> > >> > > customers consuming beer. It is recommended that this case be di=
>smiss=3D
>> > >ed because
>> > >> > > of insufficient evidence.
>>
>> > >> > > After the assassination, agents of the FBI questioned the two po=
>> > >> > > of insufficient evidence.
>>
>lice =3D
>> > >officers
>> > >> > > and both stated that the allegations made by the District Attorn=
>ey we=3D
>> > >re untrue.
>> > >> > > Blankenship told the FBI that the details set out in the police =
>repor=3D
>> > >t were
>> > >> > > 'true and correct'. He would not arrest a nightclub owner, he sa=
>id, u=3D
>> > >nless he
>> > >> > > actually saw the customers consuming beer after hours; he 'had n=
>othin=3D
>> > >g to do
>> > >> > > with the dismissal' of the charges against Ruby; and no one from=
> the =3D
>> > >District
>> > >> > > Attorney's office had contacted him to ask about the validity of=
> the =3D
>> > >charges.
>> > >> > > Blankenship also said he did not know that the charges had been =
>dismi=3D
>> > >ssed until
>> > >> > > after Ruby was arrested for the murder of Oswald. Wade had told =
>the C=3D
>> > >ourt that
>> > >> > > the officers were in error in stating that a violation had taken=
> plac=3D
>> > >e, but
>> > >> > > Blankenship said that that allegation was untrue.
>>
>> > >> > > Detective Carlson told the FBI that 'he never withdrew' the char=
>> > >> > > Blankenship said that that allegation was untrue.
>>
>ge an=3D
>> > >d that he
>> > >> > > had not been contacted by the District Attorney. Carlson believe=
>d he =3D
>> > >had typed
>> > >> > > the police report himself, and he maintained it was accurate. Wa=
>de ha=3D
>> > >d told the
>> > >> > > Court that the report was incorrect, but Carlson said that that =
>alleg=3D
>> > >ation was
>> > >> > > untrue.
>>
>> > >> > > If the arresting officers told the truth to the FBI, then the ch=
>arge =3D
>> > >was
>> > >> > > dismissed as the result of a series of incorrect statements made=
> to t=3D
>> > >he Court by
>> > >> > > the District Attorney. If they did not tell the FBI the truth, t=
>hen t=3D
>> > >he case was
>> > >> > > dismissed even though they agreed that there was no reason for t=
>he di=3D
>> > >smissal.
>> > >> > > Ruby had predicted that he would never be convicted. His predict=
>ion f=3D
>> > >or the time
>> > >> > > being had been fulfilled. "
>>
>> > >> > > Mark Lane is showing just how far the Warren Commission was will=
>> > >> > > being had been fulfilled. "
>>
>ing t=3D
>> > >o go to lie
>> > >> > > about the facts in this case. Billy Clarke continues his cowardi=
>ce...
>>
>> > >> > It must be tiresome having to retype all this Mark Lane stodge,
>> > >> > Holmes, as you labour fruitlessly to make an obscure and unsupport=
>>
>> > >> > It must be tiresome having to retype all this Mark Lane stodge,
>able
>> > >> > point.
>>
>> > >> > The leaden prose in Rush To Judgment must be some of the WORST eve=
>r
>> > >> > concocted, all designed to OBSCURE the quite obvious FACT of Oswal=
>d's
>> > >> > guilt and bury it under a mass of meaningless detail.
>>
>> > If this were true, you'd be refuting what Mark Lane states.
>>
>> > But you can't.
>>
>> You`re lying.
It would be incredibly simple to prove... but you can't.
>> > >> > guilt and bury it under a mass of meaningless detail.
>>
>> > If this were true, you'd be refuting what Mark Lane states.
>>
>> > But you can't.
>>
>> You`re lying.
>> > >> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matte=
>r,
>> > >> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
>>
>> > He couldn't have... he's too much of a coward to step into an uncensore=
>> > >> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
>>
>d forum.
>>
>> You`re projecting.
It's the simple truth. As anyone can quickly discover for themselves - Johnny
refuses to post in this forum.
He get's slaughtered on the evidence each time in the past that he dared...
He's learned his lesson...
>sounds like you just turned 70, Dudster--- lone nut cruise control,
>eh? No zip anymore, son? Perhaps its time for you to join Tim Brennan
>(aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) an open a $39.95 massage palace
>in Fresno. I bet between you two ya could knock out an honest $300 a
>week, now THAT is cruise control!
>> > >> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, =
>and
>> > >> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>>
>> > >> > Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated =
>> > >> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>>
>RTJ
>> > >> > lie.
>>
>> > >> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY be=
>hind
>> > >> > your killfilter.
>>
>> > >> BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
>>
>> > >> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>>
>> > >idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
>> > >too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
>> > >fools =A0do when back into a corner with case evidence!
>> > >> > your killfilter.
>>
>> > >> BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
>>
>> > >> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>>
>> > >idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
>> > >too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
>>
>> > >Carry on hon!
>>
>> > >> TB
>>
>> > Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... they *are* fools, ar=
>en't
>> > they?
>>
>> You`re retarded.
Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... you *ARE* a fool, aren't you?
>> > they?
>>
>> You`re retarded.
Bud
May 30, 2013, 4:37:19 PM5/30/13
to
On May 29, 8:42 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <c09703f5-974c-4eab-91f2-9d7138ca2...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
You prove it, I don`t have to do a thing.
> >> > >> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matte=
> >r,
> >> > >> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
>
> >> > He couldn't have... he's too much of a coward to step into an uncensore=
> >d forum.
>
> >> You`re projecting.
>
> It's the simple truth.
No, you were projecting your cowardice on to others. You can`t
admonish others for do exactly what you yourself do.
>As anyone can quickly discover for themselves - Johnny
> refuses to post in this forum.
>
> He get's slaughtered on the evidence each time in the past that he dared...
You`re lying again.
> He's learned his lesson...
That you only have bluff and ad hominem to offer.
> >sounds like you just turned 70, Dudster--- lone nut cruise control,
> >eh? No zip anymore, son? Perhaps its time for you to join Tim Brennan
> >(aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) an open a $39.95 massage palace
> >in Fresno. I bet between you two ya could knock out an honest $300 a
> >week, now THAT is cruise control!
>
> "Bud" isn't going anywhere with Mark Lane either, it seems...
<snicker> You are like the energizer bunny with that thing, banging
your little drum. Unfortunately you made it clear early on that you
neither the intention or ability to defend Lane`s lies.
>
>
>
>
> >> > >> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, =
> >and
> >> > >> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>
> >> > >> > Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated =
> >RTJ
> >> > >> > lie.
>
> >> > >> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY be=
> >hind
> >> > >> > your killfilter.
>
> >> > >> BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
>
> >> > >> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>
> >> > >idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
> >> > >too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
> >> > >fools =A0do when back into a corner with case evidence!
>
> >> > >Carry on hon!
>
> >> > >> TB
>
> >> > Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... they *are* fools, ar=
> >en't
> >> > they?
>
> >> You`re retarded.
>
> Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... you *ARE* a fool, aren't you?
Our work was done when you ran from defending Lane`s lies early on.
> In article <c09703f5-974c-4eab-91f2-9d7138ca2...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > >> > BTW, McAdams already ripped you a new one on this particular matte=
> >r,
> >> > >> > even BEFORE you made your dreary point.
>
> >> > He couldn't have... he's too much of a coward to step into an uncensore=
> >d forum.
>
> >> You`re projecting.
>
> It's the simple truth.
admonish others for do exactly what you yourself do.
>As anyone can quickly discover for themselves - Johnny
> refuses to post in this forum.
>
> He get's slaughtered on the evidence each time in the past that he dared...
> He's learned his lesson...
> >sounds like you just turned 70, Dudster--- lone nut cruise control,
> >eh? No zip anymore, son? Perhaps its time for you to join Tim Brennan
> >(aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) an open a $39.95 massage palace
> >in Fresno. I bet between you two ya could knock out an honest $300 a
> >week, now THAT is cruise control!
>
> "Bud" isn't going anywhere with Mark Lane either, it seems...
your little drum. Unfortunately you made it clear early on that you
neither the intention or ability to defend Lane`s lies.
>
>
>
>
> >> > >> > Better stumble over the <snicker> *censored group's* way, Holmes, =
> >and
> >> > >> > gird those beer-gutted loins.
>
> >> > >> > Your hero, Lane, has just been caught in yet ANOTHER demonstrated =
> >RTJ
> >> > >> > lie.
>
> >> > >> > And there is NOTHING you can do about it, skulking PATHETICALLY be=
> >hind
> >> > >> > your killfilter.
>
> >> > >> BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
>
> >> > >> CAT GOT YOU'RE [SIC] TONGUE?
>
> >> > >idiot, his post is 10 paragraphs long, are you blind as well as dumb
> >> > >too? Or simply a coward looking to change the subject, which you
> >> > >fools =A0do when back into a corner with case evidence!
>
> >> > >Carry on hon!
>
> >> > >> TB
>
> >> > Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... they *are* fools, ar=
> >en't
> >> > they?
>
> >> You`re retarded.
>
> Still no refutation of what Mark Lane is saying... you *ARE* a fool, aren't you?
0 new messages