Re: If Oswald had gone to trial sometime in '64...
Steve
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> would he have been forced to blow his former ONI (Office of Naval
> Intelligence) cover as an intelligence (radar operator) gatherer at Atsugi
> Air Base, Japan and other secrets in his professional life as a Government
> [FBI] informer (i.e., worked for the U.S. Governemnt as Dallas FBI-man James
> Hosty knew and illegally destroyed Oswald's note warning him to lay off his
> wife), in order to show he wasn't just a neer-do-well "Marxist" provacateur,
> leaflet-hander-outer?
>
> Would he do that, and/or claim some sort of "official secrets with a Top
> Secret clearance" he couldn't reveal certain information to a judge and jury
> to save his skin from what would have been almost a certain capital
> punishment sentence if found guilty?
>
> What would the judge have done if that was the case to balance keeping
> important Government intelligence secrets vs. Oswald getting a fair trial
> and defending himself in court against murder of either-or-both Dallas
> patrolman J.D. Tippitt and President John F. Kennedy?
>
> Questions that I wish could have been resolved in a real trial instead of a
> sham "Report" (Warren) that never gave his side, or tried to be fair in
> finding Oswald "guilty" by fiat--expressly prohibited by the U.S.
> Constitution itself in no 'bill of attainder' allowed in Art. 1, Sec. 9, CL.
> 1 [*], if you didn't know that before.
> No part or branch of Government can merely declare someone 'guilty' of a
> crime without a Jury Trial. Which is effectively what the Warren Commission
> actually did, and should never have been allowed in the first place.
>
> It only came about so LBJ could set-up his own biased group of "acclaimed
> statesmen" that would do his bidding and declare someone the "lone killer"
> and clear the way for his election that November. Which is why they were
> under so much time pressure to "get it done" by the Fall of 1964, and why it
> did precisely as it did in not giving Oswald's legal representative a chance
> to tell his side--which would have been shocking if revealed to the
> public--which is why it was never contemplated and was so biased in its
> questioning (and biased also by commission) of only *some* witnesses (but
> not others who disagreed with the pre-ordained declaration of Oswald's
> "guilt") the WC called while it ignored tens of witnesses who would have
> testified about shots coming from the 'grassy knoll' and/or behind the
> fence.
>
> They got away with it once in Nov. 1963, and they were then emboldened to do
> it again with RFK in his fatal presidential run in June 1968, with another
> designated "lone nut theory" although again with more holes in the official
> story than Sirhan (supposedly all by himself with 18 wounds and holes) made
> in peoples' bodies and in the walls with his 8-round gun.
>
> [*] "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> --U.S. Constitution
This is a silly post. The Constitution's prohibition against a bill
of attainder does NOT apply to a dead person. The entire point behind
this post is moot since Oswald was already dead.
aeffects
imagine that, shot dead before the first hearing! In police custody,
even...... You have a horrible position to defend, carry on shithead!
Gil Jesus
A:
Had Oswald gone to trial, a smart defense attorney would have been
asking the same questions that we've been asking in this
forum----------the same questions that haven't been answered in 46
years.
Remember that the burden of proof was on the side of the prosecution
and all the defense had to do was to cast enough doubt in the minds of
the jurors.
Just the procedure of how the police lineups were conducted would be
enough to disallow any evidence from any of the Tippit murder
witnesses.
And the fact that Oswald was interrogated without benefit of counsel
would have disallowed anything he said after his request for an
attorney.
He would have walked.
tara
Is Mr. Jesus a licensed practicing attorney? I ask because he knows
not of what he speaks. He seems to believe a murder trial of Mr.
Oswald would be handled in similar fashion to any other murder trial.
The fact that the evidence shows Mr. Oswald ordered, payed for and
possessed the murder weapon in itself guarantees conviction. Throw
out every other piece of evidence in the case and you still have a
conviction. The defense, as it did in the OJ murder trial would have
go to to plan "B". Plan "B" is when the defense attempts to take the
juries eyes off of the defendant and on to somebody else. In this
case, there was nobody else.
Chuck Schuyler
> Had Oswald gone to trial, a smart defense attorney would have been
> asking the same questions that we've been asking in this
> forum----------the same questions that haven't been answered in 46
> years.
>
> Remember that the burden of proof was on the side of the prosecution
> and all the defense had to do was to cast enough doubt in the minds of
> the jurors.
>
> Just the procedure of how the police lineups were conducted would be
> enough to disallow any evidence from any of the Tippit murder
> witnesses.
>
> And the fact that Oswald was interrogated without benefit of counsel
> would have disallowed anything he said after his request for an
> attorney.
>
> He would have walked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You kooks are hilarious.
In your opinion, the JFK assassination was a massive, massive
conspiracy reaching into the highest levels of the USG, and yet *they*
wouldn't be able to *rig* the trial to get the conviction *they*
wanted?
Oh, you kooks never fail to disappoint with your ridiculous theories
and analysis.
If Oswald had gone to trial, he would've been swiftly convicted of
murdering JFK and JDT. Oswald would've probably made some pathetic
speech at sentencing railing against capitalism, US policy toward
Cuba, the Soviet Union, etc.
And decades later, kooks like Gil would be claiming the trial was
rigged.
There is no reasoning with kooks. One can simply laugh at them and
make fun of them.
Ben Holmes
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"tara" <taral...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>news:adceda76-5aed-4c76...@w9g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>also never had [and would have failed] a paraffin test on his face/hands
>after supposedly shooting from the TSBT 6th floor, *or* of shooting Tippitt.
> BTW, that "murder" weapon was initially identified by an
>expert-with-rifles Dallas detective who saw it as a GERMAN-made Mauser, and
>*not* the "murder weapon" (an obvious plant) as that publicity-shown
>Italian-made Carcano!
> Chalk up another piece of mis-evidence for Oswald in his murder trisl!
>
>>Throw out every other piece of evidence in the case and you still have a
>>conviction. The defense, as it did in the OJ murder trial would have
>>go to to plan "B". Plan "B" is when the defense attempts to take the
>>juries eyes off of the defendant and on to somebody else. In this
>>case, there was nobody else.
>
> There was the CIA, and also his good friend David Ferrie, who would
>have been forced to testify he transported Oswald (plus other CIA
>operatives) in his plane, plus Oswald's knowledge of the mob (incl. his
>knowing Jack Ruby), plus the gun-running schemes to assist the anti-Castro
>Cubans, etc., etc., etc. that would have exposed the CIA/Mob shananigans to
>kill Castro, *plus* LHO's bad Marine shooting scores he was ridiculed for
>["Maggie's drawers"] by his Marine buddies, etc.
Nor should we forget that the original Autopsy Report was only burned *AFTER*
Oswald was killed - since at that point Dr. Humes knew he'd never face
cross-examination on the medical evidence.
Photos & X-rays were altered after that point as well.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
tara
>
> news:adceda76-5aed-4c76...@w9g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> also never had [and would have failed] a paraffin test on his face/hands
> after supposedly shooting from the TSBT 6th floor, *or* of shooting Tippitt.
> BTW, that "murder" weapon was initially identified by an
> expert-with-rifles Dallas detective who saw it as a GERMAN-made Mauser, and
> *not* the "murder weapon" (an obvious plant) as that publicity-shown
> Italian-made Carcano!
> Chalk up another piece of mis-evidence for Oswald in his murder trisl!
>
> >conviction. The defense, as it did in the OJ murder trial would have
> >go to to plan "B". Plan "B" is when the defense attempts to take the
> >juries eyes off of the defendant and on to somebody else. In this
> >case, there was nobody else.
>
> There was the CIA, and also his good friend David Ferrie, who would
> have been forced to testify he transported Oswald (plus other CIA
> operatives) in his plane, plus Oswald's knowledge of the mob (incl. his
> knowing Jack Ruby), plus the gun-running schemes to assist the anti-Castro
> Cubans, etc., etc., etc. that would have exposed the CIA/Mob shananigans to
> kill Castro, *plus* LHO's bad Marine shooting scores he was ridiculed for
> ["Maggie's drawers"] by his Marine buddies, etc.
BTW, that "murder" weapon was initially identified by an
expert-with-rifles Dallas detective who saw it as a GERMAN-made
Mauser, and
*not* the "murder weapon" (an obvious plant) as that publicity-shown
Italian-made Carcano!
Chalk up another piece of mis-evidence for Oswald in his murder
trisl!
Here again, we have a conspiracy theorist lying. It is never ending
on here. Were he honest, he would tell us that the officer who
initially identified the weapon as a Mauser admitted he made a
mistake.
tara
Photos & X-rays were altered after that point as well.
No point in questioning Mr. Holmes and asking for proof of the above
statement. Mr. Holmes does not know the meaning of proof. He does
however know the meaning of lying and distorting. How embarrassing.
aeffects
is Ms. Tara a practicing attorney, Paul? You certainly are NOT, so
sitdown and quietly WHINE.... We understand your frustration dealing
with the WCR and the lies.... (you should feel at home though will all
the lies)
Carry on troll!
aeffects
I have a problem with Oswald walking, and it has nothing to do with
his guilt OR innocence... the embarrassment of the City of Dallas AND
the State of Texas -- both public personna(s)-image have yet to
recover from the murder.
And then we have the 6th Floor Museum... Why the ridiculous 6th Floor
Museum? Simple, PR! Bad, bad, BAD taste.... NO-Class at all.
tara
OMG. An individual as repulsive as Mr. Healy discussing class. Ah,
the irony of it all.
aeffects
sitdown Paul May.... when I ring YOU respond -- you know your position
here: you've been exposed; outted if you will, hiding behind lies and
deceit. You were caught with your hand in Justme1952's jockies.....
you and ypur myraid of aliases have been relegated to the re(TARD)
pit...
Carry on shithead...
tomnln
"tara" <taral...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:adceda76-5aed-4c76...@w9g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
tara wrote;
Is Mr. Jesus a licensed practicing attorney? I ask because he knows
not of what he speaks. He seems to believe a murder trial of Mr.
Oswald would be handled in similar fashion to any other murder trial.
The fact that the evidence shows Mr. Oswald ordered, payed for and
possessed the murder weapon in itself guarantees conviction. Throw
out every other piece of evidence in the case and you still have a
conviction. The defense, as it did in the OJ murder trial would have
go to to plan "B". Plan "B" is when the defense attempts to take the
juries eyes off of the defendant and on to somebody else. In this
case, there was nobody else.
I write;
Oswald allegedly ordered a 36 inch rifle;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
Oswald allegedly received a 40 inch rifle.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
There is testimony that Oswald SOLD a rifle.
tomnln
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tara wrote;
No point in questioning Mr. Holmes and asking for proof of the above
statement. Mr. Holmes does not know the meaning of proof. He does
however know the meaning of lying and distorting. How embarrassing.
Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"tara" <taral...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:53983eec-f617-4a29...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRA WROTE;
Here again, we have a conspiracy theorist lying. It is never ending
on here. Were he honest, he would tell us that the officer who
initially identified the weapon as a Mauser admitted he made a
mistake.
I write;
Tara should learn how to give official Citations for her comments.
There were FOUR (4) DPD officers who identified the rifle as a Mauser.
(Weitzman, Boone, Mooney & Craig)
ALL in the presence of Capt. fritz/Lt. Day !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/finding_the_rifle.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
I find it interesting that Gil doesn't maintain that Oswald was
innocent. Never once, he simply argues that because of mistakes or
improprieties on the part of the DPD Oswald would have walked. A VERY
telling post about what you REALLY believe in this case Gil. Thanks
for the insight into your real views on Oswald's obvious guilt.
tara
Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
Mr. Tomnln? That is not proof. That is a theory. A theory I might
add that Mr. Hornes own boss at ARRB, one Jeremy Gunn, when asked to
comment about Mr. Hornes theory responded "I try to avoid reading
anything written by Douglas Horne."
aeffects
of course you do shithead, Doug Horne worked directly with case
evidence. It's called fear shithead, you're scared..... Carry on!
tara
Here again, we have a conspiracy theorist lying. It is never ending
on here. Were he honest, he would tell us that the officer who
initially identified the weapon as a Mauser admitted he made a
mistake.
I write;
Tara should learn how to give official Citations for her comments.
There were FOUR (4) DPD officers who identified the rifle as a Mauser.
(Weitzman, Boone, Mooney & Craig)
ALL in the presence of Capt. fritz/Lt. Day !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/finding_the_rifle.htm
Mr. Tomnln? I surely do not need advice on how to provide citations.
Quite candidly, conspiracy theorists stretch ones imagination. I have
shown how Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes distort testimony and
evidence....and now Mr. Tomnln, you do the same. Why does your sight
not provide what Mr. Wetizman said during a 1967 interview?
Per Mr. Weitzman:
I have no doubt that the rifle identified by the Dallas Police
Department as being a 6.5-millimeter Carcano, and as having been found
on the sixth floor of the Book Depository building, is the rifle we
found. It was strictly a mistaken identity which anybody could make.
If you know anything about guns, a Mauser is a Mauser. What make it
is, what country it was made in, can easily be misidentified because
mostly your Mauser mechanism looks very similar. Wetizman went on to
say that the Carcano "was a Mauser-action rifle" an really was "an
Italian Mauser". The evidence clearly shows that the early reports of
a Mauser being found were mistakes.
tara
>
> news:98a5293d-55c5-45ad...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> has never recovered its previous reputation because of the horridly corrupt
> P.D., and the demagogues that inhabit the metro area in their hatred of who
> is now seen as a very moderate "liberal" who was truly a conservative in
> many ways economically compared to the rabid Big Government and extreme
> War-mongering fiends (LBJ and Connally): John F. Kennedy.
>
> >And then we have the 6th Floor Museum... Why the ridiculous 6th Floor
> >Museum? Simple, PR! Bad, bad, BAD taste.... NO-Class at all.
>
> competition?
> ROTFL!
> No way, Jose!
Seymour Weitzman was indeed the person I remember reading about who
initially identified the 'murder weapon' as a MAUSER and certainly not
the
Italian-piece-of-crap Carcano which misfired and was so unreliable the
Italians themselves labeled it the "rifle that never killed anybody."
The fact that there were THREE others in the DPD who also
identified
it as a 7.35 cal. MAUSER makes it that much more obvious somebody
merely
switched the rifle shown to a gullible (1963-64) public a Mannlicher-
Carcano
was the "real" murder weapon when it was plainly a plant, or useful
only to
throw the public off as to what was really going on behind the scenes
in the
cover-up and later designating Oswald as the 'fall guy', or in his own
memorable words: "I'm just a patsy."
Wow, Mr. Tomnln, what a load of crap. Are you not speculating? And,
btw Mr. Tomnln....as does Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes, you are now
distorting and lying about the evidence.
Mr. Oswald NEVER said "I am just a patsy". What he said was: "I'm
just a patsy, they only arrested me because I lived in Russia".
Huge difference in meaning, would you not agree Mr. Tomnln? The
question Mr. Tomnln is: why as Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes do, why do
you not present ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? Why this conspiracy theorist
need to lie and distort?
tomnln
tara wrote;
Mr. Tomnln? Are you stating that the officer did not admit to
mistaking the MC for a Mauser?
I write;
I gave official testimony that FOUR (4) DPD Officers stated that they found
a MAUSER.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/finding_the_rifle.htm
"In the presence of Capt. Fritz/Lt. Day
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tara wrote;
Mr. Tomnln? That is not proof. That is a theory. A theory I might
add that Mr. Hornes own boss at ARRB, one Jeremy Gunn, when asked to
comment about Mr. Hornes theory responded "I try to avoid reading
anything written by Douglas Horne."
I write;
PROVE IT !
Douglas Horne was a Professional Hired/Paid by the ARRB.
You Always seem to be SHORT on Citations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Wow, Mr. Tomnln, what a load of crap. Are you not speculating? And,
btw Mr. Tomnln....as does Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes, you are now
distorting and lying about the evidence.
Mr. Oswald NEVER said "I am just a patsy". What he said was: "I'm
just a patsy, they only arrested me because I lived in Russia".
Huge difference in meaning, would you not agree Mr. Tomnln? The
question Mr. Tomnln is: why as Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes do, why do
you not present ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? Why this conspiracy theorist
need to lie and distort?
INVITATION
I have a Live Audio Chat Room.
Download & use for FREE
Once logged on, select
1 Social Issues & Politics
2 Government & Politics
3 Scroll down to room called
Who Killed Kennedy.
We start every night between 8:00 p m – 9:00 p m e.s.t.
I offer a Forum to WCR supporters to convince us that Oswald was a Lone Assassin.
Paltalk allows us to transfer files to one another instantly.
Any Exhibit of evidence, any specific testimony from:
Warren Report’s 26 Volumes
Church Committee 14 Volumes
HSCA’s 12 Volumes.
Now we can even show Videos.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
I write;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/finding_the_rifle.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tara wrote;
Mr. Tomnln? I surely do not need advice on how to provide citations.
Quite candidly, conspiracy theorists stretch ones imagination. I have
shown how Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes distort testimony and
evidence....and now Mr. Tomnln, you do the same. Why does your sight
not provide what Mr. Wetizman said during a 1967 interview?
Per Mr. Weitzman:
I have no doubt that the rifle identified by the Dallas Police
Department as being a 6.5-millimeter Carcano, and as having been found
on the sixth floor of the Book Depository building, is the rifle we
found. It was strictly a mistaken identity which anybody could make.
If you know anything about guns, a Mauser is a Mauser. What make it
is, what country it was made in, can easily be misidentified because
mostly your Mauser mechanism looks very similar. Wetizman went on to
say that the Carcano "was a Mauser-action rifle" an really was "an
Italian Mauser". The evidence clearly shows that the early reports of
a Mauser being found were mistakes.
I write;
Don't "type in" what you Claim someone said;
Give us an Official Citation for your "Claim".
Then give us official Citations for the Other THREE (3) DPD Officers.
I gave you Volume & Pages numbers.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tara
> "tara" <taralac...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
Mr. Tomnln? Shame on you. Mr. Weitzmans 1967 statement is a matter
of public record. You attempt to deceive and distort. This appears
to be a genetic flaw in the conspiracy theorists that frequent this
forum.
Mr. Tomnln? Why did you not include Mr. Oswalds entire patsy
statement? Why did you have the need to edit it?
David Von Pein
>>> "Mr. Tomnln, why did you not include Mr. Oswald's entire patsy statement? Why did you have the need to edit it?" <<<
All conspiracy-seeking kooks want to "edit" Oswald's patsy statement.
I'll bet there are millions of people who have no idea at all that
Oswald was really "aiming" his "I'm just a patsy" statement at the
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT (vs. the remark being aimed at a person or
group like the Mob or the CIA or David Ferrie or Clay Shaw, etc.).
And I'll bet millions of people have no idea that this is what Oswald
said (unedited):
"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the
Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"
OSWALD'S COMPLETE "PATSY" STATEMENT (STREAMING AUDIO FILE):
MORE:
timstter
Hi Gil,
Say, but how come when the evidence was tested in the adversarial
process, when London Weekend TV spent more than a million dollars
producing *On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald*, the verdict on Oswald was
guilty?
Even Gerry Spence couldn't cast enough doubt in the mind of the jurors
to get Oswald off the hook. You'd have no hope. Probably best you
stick to hare-brained snooping around email addresses, don't you
think?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tomnln
Debates.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:66a38f11-fc67-4816...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>> "Mr. Tomnln, why did you not include Mr. Oswald's entire patsy
>>>> statement? Why did you have the need to edit it?" <<<
>
> All conspiracy-seeking kooks want to "edit" Oswald's patsy statement.
> I'll bet there are millions of people who have no idea at all that
> Oswald was really "aiming" his "I'm just a patsy" statement at the
> DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT (vs. the remark being aimed at an unknown
> group or entity like the Mob or the CIA or anti-Castro Cubans, etc.).
tomnln
Don't "type in" what you Claim someone said;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tara wrote;
Mr. Tomnln? Shame on you. Mr. Weitzmans 1967 statement is a matter
of public record. You attempt to deceive and distort. This appears
to be a genetic flaw in the conspiracy theorists that frequent this
forum.
I write;
Don't you think Weitzman's Fear of being Killed like others he was aware of
had anything to do with that?
It seems like your knowledge of the case is quite Limited !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eccf2bd7-22eb-40f3...@t16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Don't "type in" what you Claim someone said;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tara wrote;
Mr. Tomnln? Shame on you. Mr. Weitzmans 1967 statement is a matter
of public record. You attempt to deceive and distort. This appears
to be a genetic flaw in the conspiracy theorists that frequent this
forum.
Mr. Tomnln? Why did you not include Mr. Oswalds entire patsy
statement? Why did you have the need to edit it?
Don't you think Weitzman's Fear of being killed like others that he knew of
had an impact on him?
Show me where I "edited Oswald's statement"?
WHEN are you gonna address these Crimes?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tara
>
> read more »
Well, now we can add Mr. Tomnln to the ranks of conspiracy theorists
who lie and distort.
When asked why he did not ad Mr. Weitzman's statement onto his
website, he refused to answer.
When asked why he did not include Mr. Oswald's entire patsy statement
in his website, he refused to answer.
Gil Jesus
>
> Is Mr. Jesus a licensed practicing attorney? �I ask because he knows
> not of what he speaks.
> The fact that the evidence shows Mr. Oswald ordered, payed for and
> possessed the murder weapon in itself guarantees conviction. �
Mr. Jesus is an ex-police ofiicer with a degree in Criminal Justice.
Mr. Jesus has experience in the Criminal Justice syatem.
Unless your qualifications exceed mine, that makes me more qualified
to discuss the shortcomings of the evidence than you.
It's not against the law to buy a rifle.
It's not against the law to pay for a rifle.
It's not against the law to possess a rifle.
If that's your case against Oswald, you haven't a case at all, and
your suggestion that those three "facts" prove Oswald's guilt not only
shows how little you know about criminal prosecution, but is a joke.
You wanna build a case aginst Oswald ? Start by proving to us that the
rifle was in the Paine garage on November 21, 1963. That's the first
step in showing that the rifle could have been in his possession on
November 22nd.
Then show us where Oswald got the ammuntion
Then show us how a 35-38 inch rifle fits in a 24-27 inch package.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMFbOTmT2Gw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh8nE9JN_U
Then demonstrate how Oswald concealed a 35 inch package under his
armpit cupped in his hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1l9Wom0PLk
Then show us how Oswald loaded the ammo cartridge into the rifle
without leaving any fingerprints on it.
( 4 H 23 )
Then explain why Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle with bottom sling
swivels and the depository weapon is a 40.2 inch rifle with side mount
swivels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
You surely have your work cut out for you...now get to it
AND DON'T FORGET THE CITATIONS !!!!
David Von Pein
Gil Jesus wants to play his usual retarded games and pretend that all
of the "LET'S GET OSWALD OFF THE HOOK" crap he's talking about hasn't
been beaten to death a million times before today.
To a conspiracy kook like Gilbert, each new day gives him the license
to treat all previously-explained things as though each one HASN'T
been explained in the past.
A kook like Gil is also perfectly willing to let a killer go free
because nobody can prove where the killer bought the bullets he used
to kill the victims. Great policy, huh?
I wonder if that rule applies to knife-wielding maniacs too. I.E., if
the prosecution can't prove exactly where the killer bought that knife
he used to kill his victim, then the murderer is home free -- even
though the knife has the killer's FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER IT.
And the "package length" debate has been thrashed out a million times
too....but Gil wants to forget about Wes Frazier's words in 1986:
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
Gil Jesus
That what Bugliosi said he said.
Now let's hear from the witness in his OWN words:
aeffects
> On Jun 12, 6:08 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Had Oswald gone to trial, a smart defense attorney would have been
> > asking the same questions that we've been asking in this
> > forum----------the same questions that haven't been answered in 46
> > years.
>
> > Remember that the burden of proof was on the side of the prosecution
> > and all the defense had to do was to cast enough doubt in the minds of
> > the jurors.
>
> > Just the procedure of how the police lineups were conducted would be
> > enough to disallow any evidence from any of the Tippit murder
> > witnesses.
>
> > And the fact that Oswald was interrogated without benefit of counsel
> > would have disallowed anything he said after his request for an
> > attorney.
>
> > He would have walked.
>
>
> You kooks are hilarious.
>
> In your opinion, the JFK assassination was a massive, massive
> conspiracy reaching into the highest levels of the USG, and yet *they*
> wouldn't be able to *rig* the trial to get the conviction *they*
> wanted?
>
> Oh, you kooks never fail to disappoint with your ridiculous theories
> and analysis.
>
> If Oswald had gone to trial, he would've been swiftly convicted of
> murdering JFK and JDT. Oswald would've probably made some pathetic
> speech at sentencing railing against capitalism, US policy toward
> Cuba, the Soviet Union, etc.
>
> And decades later, kooks like Gil would be claiming the trial was
> rigged.
>
> There is no reasoning with kooks. One can simply laugh at them and
> make fun of them.
now shithead just because wifey allows you out every 10 days or so
don't go getting frisky on us Kevin Schuyler, ya need to save some for
all those reverse mortgages you shitheads designed for eldery
homeowners, ya fucking thief.
The joke appears to be shitheads defense of the WCR, ya fools can't
even find a cite to support your asshole contentions... How much do
they pay you to be this stupid? Heaven help your clients.... Heaven
help your family Kevin Schuyler.
justm...@gmail.com
> On Jun 12, 9:35 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 6:08 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Had Oswald gone to trial, a smart defense attorney would have been
> > > asking the same questions that we've been asking in this
> > > forum----------the same questions that haven't been answered in 46
> > > years.
>
> > > Remember that the burden of proof was on the side of the prosecution
> > > and all the defense had to do was to cast enough doubt in the minds of
> > > the jurors.
>
> > > Just the procedure of how the police lineups were conducted would be
> > > enough to disallow any evidence from any of the Tippit murder
> > > witnesses.
>
> > > And the fact that Oswald was interrogated without benefit of counsel
> > > would have disallowed anything he said after his request for an
> > > attorney.
>
> > > He would have walked.
>
>
> > You kooks are hilarious.
>
> > In your opinion, the JFK assassination was a massive, massive
> > conspiracy reaching into the highest levels of the USG, and yet *they*
> > wouldn't be able to *rig* the trial to get the conviction *they*
> > wanted?
>
> > Oh, you kooks never fail to disappoint with your ridiculous theories
> > and analysis.
>
> > If Oswald had gone to trial, he would've been swiftly convicted of
> > murdering JFK and JDT. Oswald would've probably made some pathetic
> > speech at sentencing railing against capitalism, US policy toward
> > Cuba, the Soviet Union, etc.
>
> > And decades later, kooks like Gil would be claiming the trial was
> > rigged.
>
> > There is no reasoning with kooks. One can simply laugh at them and
> > make fun of them.
>
> now shithead just because wifey allows you out every 10 days or so
> don't go getting frisky on us Kevin Schuyler, ya need to save some for
> all those reverse mortgages you shitheads designed for eldery
> homeowners, ya fucking thief.
>
> The joke appears to be shitheads defense of the WCR, ya fools can't
> even find a cite to support your asshole contentions... How much do
> they pay you to be this stupid? Heaven help your clients.... Heaven
>
> - Show quoted text -
There goes Healys jealously again....hes an elderly junkie that can't
afford a home so he lives in the slums of Vegas in his little
apartment.
bigdog
> asking the same questions that we've been asking in this
> forum----------the same questions that haven't been answered in 46
> years.
>
> Remember that the burden of proof was on the side of the prosecution
> and all the defense had to do was to cast enough doubt in the minds of
> the jurors.
>
> Just the procedure of how the police lineups were conducted would be
> enough to disallow any evidence from any of the Tippit murder
> witnesses.
>
> And the fact that Oswald was interrogated without benefit of counsel
> would have disallowed anything he said after his request for an
> attorney.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chico doesn't seem to know that the JFK assassination predated the
landmark Miranda ruling which established an accused persons right to
counsel. The Miranda ruling was not made retroactive and did not
vacate convictions prior to the Miranda case in which accused suspects
were denied counsel during police interrogations. It is all academic
anyway since Oswald didn't say anything incriminating. He denied
everything despite being caught in one lie after another. There is
nothing in anything Oswald said that would have been necessary to make
a case against him at trial.
David Von Pein
>>> "That['s] what Bugliosi said he [Wes Frazier] said." <<<
I'm not relying ONLY on what Bugliosi writes in his book, you retard.
I have the '86 trial on tape and on DVD (and currently on YouTube). I
can HEAR and SEE Frazier testify myself. And so can everybody
else....right here:
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d72f441d-7dc2-4aea...@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Sam Brown
On Jun 12, 10:00�am, tara <taralac...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> Is Mr. Jesus a licensed practicing attorney? �I ask because he knows
> not of what he speaks.
> The fact that the evidence shows Mr. Oswald ordered, payed for and
> possessed the murder weapon in itself guarantees conviction. �
Mr. Jesus is an ex-police ofiicer with a degree in Criminal Justice.
Bullshit. Prove it.
Mr. Jesus has experience in the Criminal Justice syatem.
As a defendant.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, even with Gerry Spence as his advocate, arguably the best trial
lawyer of his era who never lost a single case at trial as either a
prosecutor a defense counsel, Oswald got convicted. Believe it or not,
on another forum I participated in back in the early 1990s, there were
CTs (we called them Loons then), who actually claimed Spence had done
a poor job in defending Oswald. Now do you understand why we called
them Loons.
bigdog
> On Jun 12, 10:00 am, tara <taralac...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is Mr. Jesus a licensed practicing attorney? I ask because he knows
> > not of what he speaks.
> > The fact that the evidence shows Mr. Oswald ordered, payed for and
> > possessed the murder weapon in itself guarantees conviction.
>
> Mr. Jesus is an ex-police ofiicer with a degree in Criminal Justice.
Gee, I wonder why you are an ex-police officer.
> Mr. Jesus has experience in the Criminal Justice syatem.
How many times were you convicted?
> Unless your qualifications exceed mine, that makes me more qualified
> to discuss the shortcomings of the evidence than you.
>
> It's not against the law to buy a rifle.
> It's not against the law to pay for a rifle.
> It's not against the law to possess a rifle.
>
It is against the law to fire a rifle at the President of the United
States, or anyone else for that matter. It's also against the law to
empty a revolver into a police officer who has stopped to question
you.
> If that's your case against Oswald, you haven't a case at all, and
> your suggestion that those three "facts" prove Oswald's guilt not only
> shows how little you know about criminal prosecution, but is a joke.
>
> You wanna build a case aginst Oswald ? Start by proving to us that the
> rifle was in the Paine garage on November 21, 1963. That's the first
> step in showing that the rifle could have been in his possession on
> November 22nd.
>
Now I know why you are an ex-police officer. You actually believe it
is necessary to prove where the rifle was on 11/21. It is only
necessary to prove where it was on 11/22.
> Then show us where Oswald got the ammuntion
>
So tell me, Dick Tracy, how many murder investigations did you
participate in where it was necessary to prove where the accused got
his ammo? All these arguments remind me of a line from one of the
Dirty Harry movies when Harry was told he was being reassigned to
Personnel. He said "Personnel? That's for assholes", to which his
superior replied "I spent 10 years in Personnel". Harry said "Right".
How many years did you spend in Personnel, Chico.
> Then show us how a 35-38 inch rifle fits in a 24-27 inch package.
>
It didn't. It did fit in the 40 inch package found on the 6th floor of
the TSBD.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMFbOTmT2Gwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh8nE9JN_U
>
> Then demonstrate how Oswald concealed a 35 inch package under his
> armpit cupped in his hand.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1l9Wom0PLk
>
> Then show us how Oswald loaded the ammo cartridge into the rifle
> without leaving any fingerprints on it.
>
Hey, flatfoot, somebody loaded the ammo into the rifle without leaving
fingerprints on it. Unless you think the ammo loaded itself.
You must have spent at least 20 years in Personnel.
> ( 4 H 23 )
>
> Then explain why Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle with bottom sling
> swivels and the depository weapon is a 40.2 inch rifle with side mount
> swivels.
>
Imagine, a mail order house not sending exactly what it advertised to
a customer. That's shocking.
bigdog
Don't you just love those correspondence schools?
> Mr. Jesus has experience in the Criminal Justice syatem.
Could you clear something up for us, Mr. Jesus. When an ex-police
officer gets sent to the slammer, does he end up being everybody's
woman?
timstter
Hi John,
The idea that a cretin like Gilly might mount a better defence of
Oswald than Gerry Spence is laughable. Still, that seems to be what
Gilly wants people to believe, LOL!
BTW, Gilly has now taken to branding all sporting referees as
criminals on another thread here. I believe the BSV loon is very close
to the edge @ present...
LMFAO @ Gilly! :-)