Is 133C legitimate or illegitimate ? Jean
elec...@my-deja.com
--Sorry this reply is so late incoming. Your reasoning on this issue is excellent. Judyth
On 12 May 1999 21:32:59 GMT DAnde9348 wrote:
>>
>>Jean, I knew that would be your rejoinder.
>>Do you really think it's a plausible explanation? ...... in light of
>>Inspector Kelley's concise way of writing reports..... It's obvious that he
>was a
>>articulate and concise writer....
>>I'm sure that Oswald was shown one of the Back Yard photos prior to there
>>official discovery........
>
> I know you're sure, Walt. But Kelley didn't write separate reports on
>each interview. He wrote one report about both 11/23 interviews. Have you
>looked at it?
>
>Whatta dumb question ....Of course I've looked at it, Jean, how else could I
>quote it ?
>The heading to the reports says......INTERVIEWS.....(plural) and Tom Kelley
>broke those interviews down chronologically. The first one he attended
>commenced at !0:30 A.M. 11 / 23 /63. His next one began at 12:35 P.M. 11/ 23
>/63, the third one began at 6:00 P.M. 11 / 23 / 63 and his final one began at
>9:30 Sunday morning 11 /24 / 63
> (Oswald was executed shortly after this last meeting..... Strange that
>Kelley should ask him if he believed in God ......just before his execution. )
>
>Jean wrote:
> He wrote one report about both 11/23 interviews.
>
> I'll have to agree that that is the impression that one gets from the W.R.
>layout.... but in his other reports he closes them with the statement.....The
>interview was terminated at ---( time & date)---and then his signature.
>Reading the reports for 11/23 /63 it is clear that he opened the evening report
>with ... On November 23, 1963 in the office of Captain Fritz Homocide Division,
>Dallas Police Department I was present at an interview with Oswald.
>The final sentence in that report is .....The interview was terminated at about
>7:15 P.M.
>So all of the information in that report was disclosed and discussed in the 1
>1/4 hour evening session.....
>Likewise his afternoon report for Saturday begins..... At about 12:35 P.M.
>November 23, 1963 Lee Oswald was interviewed in the office of Captain Will
>Fritz......He concludes that report with ...... The interview was concluded
>about 1:10 P.M. He then goes on to describe how the photos were found and what
>the photos showed.....
>He could not have known that the photos were going to be found....before the
>search.
>
>I've got to tell you Jean..... you Lner's are so dumb that it makes it
>difficult to carry on a fruitful dialogue with you.
>
>Here you are, arguing that the Police didn't have the photos before they were
>officially discovered during the LEGAL search on Saturday afternoon, when it's
>easy to show that they DID have evidence that they had took without a search
>warrant on Friday afternoon.... That is the argument you should be presenting
>.....that the DPD covered up the fact that they had obtained evidence illegally
>because they didn't have a search warrant.....therefore it would have been
>inadmissable in court. Instead of attempting to cover up for Captain Fritz and
>Insp. Kelley's faux Pas.
>I suspect that you know this, but if you admit that the DPD had overstepped the
>constitutional restraints against illegal search and siezure then it shows that
>they weren't above breaking the law, and lying,to make their case.
>
>Here's how we know that the police had grabbed Oswald's personal belongings,
>which may have contained a Back Yard photo, without a search warrant on Friday
>afternoon. The Stovall exhibits in the exhibits volume of Hearings gives the
>report of G.F. Rose, R.S. Stovall, and J.P. Adamcik.
>It says..... at about 2:30 P.M. 11 /22 / 63 Capt Fritz ordered them to go to
>2515 west 5th street ( the Paine home) and search that residence. Which they
>did..... They made a list of the items that the confiscated ( it's Stovall
>Exhibit "A" in hearings) we can compare that list against items in the photos
>which are shown in Chief Jesse Curry's book JFK Assassination File on page 113.
> On page 113 there is a photo of the items "Voluntarily given to Dallas P.D. by
>Ruth Paine + Mrs. Oswald ... 11/ 22 / 63.
>
>The last item on the list on the list is ....Wool blanket rolled up and tied at
>one end with a cord, open at the other end. ( released to FBI and taken to
>Washington ) We know that the blanket was sent to Washington at midnight 11 /22
>/63 so all the items on the list were taken on 11 /22 / 63.
>
>Ruth Paine testified that the police confiscated carloads of personal belongs
>some of which was hers. She was mad as hell and she did NOT volunteer the
>items. The items were taken illegally. There is no doubt that the cops had most
>of Oswald's stuff on Friday November 22, 1963...... the evidence lists and the
>photo's prove that. The fact that there is no mention of the Back Yard photos
>in the evidence lists leads me to believe they weren't among the items seized
>on 11/22/63. But there is little doubt that the DPD had them...... However
>since ONE of them MAY have been among Oswald's possessions which were seized on
>Friday, I can understand why they would have wanted to keep that fact hidden.
>
>Let's say they did find a B.Y.photo among Oswald's possessions, but since it
>had been obtained without a search warrant they couldn't use it as evidence
>against him. So they had to show that the photo was obtained through a legal
>search. They conducted that legal search on Saturday afternoon and by golly
>they apparently found TWO photos.
>They enlarged only ONE of them and showed it to Oswald who immediately
>pronounced it to be a fake..... was he lying about it being a picture of him,
>or was it a fake?
>Well that depends on which picture they showed him.... was it CE 133A, or was
>it CE 133B or was it 133C..... We can be certain that at least one of the B.Y.
>photo's is of illegitimate origin.....CE 133C. That particular photo was kept
>hidden from the public for 13 years. We know that both the DPD and the Secret
>service knew that CE 133C existed because only a couple of days after the
>assassination they were at 214 Neely street posing Bobby Brown as in the same
>manner that "Oswald" is seen in 133C.
>In 1991, Mary La Fontaine found photographic evidence that the authorities were
>tampering with 133C .....the photo that nobody knew existed. That same photo
>also turned up in 1991, among the possessions of Rusty livingston a former
>Dallas police photo lab technician .
>
>If it was 133C that Captain Fritz showed Oswald then he was probably telling
>the truth when he proclaimed it to be a fake. I believe there is sufficient
>evidence that there was skullduggery surrounding 133C, and to me it does look
>just as Oswald described it "his face pasted onto someone else's body.
>
>At anyrate Jean, you have created another crack in the dike, by attempting to
>prop up the big lie ..... you have focused attention on the interrogation
>sessions which show that Captain Fritz displayed a B.Y. photo to Oswald before
>it was officially found.
>
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>
>>
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DAnde9348
>From: " " <elec...@my-Deja.com>
>Date: Fri, 02 July 1999 12:17 AM EDT
>Message-id: <KOHLHIDE...@my-deja.com>
>--Sorry this reply is so late incoming. Your reasoning on this issue is
excellent. Judyth
Thanks for the nice compliment Judyth.
The reasoning may be excellent, but the presentation is poor.......
apparently nobody understood the post because you are the only one to respond
to it.
The evidence and official memos clearly show that the investigating officials (
DPD, Secret Service, and FBI ) knew about a Back Yard photo before it was
officially discovered on the afternoon of 11 /23 / 63.
If this isn't evidence of malfeasance, and obstruction of justice by the police
I don't know what is.
Walt