QUESTION # 56
Gil Jesus
on the night of the assassination.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the
Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to
have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, the first night of the
assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
( 9 H 444 )
But Dallas Detective Gus Rose testified that the photo was not found
until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of
the Paine residence.
Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. At this time you had a search warrant?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. What did you search on this day?
Mr. ROSE. We made a search of the garage, mainly, on this day since
quite a bit of Lee Oswald's property was in the garage.
Mr. BALL. What did you find there?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I found two sea bags, three suitcases, and two
cardboard boxes and all of them contained numerous items of property
of Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald
holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right
with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what
you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the
negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing
there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
( 7 H 231 )
How did the authorities have in their possession a photo which had not
yet been found ?
Gil Jesus
bump
justm...@gmail.com
Paines answer mentions a picture on the cover of Life Magazine. His
response does not make any sense. You are reading into his answer to
suit your question. Liebeler's question says did the FBI "EVER" show
you a picture. It does not specify the picture being shown the night
of the assassination.
Paines response, "They asked me at first" to anyone with a logical
mind means the FBI asked him if he had ever seen the rifle
before...then after the picture was found they asked him to point out
the location where LHO was standing in the snapshot. Paines answer
does not specify any time when he was shown the photograph. The only
time established as being the night of the assassination is when the
he states the FBI asked him AT FIRST (before showing him any photo) if
he had ever seen the rifle before.
Just another one of your misleading lines of bullshit and assuming you
know for a fact what happened when nothing in this testimony
specifically states when the photo was shown to Paine.
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
bump
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
bump...where are you Gilly Girl????
Gil Jesus
>Paines response, "They asked me at first" to anyone with a logical
>mind means the FBI asked him if he had ever seen the rifle
>before...
>The only time established as being the night of the assassination is when the
>he states the FBI asked him AT FIRST (before showing him any photo) if
>he had ever seen the rifle before.
Strictly your opinion.
Where did Liebeler ask him if the FBI asked him if he ever saw the
rifle before ?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the
Government EVER SHOW YOU A PICTURE of the rifle that was supposed to
have been used to assassinate the President?
> Paines answer mentions a picture on the cover of Life Magazine. His response does not make >any sense. You are reading into his answer to suit your question.
We're not talking about the question, Joey, we're talking about what
Michael Paine said.
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, the first night of the
assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
How could he possibly "locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding his rifle" if he wasn't shown the
picture ?
Was he there when Marina took it ?
His testimony indicates that he was shown the picture that later
appeared "on the cover of Life" on "the first night of the
assassination".
> Just another one of your misleading lines of bullshit and assuming you
> know for a fact what happened when nothing in this testimony
> specifically states when the photo was shown to Paine.-
It's obvious that you don't or won't comprehend what is written.
justm...@gmail.com
It's obvious that you don't know or comprehend what is written....your
question and Paines answer is only your opinion...it is not FACT.
Paines answers doesn't even make any sense. Basically the type of
answers we get from you idiots which talk in circles never saying
anything significant.
Walt
I agree that Paine answered questions in a manner similar to a mafiaso
like Jack Ruby, But he wasn't quite as adept at it as Ruby. He
slipped and slid many times during his testimony and if he hadn't been
handled with kid gloves by the crooked WC lawye, he'd have spilled his
guts.
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, the first night of the
assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
I think what was carefully avoided in this questioning..... Was WHERE
did the authorities get this photo just a few hours after the murder
of president Kennedy?
I suspect that Paine gave them that copy of CE 133A and after he gave
it to them they asked him if he knew where the photo had been
taken.
Walt
You're right, Gil........ Just (clueless) me is too stupid to
understand plain english.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> It's obvious that you don't know or comprehend what is written....your
> question and Paines answer is only your opinion...it is not FACT.
Joey:
Paine's answer is not my opinion. It was quoted from YOUR evidence,
i.e., that which you support.
( 9 H 444 )
Perhaps if you owned a copy of that report that you defend and knew
what it said, you wouldn't make such asinine and outrageous comments.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'm going to give you the correct answer to this question:
The DPD made two trips to the Paine residence to search it. One
without a warrant on the day of the assassination and one with a
warrant the following day.
Officially, the first time they went there, nothing was found.
But that's not true. They did find some things, among them, CE133-A.
That was on the day of the assassination. THAT'S when they questioned
Michael Paine about it.
Since Michael Paine was at the Paine home on the day of the
assassination, it would seem logical that the cops would question him
about the picture IF THEY HAD FOUND IT DURING A SEARCH OF THE
PREMISES.
The problem was that they didn't have a search warrant. In order to
obtain a search warrant, the requestor has to explain to the court
SPECIFICALLY what it is he is looking for. Since they didn't know what
they were looking for, they couldn't apply for a search warrant.
They HAD to find any evidence while excuting a warrant. Oswald was
still alive and facing trial. Otherwise, that "evidence" would have
been thrown out of court because it had been seized during an illegal
search.
The next day, once they KNEW what they were looking for, they GOT the
search warrant and went back to the Paine residence to execute it.
And lo and behold, they "found" all KINDS of things.
THAT'S how Michael Paine saw CE-133-A on the day of the assassination
and the cops didn't "FIND" it until Saturday.
Now you know.
Now you know also that Gus Rose was a liar when he said that they
found it on Saturday.
So what else did Gus Rose lie about ?
What else did the Dallas Police lie about ?
I'm sure you disagree with this scenario, Joey. So I'd like to hear
your explanation and let's see if it makes sense.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6b1b6198-0114-4517...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Sam McClung
explain away this problem re:
> How did the authorities have in their possession a photo which had not
> yet been found ?
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6b1b6198-0114-4517...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
justm...@gmail.com
> under walt's scenario of 133a being legit, maybe they made 133b and 133c to
> explain away this problem re:
>
> > How did the authorities have in their possession a photo which had not
> > yet been found ?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paine said the first time he saw or knew of the rifle was when he was
at the DPD the night of the assassination and he could see thru a
glass window the rifle being shown to Marina.
Mr. LIEBELER. I am going to unwrap the package with the rifle which
was
wrapped in the blanket, and I want to ask you if you had ever seen
this rifle.
Commission Exhibit 139, before?
Mr. PAINE. Not to my-the first time I saw a rifle, I didn’t realize
that he
had a rifle. I thought, I knew he liked rifles because he spoke fondly
of them
in the Soviet Union although he regretted that he couldn’t own a
rifle, and I
supposed that he still didn’t have one so I didn’t see a rifle until
the night of the
22d when Marina was shown a rifle in an adjoining cubicle glass
between us.
Mr. LIEB~LER. YOU observed through the glass a rifle being shown to
Marina
Oswald?
Mr. PAINE. That is right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did YOU hear any of the questions being asked her at
that time?
Mr. PAINE. No; I couldn’t hear.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did your wife see this rifle being shown to Marina
Oswald?
Why didn't Paine say that he had seen a photo of the rifle before
seeing the actual rifle at the DPD? Liebeler's original question does
NOT mention when the FBI showed him the BY photo. Why do you keep
insisting that it was the night of the assassination when Paine said
all of his time was spent at the DPD being questioned and nothing is
mentioned of a photo being shown to him that first night? Because of
the way he answered the question saying:
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, THE FIRST NIGHT OF THE
ASSASSINATION if I could locate,
After reading the above I don't see how Paine could have seen any
photo on the night of the assassination and not mention it
specifically...his original answer is way to wishy washy for you to
try and state this as a fact.
Gil Jesus
PICTURE, not the rifle.
Either that, or he's trying to put his own spin on it even though the
testimony needs no interpretation:
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the
Government ever show you a PICTURE of the rifle that was supposed to
have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, THE FIRST NIGHT OF THE
ASSASSINATION if I could locate, IDENTIFY THE PLACE WHERE LEE WAS
STANDING WHEN HE WAS HOLDING THIS RIFLE and some, the picture on the
cover of Life. (emphases mine)
( 9 H 444 )
Now, again I'll ask Joey a second time to answer these questions:
justm...@gmail.com
And again Liebeler asks did the FBI "EVER" it does not say on the
night of the assassination....you find proof where it says that a
picture was shown to Paine the night of the assassination...you can't.
You are the one misleading with this question based on the wishy washy
answer from Paine making it sound like he was shown a picture the
night of the assassination. Many of Paines answers were half answers
and he would change the direction of them in mid stream or never
finish a sentance.
Sooooo....show me proof that a picture was found the night of the
assassination and shown to Paine, because it sure wasnt' done at the
DPD and Paine was not at the house when the DPD and FBI got there
looking around the day of the assassination until after the fact. Then
he was driven to the DPD for questioning.
Walt
Wishy washy it may be ......But Paine specifically says "the first
NIGHT" . So we can establish that this happened at NIGHT. The ONLY
"N-I-G-H-T" that Paine was at the police station was Friday November
22, 1963.
Gil Jesus
You claim that he wasn't shown the picture on the night of the
assassination.
Will you or will you not answer these questions Joey ?
Walt
Just clueless me , Are you really this stupid??? Let's see if we can
clean up Paine's statement just a little to help you understand what
he said.
They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I
could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
Here it is rewritten just for you.....Paine: They asked me on the
first night of the assassination if I knew where the photo had been
taken, and if could I identify the place where Lee was standing when
he was holding this rifle and some newspapers. The photo that I gave
them is the same picture that was published on the cover of Life.
There ya go..... Hope that helps your tiny little mind understnd the
reply.
justm...@gmail.com
And again I'll tell you to show me proof that the picture was found on
the day of the assassination and not the following day.
As for Walts post above, Paine started to say something about the
first night and then stopped dead and continued on with a different
sentance...i do not think that the first night has anything to do with
the rest of his answer. Look at so many of his responses...he starts
saying one thing and in mid-stream completes the sentance with
something different.
Sorry Gilly Girl....don't believe you and I never will without proof.
Paines response is not proof because it does NOT specifically say I
was shown a photo on the first night. Furthermore he said the first
time he saw the rifle was at the DPD...now the photo is a picture of
the RIFLE with LHO holding it. If the first time he'd seen the rifle
was at the police station then he didn't see it in a picture before
that. You want to argue what his answer means, then his answer about
not seeing the rifle (for real or in a picture) can argue against you
and your interpetation.
Still waiting for that proof that the picture was found the day of the
assassination...hurry up girlie.
Gil Jesus
Stop dancing, stop avoiding, stop the smoke screens.
Answer the questions.
Walt
> On Sep 22, 4:06 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Third time...same questions.
>
> > You claim that he wasn't shown the picture on the night of the
> > assassination.
>
> > Will you or will you not answer these questions Joey ?
>
> > How could he possibly "locate, identify the place where Lee was
> > standing when he was holding his rifle" if he wasn't shown the
> > picture ?
>
> > Was he there when Marina took it ?
>
> And again I'll tell you to show me proof that the picture was found on
> the day of the assassination and not the following day.
>
> As for Walts post above, Paine started to say something about the
> first night and then stopped dead and continued on with a different
> sentance...i do not think that the first night has anything to do with
> the rest of his answer. Look at so many of his responses...he starts
> saying one thing and in mid-stream completes the sentance with
> something different.
No he didn't change subjects.....the subject being discussed was the
Back Yard photo
He clearly said that when he described the photo and said that it was
the picture on the cover of Life.
They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I
could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
You've got to be really stupid if you truely can't understand that the
cops asked him about the back yard photo on the night following the
afternoon of the murder of President Kennedy.
Gil Jesus
> Just clueless me , Are you really this stupid??? �Let's see if we can
> clean up Paine's statement just a little to help you understand what
> he said.
He's not that stupid. No one is.
His smoke screen is because Michael Paine didn't directly say that he
was shown the picture on the night of the assassination, then he
wasn''t shown them.
But he can't tell us how Michael Paine was supposed to tell the Dallas
cops on the night of the assassination where the picture was taken
WITHOUT seeing the picture.
Ever try to do that, locate a place on a picture without seeing the
picture ?
This is not a troll who CAN'T see, this is a troll who WON'T see.
And his refusal to answer the questions is proof of that.
IGNORANT and content to stay that way.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where in that sentance does it say (other then what you added of your
own free will) that Paine gave them the photo? That is your theory,
that is not fact. You're just as fucking delusional as your counter
part Jesus. You both add things to what isn't there and because you
think thats what it is supposed to say or mean, then its fact. Show me
proof, not just your theory Walt. Lets see in writing word for word
from Paine that he gave them the photo...not what you have added on
your own.
And still waiting for Jesus to prove that Paine saw a photo the night
of the assassination.
No point arguing with you 2 morons....its like talking to a piece of
tree bark.
Walt
Yer probably right....The tree wouldn't listen to your bullshit
either.
.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee9f2246-548d-43b0...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
justme wrote;
Where in that sentance does it say (other then what you added of your
own free will) that Paine gave them the photo? That is your theory,
that is not fact. You're just as fucking delusional as your counter
part Jesus. You both add things to what isn't there and because you
think thats what it is supposed to say or mean, then its fact. Show me
proof, not just your theory Walt. Lets see in writing word for word
from Paine that he gave them the photo...not what you have added on
your own.
And still waiting for Jesus to prove that Paine saw a photo the night
of the assassination.
No point arguing with you 2 morons....its like talking to a piece of
tree bark.
I write;
Pain's testimony that he saw the photo on Friday night is HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
justme LOOSES AGAIN! ! !
Gil Jesus
Paine said that on "the first night tof the assassination" that he
"identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house" as
being "the Neely Street address".
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the
Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to
have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, the first night of the
assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to?
Mr. PAINE. I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of
the house.
Mr. LIEBELER. By the what?
Mr. PAINE. By the small clapboard structure, the house has an
unusually small clapboard.
Mr. LIEBELER. What did you identify the place as being?
Mr. PAINE. The Neely Street address. He didn't drive a car, so to have
them over for dinner I had to go over and pick them up.
( 9 h 444 )
HOW CAN HE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION FROM THE BUILDING WITHOUT SEEING THE
PICTURE ?
moron.
justm...@gmail.com
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn same shit over and over again isn't going
to prove your point idiot.
When you can show Paine specifically stating he saw the photo the
night of the assassination then we'll talk, till then get lost. I am
not interpeting his answer the way you are and his answer is not proof
that he saw it the night of 11/22, it is only proof that he saw the
photo. That answer by Paine could is not descriptive or coherent
enough to come to the conclusion that you are trying to post as fact.
Let's see what others have to say about it, seeing how no one other
then Walt (the story teller who makes up his own scenerios and thinks
hes correct) and Rossley (who has a good majority of the info on his
web site wrong) are the only ones that have commented in your behalf.
And Walt's story isn't even the same as yours is. LOL
Go bother someone else moron....I'll keep checking for that proof,
although I know you won't be able to produce anything showing the
picture was taken from the Paine house on 11/22.
Gil Jesus
bump
tomnln
Now you understand why justme stays away from evidence/testimony.
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f5b6116e-5413-437d...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:d433c8f7-4b2e-469b...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is rewritten just for you.....Paine: They asked me on the
first night of the assassination if I knew where the photo had been
taken, and if could I identify the place where Lee was standing when
he was holding this rifle and some newspapers. The photo that I gave
them is the same picture that was published on the cover of Life.
There ya go..... Hope that helps your tiny little mind understnd the
reply.
WHERE does Michael Pains state in his tgestimony that HE gave them a copy of
the photo 133-a???
Are you Speculating Again Walt?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> Here it is rewritten just for you.....Paine: They asked me on the
> first night of the assassination if I knew where the photo had been
> taken, and if could I identify the place where Lee was standing when
> he was holding this rifle and some newspapers. The photo that I gave
> them is the same picture that was published on the cover of Life.
>
> There ya go..... Hope that helps your tiny little mind understnd the
> reply.
>
> WHERE does Michael Pains state in his tgestimony that HE gave them a copy of
> the photo 133-a???
>
> Are you Speculating Again Walt?
Speculating??? Hell no.....I was there and I witnessed Paine give
Detective Rose the photo, ya dip shit.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Sam Brown
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e641fc08-82a5-44c4...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 12:20 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 21, 10:23 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 7:54 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Michael Paine testified that he was shown "backyard photograph" C133-A
>
> > > have been used to assassinate the President?
>
> > > assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
> > > standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
> > > cover of Life.
>
>
> > > until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of
> > > the Paine residence.
>
> > > Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?
>
> > > Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
>
> > > Mr. BALL. At this time you had a search warrant?
>
> > > Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
>
> > > Mr. BALL. What did you search on this day?
>
> > > Mr. ROSE. We made a search of the garage, mainly, on this day since
> > > quite a bit of Lee Oswald's property was in the garage.
>
> > > Mr. BALL. What did you find there?
>
> > > Mr. ROSE. Well, I found two sea bags, three suitcases, and two
> > > cardboard boxes and all of them contained numerous items of property
> > > of Oswald.
>
> > > Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
>
> > > Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald
> > > holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right
> > > with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what
> > > you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the
> > > negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing
> > > there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
>
> > > ( 7 H 231 )
>
> > > How did the authorities have in their possession a photo which had not
> > > yet been found ?
>
> > response does not make any sense. You are reading into his answer to
> > you a picture. It does not specify the picture being shown the night
> > of the assassination.
>
> > Paines response, "They asked me at first" to anyone with a logical
> > mind means the FBI asked him if he had ever seen the rifle
> > the location where LHO was standing in the snapshot. Paines answer
> > does not specify any time when he was shown the photograph. The only
> > time established as being the night of the assassination is when the
> > he states the FBI asked him AT FIRST (before showing him any photo) if
> > he had ever seen the rifle before.
>
> > know for a fact what happened when nothing in this testimony
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
bump...where are you Gilly Girl????
I'd say he's busy pulling on his sneakers, ready to do some running .
ROTFLMAO. KUTGW!
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7384db8a-e380-4acd...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Rossley has YOUR official Records on his website CUNT.
Even the Filth you Started>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
Then you Cried like a baby when I Retaliated.
tomnln
Walt wrote;
Speculating??? Hell no.....I was there and I witnessed Paine give
Detective Rose the photo, ya dip shit.
I write;
Rather than answer Walt gives a Typical LN'r reply.
Looks like Walt got caught Speculating AGAIN.
Yer still trying to make CT's look bad Huh Walt?
Are you gonna give a Citation or RUN???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
> Michael Paine testified that he was shown "backyard photograph" C133-A
>
> have been used to assassinate the President?
>
> assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
> standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
> cover of Life.
>
>
> until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of
> the Paine residence.
>
> Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
>
> Mr. BALL. At this time you had a search warrant?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
>
> Mr. BALL. What did you search on this day?
>
> Mr. ROSE. We made a search of the garage, mainly, on this day since
> quite a bit of Lee Oswald's property was in the garage.
>
> Mr. BALL. What did you find there?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Well, I found two sea bags, three suitcases, and two
> cardboard boxes and all of them contained numerous items of property
> of Oswald.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald
> holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right
> with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what
> you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the
> negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing
> there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
>
> ( 7 H 231 )
>
> How did the authorities have in their possession a photo which had not
> yet been found ?
It would be impossible to have the photo before it was found,
therefore a reasonable explanation must be found. The simplest would
be that Paine was mistaken about when he was shown the photo.
Gil Jesus
without a warrant on the day of the assassination and one with a
warrant the following day.
The first time they went there, they had no warrant.
Mr. LIEBELER. What time did you arrive at your home in Irving?
Mr. PAINE. I would guess about 3 or 3:30, somewhere in that
neighborhood.
Mr. LIEBELER. Who was there when you arrived?
Mr. PAINE. The police, the Dallas police mostly were there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you mentioned before that after you arrived home
you went into the garage when the police officers went into your
garage. Was there any indication to you at that time that the garage
had been previously searched by the police or anyone else?
Mr. PAINE. This I don't remember very well. But, as I remember, this
was not the first time we had gone in there. I think, perhaps, they
went into--I don't remember, but I don't think it was the first time
they had gone in.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us where the blanket was found?
Mr. PAINE. It doesn't really make sense as to why they would still
leave the blanket there, and these things would have been discussed at
that time, but I kind of remember a kind of silhouette situation, a
police officer either lifted up or kicked this blanket, which was in
exactly the same location that the rifle, the package had been,
underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust. And I think he put it
back there.
(2 H 427 )
They did remove some things from the Paine property, among them, CE133-
A. That was on the day of the assassination. THAT'S when they
questioned Michael Paine about it.
Mr. LIEBELER. What else happened?
Mr. PAINE. We went out of the garage, I don't think he took the
blanket then even.
Mr. LIEBELER. This is the Dallas police officer?
Mr. PAINE. Yes, plainclothesman, wearing black hats; one of them had
one of those Texas hats. He collected all the useless stuff in our
house, he went around and collected all the files of Ruth, and a
drawer of cameras, mostly belonging to me. I tried to tell him one of
the files contained our music or something like that, and the more I
suggested it, that he not bother taking those, the more insistent he
was in taking those objects. So with the various boxes and piles of
stuff, mostly of our stuff, we got in the car and went off, and he was
quite irked that we had wasted quite enough time around there, he
said, and Ruth was irked, and everybody was irked by it. He wouldn't
let us be helpful, and thought we were he became angry when we tried
to be helpful or something that we would suggest that he should do.
( 2 H 428 )
Perhaps like asking if they had a warrant.
Mr. JENNER. The police arrived and what occurred.
Mrs. PAINE. I went to the door. They announced themselves as from both
the sheriff's office and the Dallas Police Office, showed me at least
one package or two. I was very surprised.
Mr. JENNER. Did you say anything?
Mrs. PAINE. I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man
in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He
is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea
that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in
the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to
search the house. I asked if they had a warrant. They said they
didn't. They said they could get the sheriff out here right away with
one if I insisted. And I said no, that was all right, they could be my
guests.
They then did search the house.
Mr. JENNER. How many police officers were there?
Mrs. PAINE. There were six altogether, and they were busy in various
parts of the house.
( 3 H 78-79 )
The problem was that they didn't have a search warrant. And Ruth
Paine's consent to a search would have been considered "coerced
consent". In other words, her consent was given because the officer
asserted official status ( that of the sheriff ) and she yielded to
this factor rather than make her own determination to admit officers.
The reason why they went there without a search warrant was because in
order to obtain a search warrant, the requestor has to explain to the
court SPECIFICALLY what it is he is looking for. Since they didn't
know what they were looking for, they couldn't apply for a search
warrant.
They HAD to find any evidence while excuting a warrant. Oswald was
still alive and facing trial. Otherwise, that "evidence" would have
been thrown out of court because it had been seized during an illegal
search.
Since Michael Paine was at the Paine home on the day of the
assassination and The Paines went with police to headquarters after
the search of their home, it would seem logical that the cops would
question him about the picture on the night of the assassination IF
THEY HAD FOUND IT DURING THAT SEARCH OF THE PREMISES.
Mr. LIEBELER. You went with the police?
Mr. PAINE. We went with the police in several cars and didn't come
back until quite a lot later that night, didn't go into the garage
again; didn't want the Life reporters to take photographs, so I don't
think they went in the garage to take photographs. Several--their
possessions were searched by various waves of succeeding policemen,
Dallas, and Irving and FBI, and what not.
( 2 H 428)
Mr. DULLES. The only question I have in mind is as to what took place
as far as Mr. Paine is concerned on the night of the assassination.
Were you in the police station?
Mr. PAINE. We went down to the police and stayed there until about 8
or 9 o'clock.
( 2 H 430 )
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the
Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to
have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, the first night of the
assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
( 9 H 444 )
The next day, once they KNEW what they were looking for, they GOT the
search warrant and went back to the Paine residence to execute it.
Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. At this time you had a search warrant?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. What did you search on this day?
Mr. ROSE. We made a search of the garage, mainly, on this day since
quite a bit of Lee Oswald's property was in the garage.
( 7 H 231 )
And lo and behold, they "found" CE-133-A.
Mr. BALL. What did you find there?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I found two sea bags, three suitcases, and two
cardboard boxes and all of them contained numerous items of property
of Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald
holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right
with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what
you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the
negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing
there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
( 7 H 231 )
THAT'S how Michael Paine saw CE-133-A on the day of the assassination
and the cops didn't "FIND" it until Saturday.
Now you know.
Now you know also that Gus Rose was a liar when he said that they
found it on Saturday.
So what else did Gus Rose lie about ?
What else did the Dallas Police lie about ?
I'm sure you disagree with this scenario, Joey.
So I'd like to hear your explanation and let's see if it makes sense.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
LOL! Say, this is INCREDIBLY thin evidence you're using to make your
case here.
Every case you make appears to be wafer thin, Gil.
BTW, Gil, ol' Tom Purvis gave you a TERRIBLE kicking on the rifle
sling issue over at the Education Forum the other day, from what I
saw, on the very same grounds.
Oh the *carnage was legendary*, as they say! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 21, 9:54 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Michael Paine testified that he was shown "backyard photograph" C133-A
> on the night of the assassination.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the
> Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to
> have been used to assassinate the President?
>
> Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, the first night of the
> assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
> standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
> cover of Life.
>
> ( 9 H 444 )
>
> But Dallas Detective Gus Rose testified that the photo was not found
> until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of
> the Paine residence.
>
> Mr. BALL. On Saturday morning you went out to Irving again?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
>
> Mr. BALL. At this time you had a search warrant?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; I did.
>
> Mr. BALL. What did you search on this day?
>
> Mr. ROSE. We made a search of the garage, mainly, on this day since
> quite a bit of Lee Oswald's property was in the garage.
>
> Mr. BALL. What did you find there?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Well, I found two sea bags, three suitcases, and two
> cardboard boxes and all of them contained numerous items of property
> of Oswald.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
>
> Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald
> holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right
> with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what
> you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the
> negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing
> there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.
>
> ( 7 H 231 )
>
Gil Jesus
> �It would be impossible to have the photo before it was found,
> therefore a reasonable explanation must be found. The simplest would
> be that Paine was mistaken about when he was shown the photo
Brilliant Bud. I notice that that's always your side's fall-back
position when you can't explain something: The witness was wrong.
Now tell us why Michael Paine was wrong and not Gus Rose ?
Gil Jesus
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Gil,
>
> LOL! Say, this is INCREDIBLY thin evidence you're using to make your
> case here.
It's all in the 26 volumes, Timmy. Cited and quoted.
Maybe if you'd read them, you'd know.
PS:
I don't pay attention to bullies like Purvis.
He kicked Von Pein's ass here last week and you didn't seem to notice.
In fact, I don't even think you came to the defense of poor Von Pein.
It must be nice to have friends like you.
Have a nice day.
Gil Jesus
>
> bump...where are you Gilly Girl????
>
> I'd say he's busy pulling on his sneakers, ready to do some running .
Paine said that on "the first night tof the assassination" that he
"identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house"
as
being "the Neely Street address".
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the
Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to
have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE. They asked me at first, the first night of the
assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was
standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the
cover of Life.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to?
Mr. PAINE. I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of
the house.
Mr. LIEBELER. By the what?
Mr. PAINE. By the small clapboard structure, the house has an
unusually small clapboard.
Mr. LIEBELER. What did you identify the place as being?
Mr. PAINE. The Neely Street address. He didn't drive a car, so to
have
them over for dinner I had to go over and pick them up.
( 9 h 444 )
Sammy:
Let's see who the runners are. Answer this question:
How is Paine able to recognize the house by the clapboard siding and
thus identify the location of Oswald holding the rifle as Neely St.
WITHOUT SEEING THE PICTURE ?
The world will be waiting for your explanation.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have told you 10 times now what I think Jesus. You continue to post
the same crap over and over again. You are using what Paine said when
asked if he was EVER shown a picture and that is all you have to base
your speculation on the fact that the picture was found on 11/22.
"EVER" doesn't specify the night of 11/22....I am not reading into
Paines answer the way you and Walt have. Based on a good majority of
his answers in his testimony, he was never clear about times or dates.
If you want to believe he was shown the picture and that the DPD
confiscated it without a warrent then you go right ahead and do so.
From your continual starting of threads on the same subject and your
rah rahs from Walt, Rossley and the junkie...it appears that's all you
need to keep thinking YOU ARE RIGHT. As Tim said...wafer thin as
usual.
As for searching without a warrent, Ruth Paine gave the officers
permission to do a search without a warrent. In cases where there is a
probability that evidence could be taken or disposed of before a
warrent is issued, with the homeowners consent police can secure
evidence without a warrent. Paines mistake was allowing them to search
prior to a warrent being issued. So, even if they did find a photo the
day of the assassination, they did not break any laws under the
circumstances. We are talking about a suspect being held in custody
for shooting the President and a police officer. They will do whatever
it takes to get the evidence secured. Had Ruth Paine not given her
consent to search, anything they found as evidence would probably have
been null and void and not submitted as evidence if a trial had
occured.
Either way Detective Duf-ass...what is it your trying to prove with
this lame question of yours anyway? That the DPD was in on it and did
something sinister? Your question has been answered, drop it and move
on.
While you're at it, take a refresher course in law enforcement...you
need it.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:7f59360e-8ec5-4ec6...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
FUNNY how all your witnesses are "Mistaken".
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aff00f6d-90dd-46e9...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
justme wrote;
I write;
It was mike Paine's ANSWER that established that the DPD showed him the
photo BEFORE it was found !
Along with the DPD showing it to Oswald at the 12:30 interrogation on
Saturday.
It wasn't found before 3:30 Saturday afternoon acc to testimony from one of
YOUR people.
Your side LIED! ! !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The truth is we don't know WHICH Back Yard photo that was shown to
Oswald on Saturday.
The memo written by Captain Fritz makes it clear that Fritz had seen a
Back Yard photo BEFORE 3:30 Saturday afternoon. ( can someone provide
a link to this portion of Fritz memo from appendix XI of WR) It a
reasonable assumtion that if Fritz had a Back Yard Photo at 12:30
( and it's obvious that he did) he would have showed it to Oswald and
asked him why he had the murder weapon in his hands in the picture.
But regardless whether Fritz showed him the photo at 12:30 or at a
later session, Oswald IMMEDIATELY pronounced it to be a fake. Since
apparently Oswald wasn't taken aback and left speechless by having a
photo thrust in his face, we can assume that he saw immediately that
it was NOT the photo that he had signed and gave to several people.
I've always suspected that the photo that Oswald pronounced to be a
fake is the photo (133C) that Geneva White had in her possession. The
cops were alarmed when Oswald immediately prounced their fake photo to
be a fake that they thought the forgery must be really easy to spot if
Oswald spotted it in an instant, so they hid that photo away. Little
did they know that the reason Oswald immeiately said it was a fake is
because he KNEW what the AUTHENTIS photo CE133A looked like.
> It wasn't found before 3:30 Saturday afternoon acc to testimony from one of
> YOUR people.
>
> Your side LIED! ! !
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
Warren Report:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm
The 26 Volumes:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh.htm
Walt
> Walt:
>
> Warren Report:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm
Thanks Gil,..... See page 607 about half way down..... Fritz writes
about an interrogation session that took place on Saturday November 23
at 12:35pm.........
the paragraph begins :
Quote......"Oswald was placed back in jail at 11:33 am. At 12:35 pm
Oswald was brought to the office for another interview with inspector
Kelley and some of the other officers and myself. I talked to Oswald
about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find
where he was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle
which looked to be the same rifle we had recovered. This picture
showed to have been taken near a stairway with many identifing things
in the back yard."..... Unquote.
Fritz is obviously talking about a back yard photo at 12:35 pm.....
But the photos weren't officially discovered until at least two hours
AFTER this "interview" ( an "interview" that left Oswald with more
cuts and bruises )
Bud
> On Sep 23, 6:44 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > It would be impossible to have the photo before it was found,
> > therefore a reasonable explanation must be found. The simplest would
> > be that Paine was mistaken about when he was shown the photo
>
> Brilliant Bud. I notice that that's always your side's fall-back
> position when you can't explain something: The witness was wrong.
One of the two witnesses must be wrong, idiot, they both can`t be
right.
> Now tell us why Michael Paine was wrong and not Gus Rose ?
Could be. I said the simplest explanation was that Paine was wrong.
A lot of factors weigh in on Rose`s favor, the corroboration of
detectives Stovall and Adamcik, the fact that they didn`t have a
warrant to conduct a through search (the 23rd is when the bulk of the
evidence was seized, they only took a few items on the 22nd), and the
fact that Fritz didn`t show Oswald the photo until the last
interrogation all indicate to me that the photo wasn`t found on the
22nd. But, it doesn`t matter if Paine is right, and the photo was
found and shown to him on the 22nd, or if Rose was correct, and the
photo was found on the 23rd. One was right, one was wrong, with either
possibility having no great impact on Oswald`s guilt or innocence.
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
Paine says the cops showed him the photo on the 22nd. The cops say
they didn`t find the photo until the 23rd. Something really FUNNY
would be your explanation to account for this.
Bud
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Did Jean Hill saying there was a dog in the limo establish there was
one?
> Along with the DPD showing it to Oswald at the 12:30 interrogation on
> Saturday.
It was after 6:35, according to Fritz`s notes...
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz5-5.jpg
> It wasn't found before 3:30 Saturday afternoon acc to testimony from one of
> YOUR people.
>
> Your side LIED! ! !
Who said Oz was shown the photo at the 12:30 interrogation? Just a
name, not a link to your retarded website.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
>
> Fritz is obviously talking about a back yard photo at 12:35 pm.....
> But the photos weren't officially discovered until at least two hours
> AFTER this "interview" �( an "interview" that left Oswald with more
> cuts and bruises )
I agree Walt that Oswald was being beaten. I also believe that this is
the real reason why no taping or stenographer was used during the
interrogation.
No evidence and no "outside" witnesses to any coerced interrogation.
I remember quite a few years ago, the was a pair of escapees from the
Deer Island House of Correction near Boston, who stole a car and led
police on a high-speed chase down rte 24, wrecking one state trooper
in the process. The chase ended up getting off the highway and coming
into the town where I lived. The escapees finally wrecked and fled on
foot, later found in the garden of a resident by the State Police.
I was in the Communications Center, when the troopers brought this one
guy in and asked the Police Chief if they could use one of the rooms
for "interrogation". He agreed and they took him to a room and one of
our officers went with them.
They beat the hell out of the guy just for wrecking their brother
officer.
Here we have Oswald, accused of KILLING an officer AND the President
of the United States and he was never touched ?
Anyone naive to believe that Oswald wasn't beaten during his
interrogation simply doesn't know how these things work.
I'm interested in the timeline, though. Where can I find evidence that
the photo was found in the afternoon of Saturday rather than the
morning ?
Thanks.
David Von Pein
>>> "Anyone naive to believe that Oswald wasn't beaten during his interrogation simply doesn't know how these things work." <<<
LOL.
And yet the cops still allowed their "beaten" (to a bloody pulp?)
prisoner to be paraded in front of the live TV cameras, so that the
obvious "beatings" that had been administered to Oswald could be
filmed and photographed and documented. Right, Gil?
And please inform us where the pictures and films are that show any
type of PROGRESSIVE "beatings" that LHO was being subjected to while
in the DPD's custody. Why aren't these beatings noticeable in the TV
footage?
We can see Oswald with just a puffed-up eye and a small mark (cut)
over one eye when he's brought into the DPD headquarters on November
22 (as a result of the wild fight in the theater of course, when
Oswald was waving around his pistol and attempting to murder more
policemen with it).
The two pictures below show about the same amount of injury to LHO's
face. The injuries are certainly comparable anyway (although I'm not
exactly sure when the picture was snapped with LHO in just his T-
shirt, but in any event, that picture certainly represents a DIFFERENT
session in front of the press, since he no longer has on his brown
shirt). Shouldn't we see some additional injuries on Lee Oswald's face
by the time he gave his Midnight Press Conference, if the cops were
savaging the poor fellow behind closed doors?:
And then we have Oswald's official mug shot below, which is dated
11-23-63, so several hours of potential "beatings" have probably taken
place (according to Gil The Kook) by the time this pic was
taken....and the injuries to LHO look identical from earlier in the
day:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b72/Shhhsplain/bf42ded3.jpg
And then on November 24th, as he was being killed by Jack Ruby, we get
a pretty good look at Oswald's face....and there doesn't seem to be
any further marks or injuries on him:
Did the cops beat him up, but NOT in the face, Gil? Did they only gut-
punch the bastard, so that no additional facial injuries would show up
to the cameras in the hallway? And did they tell Oswald to keep his
mouth shut about this incessant abuse when he was marched in front of
the reporters for two straight days? And Oswald obeyed?
In short, folks, Gilbert Jesus (like always) is making up tall tales
that have ZERO basis in fact or in evidence.
In super-short -- Gil Jesus is a conspiracy-hungry nut.
Gil Jesus
Hell, they still torture prisoners today.
What do you think they did, just ask him questions ?
Think they yelled at him ?
Maybe they all sat around and had tea and crumpets.
You're a jackass of the highest order.
David Von Pein
Didn't they hit Lee in the face during these make-believe beatings of
yours, Gil?
You're a Mega-Kook of the most-idiotic order.
Gil Jesus
Von Pinhead thinks that in order for one to be beaten, he has to be
beaten about the head.
That there are no other ways to inflict pain on a prisoner than to hit
him in the face.
This shows you the mentality of a Von Pinhead.
David Von Pein
>>> "Hell, they still torture prisoners today." <<<
I'd be willing to bet my next five CIA/WC/VB shill checks (a
substantial sum of cash) that the vast majority of big-city (or small-
city) police departments have had very, very few instances where
prisoners have ever alleged that they were "beaten" while they were in
custody.
I'm sure a small pct. of prisoners are roughed-up somewhat DURING THE
ARREST PHASE, i.e., before they're locked in a cell....but my guess is
that the pct. of police "beatings" after a prisoner is in custody and
safely locked away is extremely small.
David Von Pein
>>> "[Mr. David R. Von Pein, my main dude of LNism] thinks that in order for one to be beaten, he has to be beaten about the head. That there are no other ways to inflict pain on a prisoner than to hit him in the face." <<<
Notice how Gil had to think about this response for several extra
minutes before replying with an extra post here.
IOW -- Gil realizes how stupid he was earlier for suggesting that the
DPD had "beaten" Lee Oswald while in custody, even though the same
cops doing the "beating" were more than willing to trot their beaten
prisoner in front of the world via the TV cameras and live audio
microphones, where Oswald could have blurted out anything at all for
the population to hear.
But Gil, being the kook he is, no doubt thinks that that was part of
the pre-arranged Patsy Plan re. Oswald after his arrest -- i.e., the
DPD said this among themselves on November 22, 23, and 24, 1963:
"It won't matter what LHO says in front of the live TV cameras
and to the reporters, guys....because we (the DPD) will easily be able
to convince the gullible public (like that guy Von Pein in Indiana)
that Oswald was just telling another lie when he said he was being
tortured for two days while in our custody (including having foot-long
bamboo chutes being shoved up his anal cavity). So let's parade him
around the hallways in front of these reporters anyway. Remember, that
was one of the main reasons that Captain Fritz and Chief Curry wanted
us to do that anyhow, in order to prove to the world that LHO wasn't
being abused or mistreated. It doesn't matter that the guy can barely
stand up (due to those bamboo chutes). Let's walk him through the
corridors one more time. Nobody's gonna notice or ask any questions
about his beat-up condition."
And Gil evidently thinks that Oswald was "beaten"....but his face was
never touched during any of these attacks.
Gilbert, you're a hoot.
(Healy, get in here. I'm acting like Keating again. Don't pass up this
opportunity to be a kook once again. Thanks.)
justm...@gmail.com
Just another line of crap from Gilly Girl with no proof to support it,
his conspiracy head up ass thinking. Hey Gilly, maybe they used
Maybelline and covered up all the cuts and scrapes....thats what you
use isn't it??
Remember DVP...it happened that way because Gil says it did. ROFLMAO
Walt
"But my guess"...... Pea Brain, you couldn't guess at the number of
fingers you have on your right hand and come up with the correct
answer.........
I haven't had any personal experience.... but I have a very good
friend who is a senior officer in law inforcement, and he's told me on
more than one occasion that the cops will "beat the shit" outta some
prisoners. Especially if the prisoner is a child molester, or has hurt
one of the "boys in blue".....and they don't leave marks on the
prisoners body. Now are you really going to try to make us believe
the cops didn't beat the shit outta him after he alledgedly had
murdered one of their fellow officers??? You're outta touch with
reality...... How did they treat him at the theater?? Have you seen
the photos of they way he was dragged from the theater?? How do you
suppose those cops treated him once he was no longer in view of the
public??? Tell me that you're not really this stupid.
Gil Jesus
Mr. BALL. The next day, you made another search of the Paine home,
didn't you?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we did.
Mr. BALL. About what time?
Mr. STOVALL. Must have been around 1 o'clock, just past noon, 1:00
p.m.
Mr. BALL. And did you obtain a search warrant first this day?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we did.
Mr. BALL. From what judge?
Mr. STOVALL. From J. B. Brown, Jr.
Mr. BALL. Who went out on the search party?
Mr. STOVALL. Detectives Moore, Rose, Adamcik and myself. We went by
the Irving Police Department and picked up Detective McCabe and he
went with us.
Mr. BALL. Moore is also a detective attached to the Dallas Police
Department?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, Homicide Bureau.
Mr. BALL. And that day you arrived at the Paine home about what time?
Mr. STOVALL. I would judge roughly around 1:30 or 2 o'clock.
( 7 H 193 )
---------------------------------------
HERE WE GO AGAIN:
How does Fritz show Oswald a Photo at 12:30 pm on Saturday, when the
police didn't arrive at the Paine home to search it until 1:30 or 2
o'clock ?
-----------------------------------------
Mr. DULLES. Are we now on Saturday noon?
Mr. BALL. Yes, sir; this is noon about 12:35.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. In the meantime your officers had brought back from Irving
some pictures that they found in the garage, hadn't they?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you had had them blown up, hadn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right.
Mr. BALL. What pictures--and you showed Oswald a picture at this time?
Mr. FRITZ. A picture of him holding a rifle and wearing the pistol. It
showed a picture of him
holding a rifle and wearing the pistol. I showed him first an
enlarged picture.
( 4 H 226 )
Walt
Gil, see page 607 in the WR..... Appendix XI Fritz's memo about the
interrogation of Oswald.
Cut and paste that page.... Fritz reveals that he had seen a BY photo
BEFORE he went into the 12:35 "interview" of Oswald
Bud
Yah, and there was an American flag on the moon before we landed on
it.
Walt
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Gil,
>
> LOL! Say, this is INCREDIBLY thin evidence you're using to make your
> case here.
>
> Every case you make appears to be wafer thin, Gil.
>
BTW, Gil, ol' Tom Purvis gave you a TERRIBLE kicking on the rifle
sling issue over at the Education Forum the other day, from what I
saw, on the very same grounds.
Let me guess..... Ol Purv trotted out his standard line of bullshit
that the bottom sling is really a side sling loop but the rifle is
rotated so that side swivel appears on the bottom of the rifle.
How'd I do??? Did I guess right. I'll also bet you believe that C---
O---S don't you sucker....
Walt
> On Sep 23, 7:15 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Gil,
>
> > LOL! Say, this is INCREDIBLY thin evidence you're using to make your
> > case here.
>
> It's all in the 26 volumes, Timmy. Cited and quoted.
>
> Maybe if you'd read them, you'd know.
>
> PS:
>
> I don't pay attention to bullies like Purvis.
Wasn't Purv here in this NG last week? Wonder why he didn't start
spoutin his BS while he was here?
He and Rob have a lot in common.....
Walt
> >>> "Now are you really going to try to make us believe the cops didn't beat the shit outta him after he alledgedly [sic] had murdered one of their fellow officers???" <<<
>
> Doesn't look like it, does it now, Walt-Kook?:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/048.+LEE+HARVEY+OSWALD...
>
> http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b72/Shhhsplain/bf42ded3.jpg
>
> >>> "You're outta touch with reality." <<<
>
> murder cases. Lovely.
>
> >>> "How did they treat him at the theater??" <<<
>
> those circumstances, that's for sure.
>
> The bastard pulls a gun and pops an officer in the face, and Walt
> thinks he should have been treated with kid gloves.
>
> Walt's nuts. (Naturally.)
>
> Oswald's quite lucky he wasn't graveyard dead at 1:55 PM on 11/22/63.
>
> >>> "Have you seen the photos of they way he was dragged from the theater??" <<<
>
> Jesus H. Christ, were they supposed to wipe his nose, dust him off,
> and send him on his merry way with a mere "Don't do that again, okay?"
> warning?
>
> Walt's nuts. (Naturally.)
>
> >>> "How do you suppose those cops treated him once he was no longer in view of the public???" <<<
>
> the below section of WC testimony. (Curry's a lliar, right Walt?):
Hey Von Pea Brain..... One of my favorite lines from the movie JFK was
uttered by Jack Martin ( Jack Lemon)
Garison was questioning him (Martin) and it was clear to Martin that
Garrison was clueless about the scope of the conspiracy. In utter
frustration Martin told Garrison ..... "You just don't get it...Do
you?" Don't you see?"
"You are SOOO naive"!....
That line fits you perfectly.......
It also fits many others in this NG........
>
> GERALD FORD -- You mentioned earlier there had been some allegations
> to the effect that Oswald had been badly treated.
>
> CHIEF JESSE E. CURRY -- There was---I didn't hear this myself but
> someone told me, I don't recall who it was, that some of the news
> media, I understood this was broadcast over the radio and TV.
>
> FORD -- Did you investigate that rumor?
>
> CURRY -- Yes, sir.
>
> FORD -- What did you find out?
>
> CURRY -- I found he had not been mistreated.
>
> FORD -- You checked with all the police personnel who had anything to
> do with it?
>
> CURRY -- Everyone I knew about and the only marks on him was, that I
> could see there was a slight mark on his face up here, and this was
> received when he was fighting the officers in that theatre, and they
> had to subdue him and in the scuffle, this episode in the theatre, he
> apparently received a couple of marks on his face. But he didn't
> complain to me about it. I think he--one of the times he was coming
> down the hall someone asked him what was the matter with his eye and
> he said, "A cop hit me," I believe, or "A policeman hit me." ....
>
> FORD -- But not in your presence did he [Oswald] object to any
> treatment he received from the Dallas police force?
>
> CURRY -- No, sir. I would like to say for the record that we are very
> strict on our officers in the treatment of prisoners, and we have a
> personnel section setup that any person who complains that they have
> been mistreated by the police officer, a thorough investigation is
> made, and if it is determined that he has been mistreated in any way,
> disciplinary action is taken, and on occasion we have, not frequently,
> but on occasion where we have found that this has been true we have
> dismissed personnel for mistreating a prisoner, so our personnel know
> positively this is not tolerated regardless of who it is.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/curry1.htm
Gil Jesus
>
> �BTW, Gil, ol' Tom Purvis gave you a TERRIBLE kicking on the rifle
> �sling issue over at the Education Forum the other day, from what I
> �saw, on the very same grounds.
>
> Let me guess..... Ol Purv trotted out his standard line of bullshit
> that the bottom sling is really a side sling loop but the rifle is
> rotated so that side swivel appears on the bottom of the rifle.
>
NOT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, BUT....
CE133-A shows the barrel loop AND HOLE with the round ring going
through it. Anyone with the brain of a first-grader can see that.
If the rifle had been turned, a.) you would see that in the way
Oswald's hands held the rifle and b.) the barrel loop and the hole
would not be visible.
If that's Purvis' argument, that the rifle was turned, then he's
F.O.S..
He may THINK he knows everything, but he's not telling me what I can
plainly see.
Walt
I'm sure that all who read ol Purv's posts saw that he is one of these
guys who is a self proclaimed expert.
While he does seem to be knowledgable about Carcanos.....He's not the
expert he fancies himself to be. AND he's an unsufferable blowhard.
David Von Pein
>>> "Now are you really going to try to make us believe the cops didn't beat the shit outta him [LHO] after he alledgedly [sic] had murdered one of their fellow officers???" <<<
Doesn't look like he was beaten up too badly, does it now, Walt-Kook?:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b72/Shhhsplain/bf42ded3.jpg
>>> "You're outta touch with reality." <<<
Says the kook who ignores all the evidence in both the JFK & JDT
murder cases. Lovely.
>>> "How did they treat him at the theater??" <<<
He was treated a lot better than he could have been treated under
those circumstances, that's for sure.
The bastard pulls a gun and pops an officer in the face, and Walt
thinks he should have been treated with kid gloves.
Walt's nuts. (Naturally.)
Oswald was quite lucky he wasn't graveyard dead at 1:55 PM on
11/22/63.
>>> "Have you seen the photos of they way he was dragged from the theater??" <<<
He had just pulled a gun on the cops in the theater, Mr. Brainless.
Jesus H. Christ, were they supposed to wipe his nose, dust him off,
and send him on his merry way with a mere "Don't do that again, okay?"
warning?
Walt's nuts. (Naturally.)
>>> "How do you suppose those cops treated him once he was no longer in view of the public???" <<<
He was treated just fine. Take note of Chief Curry's statement near
the end of his WC testimony shown below. (Curry's a liar, right
Walt?):
aeffects
wrote:
relax Skank..... why do you continue filling up the surroundings with
trash? You flea bitten piece of cow dung, you!
.John better should a replacement for you, someone actually worthy of
CT time here. Say Skank, do you know who JFK was?
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:5e076b40-4ed7-44d5...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fritz'a notes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
>
> � � Who said Oz was shown the photo at the 12:30 interrogation? Just a
> name, not a link to your retarded website.
HOW ABOUT CAPT FRITZ HIMSELF ? GOOD ENOUGH NAME FOR YA ?
Gil Jesus
> � � Who said Oz was shown the photo at the 12:30 interrogation? Just a
> name, not a link to your retarded website.
ROFLMAO... if Bud had the 26 volumes he so wholeheartedly defends,
he'd know the answer to that question.
Bud
What you are saying is you have all the testimony memorized, eh
idiot? What kooks think is the "good stuff" is discrepancies that take
you nowhere. Thats how idiots conduct investigations, they stare at
these things for decades, unable to move forward. A reasonable person
would conclude two things and move on... the photo was found amongst
Oz`s belongings, the photo was shown to Oswald. The time that these
things occurred is trivial.
Gil Jesus
>
> �What you are saying is you have all the testimony memorized, eh
> idiot? What kooks think is the "good stuff" is discrepancies that take
> you nowhere. Thats how idiots conduct investigations, they stare at
> these things for decades, unable to move forward. A reasonable person
> would conclude two things and move on... the photo was found amongst
> Oz`s belongings, the photo was shown to Oswald. The time that these
> things occurred is trivial.
No Bud. I'm suggesting that if you were that passionate about
defending what the WC said, you would at least own a CD or the 26
volumes. You seem to have no clue what the testimony said.
And I disagree. The discrepanices ARE important when investigating a
murder case, as any defense lawyer will tell you.
The timeline is crucial in determining whether or not the police were
credibile, or were trying to frame Oswald.
The way to the truth is to examine the case at every angle, rather
than to look at it with blinders on. If the case is solid, it will
stand against ANY scrutiny.
The frustration of your inability to reconcile the discrepanicies in
the evidence with your preconceived notions on this case is becoming
increasingly apparent.
It appears that you're becoming undone by what Rossley calls, "your
own evidence".
Perhaps you should read more and respond less.
tomnln
TWO people saw the photo BEFORE it was found Rinky-Dink.
Mile Paine & Fritz.
Kinda like you Dying before you were born because your parents were Brother
& Sister.
Bud
>
>
>
> > What you are saying is you have all the testimony memorized, eh
> > idiot? What kooks think is the "good stuff" is discrepancies that take
> > you nowhere. Thats how idiots conduct investigations, they stare at
> > these things for decades, unable to move forward. A reasonable person
> > would conclude two things and move on... the photo was found amongst
> > Oz`s belongings, the photo was shown to Oswald. The time that these
> > things occurred is trivial.
>
> No Bud. I'm suggesting that if you were that passionate about
> defending what the WC said, you would at least own a CD or the 26
> volumes. You seem to have no clue what the testimony said.
Perhaps it`s because I`m not passionate about defending what the WC
said. I look into whatever issues you kooks raise right to the point
where I lose interest. I could care less about the WC, but you idiots
with your stupid thinking make me sick.
> And I disagree. The discrepanices ARE important when investigating a
> murder case, as any defense lawyer will tell you.
You are a retard, don`t claim that lawyers will support the stupid
things you believe. Discrepancies will always exist, why would you
think that every time you ask a person when they were shown a
photograph, they will flawlessly recount the event months later. Or
every time someone shows someone else a photo, they will remember what
time of day it was when they showed the photo (especially running a
murder investigation with information coming in every five minutes
from Beckley, Irving, Oak Cliff, the TSBD, Dealy Plaza, the FBI, Post
Office, the military, ect, ect.
> The timeline is crucial in determining whether or not the police were
> credibile, or were trying to frame Oswald.
That is just you saying things. Why does it matter when Fritz showed
Oswald the photo? Why does it matter when it was found? It only
matters that these things did occur, not when.
> The way to the truth is to examine the case at every angle, rather
> than to look at it with blinders on. If the case is solid, it will
> stand against ANY scrutiny.
You should try a realistic approach that takes into account human
fallibility. Since these weren`t robots involved, why take the
irrational approach that everything they relate must be correct and
accurate? Why cling to these discrepancies in the false hope that they
will bring enlightenment? What good does it do you? Does Rose saying
he found the photo earlier than Fritz said he showed it Oswald support
the fantastic idea that the DPD forged the photo? Of course not, it
only raises the trivial issue of which man was wrong.
> The frustration of your inability to reconcile the discrepanicies in
> the evidence with your preconceived notions on this case is becoming
> increasingly apparent.
Don`t blame the case, the case is not the problem. My tolerance for
idiots is finite.
As far as discrepancies go, why do you believe the information to
resolve these discrepancies MUST be able to be found in the evidence?
It may be impossible to positively determine HOW Hill mistook the
shells at the Tippit murder scene for automatic by what is in
evidence, but what a reasonable person can do is determine is that it
WAS a mistake by what is in evidence.
> It appears that you're becoming undone by what Rossley calls, "your
> own evidence".
If you kooks want to maintain that witnesses are infallible, and
what they relate is fact, than Oswald shot Kennedy, because a witness
said he saw him do it, and Oswald shot Tippit, because a witness said
she saw him do it. You can have you little points about who saw a
photo when, but Oswald is convicted on the irrefutable word of
witnesses.
> Perhaps you should read more and respond less.
I should probably respond less to you, it seems to be making you
feel important, which only encourages you to write more stupidity.
Walt
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3a84474d-dcfe-46d3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 6:23 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 23, 3:35 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Who said Oz was shown the photo at the 12:30 interrogation? Just a
> >> > name, not a link to your retarded website.
>
> >> ROFLMAO... if Bud had the 26 volumes he so wholeheartedly defends,
> >> he'd know the answer to that question.
>
> > What you are saying is you have all the testimony memorized, eh
> > idiot? What kooks think is the "good stuff" is discrepancies that take
> > you nowhere. Thats how idiots conduct investigations, they stare at
> > these things for decades, unable to move forward. A reasonable person
> > would conclude two things and move on... the photo was found amongst
> > Oz`s belongings, the photo was shown to Oswald. The time that these
> > things occurred is trivial.
>
> TWO people saw the photo BEFORE it was found Rinky-Dink.
Thats impossible. Thats stupid. Thats what kooks believe.
Bud
Kooks are retarded. The standard is not to present a case where no
questions can be raised, that bar can never be reached. You set a
thousand zealots loose on the fact that Ruby shot Oswald, and even in
a room full of witnesses and with photographs of Ruby shooting
Oswald, discrepancies could be exploited and threads pulled on, and
Ruby`s guilt could be contested (I mean, after all, nobody actually
saw Ruby`s bullet enter Oswald)."What is reasonable to believe" should
be the standard,
Walt
That's not a bad idea.......However the fly in the ointment is:...
Lner's are unable to reason, so how the hell would they know what is
reasonable?
Bud
Is it reasonable that Paine`s remembrance of when he was shown the
photo should trump three detectives assertions on when it was found?
Walt
Hey Dud.... You seem to be amazingly naive ..how old are you?
Only ONE detective had to secretly pull the photo's from his pocket
and exclaim...."Hey!!... would ya look at this what I just found here
in this envelope?" ..... all others within earshot would think he had
just discovered them in the garage when in reality he had brought them
with him as Captain Fritz had ordered.
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
And I'm sure you have all the proof in the world that is what happened
right Walt? What is it page 32 in your story book fairy tale on the
assassination of JFK?
Bud
> On 24 Sep, 20:19,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 8:35 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 4:28 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 24 Sep, 06:04, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > What you are saying is you have all the testimony memorized, eh
> > > > > > > idiot? What kooks think is the "good stuff" is discrepancies that take
> > > > > > > you nowhere. Thats how idiots conduct investigations, they stare at
> > > > > > > these things for decades, unable to move forward. A reasonable person
> > > > > > > would conclude two things and move on... the photo was found amongst
> > > > > > > Oz`s belongings, the photo was shown to Oswald. The time that these
> > > > > > > things occurred is trivial.
>
Funny that you have no problem imagining all this stupid stuff, but
when someone offers a mundane, reasonable explanation (like, say, a
witness being mistaken), you sputter about how impossible that is.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Say, here's part of the exchange you had with Tom Purvis on the round
sling mount issue over at the Education Forum recently. Looks like you
only got one line in before he let you have it:
QUOTE ON:
Gil Jesus: I guess it's okay to talk down to people when you know
everything.
Tom Purvis: The "myth" of the bottom sling swivel mount was long ago
"debunked" here, complete with posting of my own personal photographs.
Were it that you were a true researcher (as opposed to one who is of
the erroneous assumption that one can look at some vague photograph
and resolve the issues), then you too would own several models of the
Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle and thereafter conduct your own proper
research prior to indicating to us all exactly how little that you
know by a continuation of posting of this easily resolved "enigma".
Such completely asinine statements with absolultely no proof other
than some highly vague photograph, are exactly why few rational
persons accept or believe anything which contradicts the WC's multiple
lies.
So, be my guest and continue to provide "stupidity bullets" to the
likes of David Von Pein in order that he can continue to shoot you as
well as anyone else who is in fact attempting to resolve the facts of
the assassination of JFK by conducting proper empirical research into
the various conflicts of evidence.
I certainly do not "know it all"!
However, I most assuredly know more than do you on the subject matter,
along with more than a tad bit of experience in the proper means of
research protocal.
Which oftens assists one in not inserting foot into mouth about
something of which they apparantly know nothing.
The "Backyard Photo" may, or may not show a bottom mounted sling
swivel.
One most assuredly can not state as fact that it does, due to the
simple fact that the side mount sling swivel can easily appear as if
it extends out the bottom of the forearm grip.
Just as one can not look at the photo and utilize it as proof that the
weapon being held is either 6.5mm or 7.35mm caliber, along with
exactly what the serial number of the weapon actually is.
Find something which is absolutely factual, and which can be
demonstrated as factual and I will be more than glad to applaud you.
Otherwise, such BS as the "sling swivel" and the "six-groove bullet"
does far more harm than good and makes us all appear not unlike the
"kooks" which DVP is so fond of calling anyone who states that the WC
was a lile.
Or, we can merely revert back to being the "Lack of Education Forum"!
QUOTE OFF
Holy Heck, Gil. Sure looks like he *ripped you a new one there*,
matey. I notice you ran from that forum as well, Gil. Do you always
run the minute your research is exposed for the nonsense it is? Sure
looks like it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 23, 9:24 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:15 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Gil,
>
> > LOL! Say, this is INCREDIBLY thin evidence you're using to make your
> > case here.
>
> It's all in the 26 volumes, Timmy. Cited and quoted.
>
> Maybe if you'd read them, you'd know.
>
> PS:
>
> I don't pay attention to bullies like Purvis.
>
Walt
Hey Tim, Ol purv is just a blowhard..... Even you should be able to
recognize that in his writings.
Here's what Ol Purv posted....
The "Backyard Photo" may, or may not show a bottom mounted sling
swivel. One most assuredly can not state as fact that it does, due to
the simple fact that the side mount sling swivel can easily appear as
if it extends out the bottom of the forearm grip.
I'll explain what Ol Purv is trying to say here.... He's saying that
the rifle in Oswalds hands is rotated in a manner that would allow a
side sling swivel on the back side of the rifle to apper to be on the
bottom side of the rifle.( he's saying that the left side of the rifle
was closes to the ground in this picture. Does that rifle appear to
have the left side down to you???
Ol Purv has learned a little since I last kicked his ass.... He used
to make the claim that the barrel band was reversed in the picture
which would have put the sling swivel that is normally on the lefyt
side of the rifle on the right hand side .
He then said that the Sling swivel was on the right hand side and the
right side of the rifle was rotated toward the ground,
He claimed it was a piece o cake to reverse that frint barrel band and
therby change the swivel from right to left. I pointed out to him
that the rifle had to be completely "field stripped" to change that
front barrel band and of course like all liars he argued that I didn't
know what I was talikin about. But the fact that he no longer makes
that idiotic claim is proof that he's learned a little bit..... But
he's still a couple of french fries short of having a happy
meal.....because he's still attempting to account for the bottom sling
swivels by saying the side of the rifle rifle is rotated toward the
ground.
>
> On Sep 23, 9:24 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 7:15 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > TOP POST
>
> > > Hi Gil,
>
> > > LOL! Say, this is INCREDIBLY thin evidence you're using to make your
> > > case here.
>
> > It's all in the 26 volumes, Timmy. Cited and quoted.
>
> > Maybe if you'd read them, you'd know.
>
> > PS:
>
> > I don't pay attention to bullies like Purvis.
>
> > He kicked Von Pein's ass here last week and you didn't seem to notice.
>
> > In fact, I don't even think you came to the defense of poor Von Pein.
>
> > It must be nice to have friends like you.
>
> > Have a nice day.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
PS.... Here's a post from Jan 9 2008 from a thread entitled "about the
bottom swivel"
Here's the instructions that the LNer posted......
1. Take the sling swivel band off from the rifle. (removed over the
muzzle end)
In this step the guy says.... Take the sling swivel band off from the
rifle. The SWIVEL BAND is the second band back in the colored photo.
It is impossible to take that SWIVEL band off the rifle UNLESS the
first barrel band is removed first...But he doesn't say that. He says
you can take the swivel band off ( removed over the muzzle end)
When
the rifle is assembled the swivel band sits in a "saddle" slot in the
upper forearm. ( the groove that is seen about an inch back from the
front of the upper forearm.) That groove or "saddle" prevents the
swivel band from being removed.
2. Turn the sling swivel band around and re-install it onto the
rifle.
OK....we can do that.....( if the front barrel band isn't on the
rifle.)
3. This places the sling "keeper" onto the right hand side of the
weapon.
Unfortunately the parts he is referring to are not included in the
colored photo, but what he's saying is: The swivel barrel band has a
big hole ( approx 3/8" dia) on one side of it and a smaller (approx
3/16") countersunk hole on the opposite side. A small (3/16" x 1 1/2
") countersunk screw passes beneath the metal barrel. When the band
is reversed the countersunk hole is on the left side of the rifle and
the bigger hole is on the right hand side. The bigger hole allows
the
(keeper) nut which has the sling loop attached to it to pass through
swivel band.
4. Slide the sling keeper to the completely down position within the
eyelet through which it is installed into the bolt which holds the
sling swivel band onto the rifle.
What he is describing here is installing the 3/16" x 1 1/2" screw
from
the left to the right, and screwing it into the (keeper) nut. This
basically completes the operation The front sling swivel is now on
the right hand side of the rifle while the rear sling mount is still
on the left hand side of the stock ( it cannot be moved) The front
sling swivel would now be facing the camera.
5. "roll" the weapon slightly forward (out of the position in which
the sight is perfectly vertical), as is seen in the LHO backyard
photo.
In Step 5 he says all you have to do to make the swivel appear to be
mounted on the bottom is rotate the rifle (SLIGHTLY) so the loop
rotates to toward the ground. ...and then the loop would appear to be
on the bottom of the rifle.
And the part where he says the rifle is seen slightly rolled in CE
133A is nothing short of a damned lie....
The rifle is NOT "rolled" (rotated) in CE 133A. The front sight can
be
seen standing vertical above the barrel, which proves that the rifles
is NOT rolled forward in the photo.
6. Photograph the weapon and one will find that the sling keeper,
from
a distance and in a poor quality photo, would appear to be attached
to
the bottom of the weapon.
Garbage!!!... The guy doesn't know what he's talking about and he's a
lying Lner.
Walt
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 9:24 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 7:15 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > TOP POST
>
> > > > Hi Gil,
>
> > > > LOL! Say, this is INCREDIBLY thin evidence you're using to make your
> > > > case here.
>
> > > It's all in the 26 volumes, Timmy. Cited and quoted.
>
> > > Maybe if you'd read them, you'd know.
>
> > > PS:
>
> > > I don't pay attention to bullies like Purvis.
>
> > > He kicked Von Pein's ass here last week and you didn't seem to notice.
>
> > > In fact, I don't even think you came to the defense of poor Von Pein.
>
> > > It must be nice to have friends like you.
>
> > > Have a nice day.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
> On Sep 24, 1:28 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3a84474d-dcfe-46d3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 24, 6:23 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 23, 3:35 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Who said Oz was shown the photo at the 12:30 interrogation? Just a
>> >> > name, not a link to your retarded website.
>>
>> >> ROFLMAO... if Bud had the 26 volumes he so wholeheartedly defends,
>> >> he'd know the answer to that question.
>>
>> > What you are saying is you have all the testimony memorized, eh
>> > idiot? What kooks think is the "good stuff" is discrepancies that take
>> > you nowhere. Thats how idiots conduct investigations, they stare at
>> > these things for decades, unable to move forward. A reasonable person
>> > would conclude two things and move on... the photo was found amongst
>> > Oz`s belongings, the photo was shown to Oswald. The time that these
>> > things occurred is trivial.
>>
>> TWO people saw the photo BEFORE it was found Rinky-Dink.
> Thats impossible. Thats stupid. Thats what kooks believe.
THAT's what the WCR/26 volumes say Rnky-Dink.
Don't you believe the WCR any more???
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------