QUESTION # 51
Gil Jesus
provide answers to my first 50 questions (LOL) let's continue....
On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's
photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a
rifle from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why
wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a
police lineup ?
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
Because LHO was still alive and Ruby still had to whack him?
Aaron Hirshberg
Gil Jesus
<aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Because LHO was still alive and Ruby still had to whack him?
>
> Aaron Hirshberg
Wow, this kid is good.
Funny how the trolls can't answer why it was that the cops had a
witness who identified a man she saw WITH THE MAN THEY HAD IN CUSTODY
unloading a rifle from a truck in the vicinty of where the President
was killed, and they never even put the guy in a line up. They never
picked him up for questioning.
You're right, Aaron. They couldn't.
They couldn't pick him up.
They couldn't keep him out of the midnight press conference
They couldn't keep him out of the hallways of Dallas Police
headquarters
They couldn't keep him out of the basement.
They had to give him access to the prisoner and hope the opportuniy
arose to kill him.
On Sunday morning, he got his chance.
Bud
> On Sep 18, 9:04 am, "aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com"
>
> <aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Because LHO was still alive and Ruby still had to whack him?
>
> > Aaron Hirshberg
>
> Wow, this kid is good.
>
> Funny how the trolls can't answer why it was that the cops had a
> witness who identified a man she saw WITH THE MAN THEY HAD IN CUSTODY
> unloading a rifle from a truck in the vicinty of where the President
> was killed, and they never even put the guy in a line up. They never
> picked him up for questioning.
Why would the cops show Mercer Ruby`s photo?
Gil Jesus
>
> � �Why would the cops show Mercer Ruby`s photo?
>
Bud, perhaps you should stick with the simple "yes or no" questions.
At least that way, you'll only have a 50% chance of looking stupid.
Gil Jesus
Friday night. She recognized him as the man she saw unloading what
looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple
overpass on Friday morning. She reported it to police on Saturday.
Thus, she was shown photos. She selected Ruby's picture.
The cops did nothing about it.
David Von Pein
>>> "Mercer saw Ruby on TV during Oswald's midnight press conference on Friday night." <<<
Impossible.
Show me any TV footage of that conference where Jack Ruby is visible.
None exists.
The police would have had no reason whatsoever to show Mercer a photo
of Jack Ruby on SATURDAY, the day before Ruby shot LHO.
Plus, where did the DPD get a picture of Ruby on SATURDAY to show to
Mercer? Where? How?
David Von Pein
>>> "She [Julia Ann Mercer] recognized him [Jack Ruby] as the man she saw unloading what looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple overpass on Friday morning." <<<
Wrong (again). As the Mercer story goes, she said Ruby was behind the
wheel of the parked green truck; he wasn't the one unloading the FULLY-
ASSEMBLED RIFLE IN PLAIN VIEW OF DOZENS OF STALLED VEHICLES ON ELM
STREET JUST ONE HOUR PRIOR TO THE ASSASSINATION OF A PRESIDENT. (Smart
move by the plotters there, huh?)
Plus, in Mercer's affidavit, she specifically stated that she "did not
see him too clearly". And Mercer also said in that same affidavit that
the man driving the truck was in his 40s. Ruby was 52.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mercer.htm
==============================================
"She [Mercer] said, "A man was sitting under the wheel of the
car and slouched over the wheel." (I defy any student of the English
language to explain, from these words, the position the man was
in.) .... [LOL Break!] .... But why presidential assassins...would
deliberately draw attention to themselves by parking illegally and
blocking traffic on a busy street in the presence of three Dallas
police officers as well as lay witnesses like Miss Mercer is not
known. Of course, conspiracy theorists never let common sense get in
the way of their hallucinatory theories." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
Pages 883-884 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
==============================================
muc...@gmail.com
You made up the bits about watching the midnight press conference and
contacting the DPD, didn't you, Gilly?
Bud
I`m not the one who thinks Mercer identified Ruby on the 23rd.
Bud
This is hilarious. She goes to the cops, and says "I think I saw the
man I saw behind the wheel of the truck at the press conference." And
the cops whip out some photos and say "Was it one of these men?" You
might think she would have to select the man she was referring to from
the news footage itself, but then you wouldn`t be a kook who needs
these things explained to him.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4624ccfa-0f97-4cc1...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
David doesn't think there were any mug shots from Ruby's many previous
arrests.
David doesn't think that local TV didn't have local coverage that never made
the National TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
curtjester1
Let's not forget that she said their eyeball's locked. It's also not
like she went to the authorities, either. She was picked up later as
she went on and was eating a meal on the turnpike after she related
how stupidly overt the secret service would be. And yes, she did say
her testimony was purposefully altered. They did produce a picture
of Ruby, that had the "name Ruby" on the back of the photo. Amazing
too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
the shooting of Oswald, too. Of course another ignored witness was
Julius Hardie who did go to the authorities about long arms being
toted in the region of the Triple Underpass, and I guess that would be
the only way to get them there, eh?, since supposedly the parking lot
was blocked off. (Note to Gil), Ruby probably was so pissed he had
to park there, that he complained by shooting time for them to allow a
few cars back there for cover, dispensing of weapons, an eye
diversion, a means of escape, or a place to shoot from..etc.etc...)
CJ
Gil Jesus
E. Murphy, who at around 11:00am on the morning of the assassination,
made the following broadcast:
" Could you send a city wrecker to the Triple Underpass , just west of
the underpass on Elm, to clear a stalled truck from the route of the
escort ?"
The dispatcher acknowledged, "Ten-four".
Shortly later, Murphy came back on channel two:
" Disregard the wrecker at the Triple Underpass. We got a truck to
push him out of here."
( Jim Bishop, The Day Kennedy Was Shot, pgs. 113-114 )
So we KNOW there was a truck at the location and time that Mercer said
there was. It tends to give her story a little more credibility.
David Von Pein
>>> "David doesn't think there were any mug shots from Ruby's many previous arrests." <<<
Produce one.
Maybe some exist, but I've never seen one.
>>> "David doesn't think that local TV didn't have local coverage that never made the National TV." <<<
And after 45 years, not a single crack researcher has unearthed any
local footage showing Ruby at LHO's midnight conference (if such
"local" footage exists in the first place, which I doubt very much,
since there was a limited amount of space for bulky cameras in that
room; I've seen two different angles of the LHO conference, perhaps
three, and Ruby's not visible in any of them; and if he had been, then
CTers would have been all over it like wildfire).
Plus:
Tom R. and other CT-Kooks apparently think that even if Jack Ruby had
been visible for a second or two or three during the LHO conference,
this would mean that Julia Mercer's attention would have, incredibly,
been focused on someone other than the man named Lee Oswald who was
center stage during that very short conference.
Evidently, per this crazy theory, Mercer paid so much attention to a
man in the background (Ruby), she was able to positively identify him
to the police later on.
Is that scenario possible? Yes, I suppose so.
But is it likely? I doubt it.
muc...@gmail.com
Gil made it up. It was never a part of Mercer's tale.
David Von Pein
Footnote regarding Julia Ann Mercer:
Jim Garrison's account of the Mercer incident (and we must keep in
mind that Mr. Garrison just loved Julia Ann Mercer and her crazy
account of an assassin hauling a rifle around in full public view
shortly before the murder of the President):
========================
"When the news of the assassination rocked the world, she
recalled the incident of the truck and the unloading of the rifle.
Here a comment must be made about Julia Mercer. She is a highly
intelligent individual of obvious good character, the kind of witness
whom any lawyer would feel fortunate to be able to call before a
jury. ....
"On Saturday, the day after the assassination and before
Oswald's murder by Ruby, FBI agents showed Miss Mercer identification
photographs. They lay in front of her perhaps two dozen pictures of
men. Among them she recognized the driver of the truck from which the
rifle was unloaded just past the knoll.
"When the photograph was turned over by one of the agents she
saw the man's name: Jack Ruby. She remembered the name afterward." --
Jim "Mega-Kook" Garrison; Via his book "A Heritage Of Stone"; Pages
170-174 (c.1970)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mercer6.txt
========================
Also:
It would seem from Mercer's account (through Garrison) that somehow
Mercer was able to positively identify Jack Ruby AS HE KILLED OSWALD
on Sunday, November 24th.
This, of course, would have been utterly impossible for anyone
watching the event on television to do, since Ruby was only on camera
for a fleeting two or three seconds, plus the fact that only Ruby's
back is shown on camera, never his face.
Now, it's possible that Mercer was talking about being able to I.D.
Ruby a short time AFTER the shooting of Oswald, via TV replays (which
did show the left side of Ruby's face sticking out of the crowd of
newsmen just seconds before the shooting occurred). Or perhaps Mercer
really meant to say that she recognized Ruby even LATER in the day on
November 24th, after Ruby's identity had become fully known by
everyone and after his picture was shown on all TV networks.
In any event, the very idea that a conspirator would be hauling around
a rifle in Dealey Plaza, in plain view of dozens of witnesses (like
Mercer), is just too silly to even begin to take seriously.
Plus: We know from multiple witnesses at the Dallas Morning News
offices that Ruby was there inside that DMN building at the very time
Mercer places him in a green pickup truck on Elm Street.
Ruby was certainly a jack-of-all-trades, wasn't he? Whenever you need
a co-plotter, just say that Ruby was on the scene -- whether it be in
a truck on Elm Street prior to the assassination (per Mercer), or
running on the grassy knoll at 12:30 PM (per Jean Hill), or at
Parkland Hospital planting a bullet at about 1:00 PM (per the Oliver
Stone movie "JFK"), or toting a gun to his car west of the Triple
Underpass just after the President's assassination (per Tom Tilson).
Jack Ruby was one busy guy in late November 1963, wasn't he?
tomnln
Sixth photo down from the top.
Ruby at DPD during the midnight press conference. (HIDING)
btw;
WHY was the ONLY time Ruby hid all week-end was when Oswald was in the same
room?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9ee7855c-7f9f-48e3...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
What makes you think the picture below is from the OSWALD conference?:
http://whokilledjfk.net/images/ruby.h2.gif
I believe Ruby can be seen during the HENRY WADE conference (and I
can't recall if the Wade conference, with Ruby correcting Wade about
the FPCC, was an extension of the Oswald conference after Oswald left
the room, or whether Wade gave that conference the next day on Sat.,
the 23rd; since Wade was constantly in the hallways talking to the
press, never wanting to keep his mouth shut about the case at all it
seems, the various talks with the press sometimes "blend" together in
my mind).
In any event, I have multiple versions of the Oswald press conference
(granted, not every last second of footage might be present, I'll
admit), but I've never seen any video or film clip like the one above
showing Jack Ruby in a "ducked" position at the DPD headquarters.
tomnln
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ6bQmxE-qM&feature=relatednews:548a0d42-25bf-49ee...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> What makes you think the picture below is from the OSWALD conference?:
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/images/ruby.h2.gif
Because it came from THIS Video>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ6bQmxE-qM&feature=related
So, You're WRONG AGAIN! ! !
> I believe Ruby can be seen during the HENRY WADE conference (and I
> can't recall if the Wade conference, with Ruby correcting Wade about
> the FPCC, was an extension of the Oswald conference after Oswald left
> the room, or whether Wade gave that conference the next day on Sat.,
> the 23rd; since Wade was constantly in the hallways talking to the
> press, never wanting to keep his mouth shut about the case at all it
> seems, the various talks with the press sometimes "blend" together in
> my mind).
>
>
> In any event, I have multiple versions of the Oswald press conference
> (granted, not every last second of footage might be present, I'll
> admit), I've never seen any clip like the one above showing Jack Ruby
David Von Pein
Where's the proof from that YouTube video that the short clip showing
a "ducking" Ruby is from the OSWALD conference? It's just a brief
excerpt; Oswald's not even visible in the clip.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "She [Julia Ann Mercer] recognized him [Jack Ruby] as the man she saw unloading what looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple overpass on Friday morning." <<<
>
> Wrong (again). As the Mercer story goes, she said Ruby was behind the
> wheel of the parked green truck; he wasn't the one unloading the FULLY-
> ASSEMBLED RIFLE IN PLAIN VIEW OF DOZENS OF STALLED VEHICLES ON ELM
> STREET JUST ONE HOUR PRIOR TO THE ASSASSINATION OF A PRESIDENT. (Smart
> move by the plotters there, huh?)
True enough, but the man she described as the man she saw pull the gun
case out of the back of the truck was as follows:
"He was a white male, who appeared to be in his late '20s or early
'30s and he was wearing a grey jacket, brown pants and a plaid
shirt." (XIX, pp. 483-484)
There were three police officers on the Triple overpass, why did NONE
of them stop this man? At least they should have been approached for
parking illegally along the parade route, right?
Why was she NOT called as a witness by the WC? What did they have to
hide?
> Plus, in Mercer's affidavit, she specifically stated that she "did not
> see him too clearly". And Mercer also said in that same affidavit that
> the man driving the truck was in his 40s. Ruby was 52.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mercer.htm
This is correct, but again how do you explain THREE police officers in
line-of-sight of tthis truck and NOT one of them stopping the man or
questioning why they were parked illegally along the parade route.
Why go to the trouble of providing security if you allow this
behavior?
David Von Pein
>>> "There were three police officers on the Triple overpass, why did NONE of them stop this man [whom Julia Ann Mercer insisted was a toting a rifle through Dealey Plaza at 11:00 to 11:30 AM on 11/22/63]?" <<<
The obvious answer to that question is:
Because the item being taken out of that green truck was NOT A RIFLE.
>>> "Why was she [Julia Mercer] NOT called as a witness by the WC?" <<<
Probably because the Commissioners were afraid they'd be laughing too
hard at the crazy gun-toting scenario being endorsed by Miss Mercer to
question her properly.
Because the very idea that some assassins would do what Mercer
suggests they did do on November 22nd is, as mentioned previously,
just too silly to contemplate for more than two seconds.
Therefore, another reasonable NON-RIFLE-CARRYING explanation is almost
certainly the truth when evaluating this situation.
>>> "Again, how do you explain THREE police officers in line-of-sight of this truck and NOT one of them stopping the man or questioning why they were parked illegally along the parade route?" <<<
As mentioned earlier, the logical answer to this question should be
quite clear, even to a CTer like you, Rob --- It's because the "gun
case" wasn't a "gun case" at all. It was probably a toolbox of some
kind.
And the "illegal parking" part of your question was probably answered
by Officer Murphy's DPD radio call from that morning (supplied by Gil
Jesus earlier in this thread):
"Could you send a city wrecker to the Triple Underpass, just
west of the underpass on Elm, to clear a stalled truck from the route
of the escort?"
It's possible the truck wasn't "parked" illegally. Perhaps it did,
indeed, "stall" on Elm Street and needed to be pushed up onto the curb
to clear the traffic lane.
In any event, surely even CTers must realize how totally reckless (and
ridiculous) any conspirators/assassins would have been if the story
related by Julia Mercer had really been part of any plot to murder JFK
on November 22, 1963.
Right?
Gil Jesus
>
> > Plus, in Mercer's affidavit, she specifically stated that she "did not
> > see him too clearly". And Mercer also said in that same affidavit that
> > the man driving the truck was in his 40s. Ruby was 52.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mercer.htm
ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD RELY ON TESTIMONY THAT HAD BEEN ALTERED:
Mercer also told Garrison that her testimony had been altered.
Here's what she told Garrison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyhx0BRuVSk
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "There were three police officers on the Triple overpass, why did NONE of them stop this man [whom Julia Ann Mercer insisted was a toting a rifle through Dealey Plaza at 11:00 to 11:30 AM on 11/22/63]?" <<<
>
> The obvious answer to that question is:
>
> Because the item being taken out of that green truck was NOT A RIFLE.
Let's put the rifle aside for now, why did they NOT approach the truck
for parking illegally? Especially along a parade route the President
of the US was coming by on shortly?
> >>> "Why was she [Julia Mercer] NOT called as a witness by the WC?" <<<
>
> Probably because the Commissioners were afraid they'd be laughing too
> hard at the crazy gun-toting scenario being endorsed by Miss Mercer to
> question her properly.
Laughing too hard? She had two corroborating witnesses in terms of
clothing and the fact a man was carrying a rifle (Bowers and Price) in
the area she said she saw the man go. What is funny about this? The
word "corroborating" is one the official side CANNOT ever use as they
have ONE witness for everything.
> Because the very idea that some assassins would do what Mercer
> suggests they did do on November 22nd is, as mentioned previously,
> just too silly to contemplate for more than two seconds.
In an investigation one has to comptemplate all things, and besides,
if she was a real joker the WC would have called her in a flash, the
fact they didn't tells you there was something real to her story.
They avoided all people who had something real to say that pointed to
conspiracy like the plague.
> Therefore, another reasonable NON-RIFLE-CARRYING explanation is almost
> certainly the truth when evaluating this situation.
Good, give us one and we'll see if it is reasonable and can be
corroborated by other witnesses.
> >>> "Again, how do you explain THREE police officers in line-of-sight of this truck and NOT one of them stopping the man or questioning why they were parked illegally along the parade route?" <<<
>
> As mentioned earlier, the logical answer to this question should be
> quite clear, even to a CTer like you, Rob --- It's because the "gun
> case" wasn't a "gun case" at all. It was probably a toolbox of some
> kind.
Again, Dave ignores the mere act of illegally parking on a curb, and
offense in itself, but on this day, along the route the president
would be taking these three cops see NO reason to go down and question
them? I mean they were sending journalists away but a truck parking
and holding up traffic is NO problem for them?
> And the "illegal parking" part of your question was probably answered
> by Officer Murphy's DPD radio call from that morning (supplied by Gil
> Jesus earlier in this thread):
>
> "Could you send a city wrecker to the Triple Underpass, just
> west of the underpass on Elm, to clear a stalled truck from the route
> of the escort?"
>
> It's possible the truck wasn't "parked" illegally. Perhaps it did,
> indeed, "stall" on Elm Street and needed to be pushed up onto the curb
> to clear the traffic lane.
Perhaps it did, but we can't prove it either way, but I still say a
police officer should have went down and stayed down with it until the
tow truck came. Why was this not done?
> In any event, surely even CTers must realize how totally reckless (and
> ridiculous) any conspirators/assassins would have been if the story
> related by Julia Mercer had really been part of any plot to murder JFK
> on November 22, 1963.
>
> Right?
Sorry, with three witnesses decribing the same guy for the most part
with a rifle back behind the fence area I don't agree. Besides, there
were several other sightings of Ruby around the Knoll area and the
TSBD before and after the shooting to discount her story out of hand.
curtjester1
>
> Sorry, with three witnesses decribing the same guy for the most part
> with a rifle back behind the fence area I don't agree. Besides, there
> were several other sightings of Ruby around the Knoll area and the
> TSBD before and after the shooting to discount her story out of hand.
Rob,
One in particular was a Wes Wise a reporter who said to Couch either a
photographer or Photo/reporter that he saw Ruby by the TSBD at the
time of the shooting. Couch later recanted this, but Wise was never
sought out as a witness.
CJ
David Von Pein
>>> "They [the WC] avoided all people who had something real to say that pointed to conspiracy like the plague." <<<
Oh, sure. That must be why we find the testimony of all of the
following people (and many, many more who could be considered "CT"
witnesses) in the 26 WC volumes:
Jean Hill
Lee Bowers
S.M. Holland
Dean Andrews
Mark Lane
Sylvia Odio
Roger Craig
George DeMohrenschildt
Arnold Rowland
Jack Dougherty
Clint Hill
James Tague
Seymour Weitzman
Eugene Boone
Margaret Henchliffe
Pepper Jenkins
Ken Salyer
Malcolm Perry
Doris Nelson
Charles Carrico
Robert McClelland
Kemp Clark
Wilma Tice
Buddy Walthers
Malcolm Price
Austin Miller
Dial Ryder
Rob is a cherry-picking idiot. As we can see via the above short list,
lots of "CT"-favoring witnesses gave testimony in front of the Warren
Commission (and HSCA).
Sam McClung
news:12031c59-e81d-4217...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
found this on google
<begin quote>
From: John Kajfes (jkaj...@io.org)
Subject: never called to testify
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 1994-11-28 15:29:25 PST
<snippage>
Book of Facts: Wise, Wes
A reporter for KRLD-TV, and later Mayor of Dallas, Wise was never called to
testify before the Warren Commission, even though Malcolm Couch had told the
Commission that Wise reported seeing Jack Ruby walking along the side of the
Texas School Book Depository Building moments after the assassination. See
also RUBY IN DEALEY PLAZA. High Treason; Rush to Judgment <snippage>
<end quote>
seems the reports by the ladies in the daltex seeing ruby handing oswald a
pistol aren't clear as to whether that occurred before or after the
assassination, perhaps after and wise saw ruby then
if after, ruby cleansed lawrence's sniping rifle from dealey plaza then
drove right back to dealey plaza to give oswald a pistol (perhaps with a
nonworking firing pin)
robcap...@netscape.com
You are right, and another person who saw Ruby (and probably
photographed him) was Phil Willis. The WC had to block out the face so
my guess was it was Ruby. Mr. Willis was familiar with Ruby so I take
his word for it.
robcap...@netscape.com
Okay, so I exaggerated a tad, but let's face it they did alter,
distort or omit much of what these people said to water it down.
curtjester1
> >>> "There were three police officers on the Triple overpass, why did NONE of them stop this man [whom Julia Ann Mercer insisted was a toting a rifle through Dealey Plaza at 11:00 to 11:30 AM on 11/22/63]?" <<<
>
> The obvious answer to that question is:
>
> Because the item being taken out of that green truck was NOT A RIFLE.
>
in brown paper and that it or they were to some degree visible with
the apparent lack of thickness of the paper.
> >>> "Why was she [Julia Mercer] NOT called as a witness by the WC?" <<<
>
> Probably because the Commissioners were afraid they'd be laughing too
> hard at the crazy gun-toting scenario being endorsed by Miss Mercer to
> question her properly.
>
> Because the very idea that some assassins would do what Mercer
> suggests they did do on November 22nd is, as mentioned previously,
> just too silly to contemplate for more than two seconds.
>
Oh just like people were detained after the assasination with rifle on
their person? Like the 3 rifles seen in the TSBD during the week
preceding the assassination?
> Therefore, another reasonable NON-RIFLE-CARRYING explanation is almost
> certainly the truth when evaluating this situation.
>
Yes, those Secret Service agents would have certainly stopped them,
right?...-:)
> >>> "Again, how do you explain THREE police officers in line-of-sight of this truck and NOT one of them stopping the man or questioning why they were parked illegally along the parade route?" <<<
>
> As mentioned earlier, the logical answer to this question should be
> quite clear, even to a CTer like you, Rob --- It's because the "gun
> case" wasn't a "gun case" at all. It was probably a toolbox of some
> kind.
>
No, no, no. Wrong dream sequence. Package out of tool box. (Trucks
have those long permanent tool boxes for workers). Carrying the tool
box up the hill??? LMAO. What were they going to do...break into
cars?
> And the "illegal parking" part of your question was probably answered
> by Officer Murphy's DPD radio call from that morning (supplied by Gil
> Jesus earlier in this thread):
>
> "Could you send a city wrecker to the Triple Underpass, just
> west of the underpass on Elm, to clear a stalled truck from the route
> of the escort?"
>
> It's possible the truck wasn't "parked" illegally. Perhaps it did,
> indeed, "stall" on Elm Street and needed to be pushed up onto the curb
> to clear the traffic lane.
>
> In any event, surely even CTers must realize how totally reckless (and
> ridiculous) any conspirators/assassins would have been if the story
> related by Julia Mercer had really been part of any plot to murder JFK
> on November 22, 1963.
>
> Right?
Righeoooo! <wink>
CJ
Sam McClung
news:5c15b288-e94d-47c6...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>Okay, so I exaggerated a tad, but let's face it they did alter,
>distort or omit much of what these people said to water it down.
seems the majority of the testimony taken by the wc was captured in unsigned
(and thus unread and uncorrected for errors) typewritten depositions
seems those being deposed weren't made aware of the fact they could read the
deposition for accuracy then
in the following exchange it appears Belin openly lied to Whaley when Belin
deposed Whaley for the WC, dissuading Whaley from reading for accuracy then
signing, if accurate, the typewritten version:
Mr. Belin. Sir, I don't know. Now, Mr. Whaley, if you like, you can come
back and read this deposition after it is typed, and sign it before you mail
it to Washington, or you can waive the signing of it. You have a right to
read it and sign it before it goes, or you can waive the right of reading it
and send it directly to us in Washington.
Mr. Whaley. Does it make any difference?
Mr. Belin. It does not make any difference. [ the lie ]
Mr. Whaley. It will all be what you said and what she took down?
Mr. Belin. What you said?
Mr. Whaley. Yes sir ; and what I said?
Mr. Belin. Yes.
Mr. Whaley. That will be all right. I will waive the signing of it.
[WC Volume VI, page 434]
it appears belin also illegally altered roger craig's deposition
David Von Pein
>>> "Carrying the tool box up the hill??? LMAO. What were they going to do...break into cars?" <<<
No. It was Oswald carrying a long gun up the Knoll, idiot. That's
obvious. He was delivering it to his buddy, Jimmy Files.
I thought everybody knew that.
tomnln
>
> Where's the proof from that YouTube video that the short clip showing
> a "ducking" Ruby is from the OSWALD conference? It's just a brief
> excerpt; Oswald's not even visible in the clip.
Nobody is surprised that you don't recognize the midnight press conference
David.
I notice that you "Snipped" the link to the video so nobody else can see how
blind you are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ6bQmxE-qM&feature=related
Helen Keller could see Ruby "Hiding" at 4:37 of the 5:06 video.
David "Busted Again".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "Mr. Belin -- 'It does not make any difference'. [ the lie ]" <<<
LOL.
This is just the kind of idiotic chaff that conspiracy-happy kooks
like Sam McClung love to focus on endlessly (i.e., the meaningless
crap that has no significance whatsoever unless the kook doing the
finger-pointing can prove that it was David W. Belin's intent to
deceive William W. Whaley by altering his testimony for some stupid
reason; which, of course, is an allegation that McClung cannot even
begin to prove; but that won't stop the kooks from pointing out
meaningless chaff like this).
>>> "It appears Belin also illegally altered Roger Craig's deposition." [Proper punctuation inserted by DVP, since McClung, like many other lazy Internet idiots, refuses to utilize his "Shift" key.] <<<
Does this mean that the total number of lies told by Roger D. Craig in
his WC deposition only amounted to 14 in the final "altered" version
of his testimony....instead of the 18 he originally told before that
evil Mr. Belin got ahold of it?
tomnln
Nobody is surprised that you don't recognize the midnight press conference
David.
I notice that you "Snipped" the link to the video so nobody else can see how
blind you are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ6bQmxE-qM&feature=related
Helen Keller could see Ruby "Hiding" at 4:37 of the 5:06 video.
David "Busted Again".
You're probably limited to "Movies made for TV" and, "CARTOONS"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
> On Sep 19, 1:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "There were three police officers on the Triple overpass, why did NONE of them stop this man [whom Julia Ann Mercer insisted was a toting a rifle through Dealey Plaza at 11:00 to 11:30 AM on 11/22/63]?" <<<
>
> > The obvious answer to that question is:
>
> > Because the item being taken out of that green truck was NOT A RIFLE.
>
> And yet she said the rifle is what it appeared to be as it was wrapped
> in brown paper and that it or they were to some degree visible with
> the apparent lack of thickness of the paper.
Her observation could never establish that it was rifle she saw.
> > >>> "Why was she [Julia Mercer] NOT called as a witness by the WC?" <<<
>
> > Probably because the Commissioners were afraid they'd be laughing too
> > hard at the crazy gun-toting scenario being endorsed by Miss Mercer to
> > question her properly.
>
> > Because the very idea that some assassins would do what Mercer
> > suggests they did do on November 22nd is, as mentioned previously,
> > just too silly to contemplate for more than two seconds.
>
> Oh just like people were detained after the assasination with rifle on
> their person? Like the 3 rifles seen in the TSBD during the week
> preceding the assassination?
Good point. Seeing rifles doesn`t establish any connections to the
assassination.
> > Therefore, another reasonable NON-RIFLE-CARRYING explanation is almost
> > certainly the truth when evaluating this situation.
>
> Yes, those Secret Service agents would have certainly stopped them,
> right?...-:)
As DVP explained, there likely wasn`t any rifle at all. Busy
street, people all around (including police), truck blocking traffic
calling attention to the activity, where is the corroboration? Who
else saw a rifle?
> > >>> "Again, how do you explain THREE police officers in line-of-sight of this truck and NOT one of them stopping the man or questioning why they were parked illegally along the parade route?" <<<
>
> > As mentioned earlier, the logical answer to this question should be
> > quite clear, even to a CTer like you, Rob --- It's because the "gun
> > case" wasn't a "gun case" at all. It was probably a toolbox of some
> > kind.
>
> No, no, no. Wrong dream sequence. Package out of tool box. (Trucks
> have those long permanent tool boxes for workers). Carrying the tool
> box up the hill??? LMAO. What were they going to do...break into
> cars?
There really is no need to reconcile what she said. Her seeing Ruby
and rifles on the knoll before the assassination is an amazing
premise, and her observations are too weak a foundation to support
that this occurred. Like most kook "what about this" issues, the kooks
pretend it takes them somewhere it really doesn`t. Too weak to
establish anything, offers no leads, has no confirmation, so where can
you go with it? Other than for challenging LN to explain it to kook
satisfaction, that is.
> > And the "illegal parking" part of your question was probably answered
> > by Officer Murphy's DPD radio call from that morning (supplied by Gil
> > Jesus earlier in this thread):
>
> > "Could you send a city wrecker to the Triple Underpass, just
> > west of the underpass on Elm, to clear a stalled truck from the route
> > of the escort?"
>
> > It's possible the truck wasn't "parked" illegally. Perhaps it did,
> > indeed, "stall" on Elm Street and needed to be pushed up onto the curb
> > to clear the traffic lane.
>
> > In any event, surely even CTers must realize how totally reckless (and
> > ridiculous) any conspirators/assassins would have been if the story
> > related by Julia Mercer had really been part of any plot to murder JFK
> > on November 22, 1963.
>
> > Right?
>
> Righeoooo! <wink>
If you kooks ever get around to putting all these issues into a
cohesive package, be sure to include this one in your explanation of
the day`s activities. It would be interesting to see the CT attempt a
counter to Bugliosi`s work, taking all these issues and weaving them
into a comprehensive conspiracy tale.
> CJ
Bud
> On Sep 18, 3:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> "She [Julia Ann Mercer] recognized him [Jack Ruby] as the man she saw unloading what looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple overpass on Friday morning." <<<
>
> > Wrong (again). As the Mercer story goes, she said Ruby was behind the
> > wheel of the parked green truck; he wasn't the one unloading the FULLY-
> > ASSEMBLED RIFLE IN PLAIN VIEW OF DOZENS OF STALLED VEHICLES ON ELM
> > STREET JUST ONE HOUR PRIOR TO THE ASSASSINATION OF A PRESIDENT. (Smart
> > move by the plotters there, huh?)
>
> > see him too clearly". And Mercer also said in that same affidavit that
> > the man driving the truck was in his 40s. Ruby was 52.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mercer.htm
>
>
> > "She [Mercer] said, "A man was sitting under the wheel of the
> > car and slouched over the wheel." (I defy any student of the English
> > language to explain, from these words, the position the man was
> > in.) .... [LOL Break!] .... But why presidential assassins...would
> > deliberately draw attention to themselves by parking illegally and
> > blocking traffic on a busy street in the presence of three Dallas
> > police officers as well as lay witnesses like Miss Mercer is not
> > known. Of course, conspiracy theorists never let common sense get in
> > the way of their hallucinatory theories." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
> > Pages 883-884 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>
> > ==============================================
>
> like she went to the authorities, either. She was picked up later as
> she went on and was eating a meal on the turnpike after she related
> how stupidly overt the secret service would be. And yes, she did say
> her testimony was purposefully altered. They did produce a picture
> of Ruby, that had the "name Ruby" on the back of the photo.
Why would they produce a photo of Ruby?
> Amazing
> too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> the shooting of Oswald, too.
<snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
embassy, not Ruby.
> Of course another ignored witness was
> Julius Hardie who did go to the authorities about long arms being
> toted in the region of the Triple Underpass, and I guess that would be
> the only way to get them there, eh?, since supposedly the parking lot
> was blocked off. (Note to Gil), Ruby probably was so pissed he had
> to park there, that he complained by shooting time for them to allow a
> few cars back there for cover, dispensing of weapons, an eye
> diversion, a means of escape, or a place to shoot from..etc.etc...)
>
> CJ
curtjester1
Obviously you didn't because you are the only one in history that had
a TOOLBOX being toted up that hill. I think you better go with the
green truck being towed away one before anyone could finish their
morning coffee to get anything done theory.
CJ
Bud
> > On Sep 18, 6:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Plus, in Mercer's affidavit, she specifically stated that she "did not
> > > see him too clearly". And Mercer also said in that same affidavit that
> > > the man driving the truck was in his 40s. Ruby was 52.
>
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mercer.htm
>
> ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD RELY ON TESTIMONY THAT HAD BEEN ALTERED:
Only an idiot would think that just because this witness said her
testimony was altered, that establishes as fact that it was.
curtjester1
> On Sep 19, 6:54 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 1:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "There were three police officers on the Triple overpass, why did NONE of them stop this man [whom Julia Ann Mercer insisted was a toting a rifle through Dealey Plaza at 11:00 to 11:30 AM on 11/22/63]?" <<<
>
> > > The obvious answer to that question is:
>
> > > Because the item being taken out of that green truck was NOT A RIFLE.
>
> > And yet she said the rifle is what it appeared to be as it was wrapped
> > in brown paper and that it or they were to some degree visible with
> > the apparent lack of thickness of the paper.
>
> Her observation could never establish that it was rifle she saw.
>
> > > >>> "Why was she [Julia Mercer] NOT called as a witness by the WC?" <<<
>
> > > Probably because the Commissioners were afraid they'd be laughing too
> > > hard at the crazy gun-toting scenario being endorsed by Miss Mercer to
> > > question her properly.
>
> > > Because the very idea that some assassins would do what Mercer
> > > suggests they did do on November 22nd is, as mentioned previously,
> > > just too silly to contemplate for more than two seconds.
>
> > Oh just like people were detained after the assasination with rifle on
> > their person? Like the 3 rifles seen in the TSBD during the week
> > preceding the assassination?
>
> Good point. Seeing rifles doesn`t establish any connections to the
> assassination.
>
> > > Therefore, another reasonable NON-RIFLE-CARRYING explanation is almost
> > > certainly the truth when evaluating this situation.
>
> > Yes, those Secret Service agents would have certainly stopped them,
> > right?...-:)
>
> As DVP explained, there likely wasn`t any rifle at all. Busy
> street, people all around (including police), truck blocking traffic
> calling attention to the activity, where is the corroboration? Who
> else saw a rifle?
>
Of course an LNT with no witness for their side has a rightful
theory...like a package too small. Actually Julius Hardie reported
the carrying of "long arms' at that time by the TU...and he wasn't
checked on any further. So, I guess there were no police there?
They would have surely been concerned with an illegally parked car on
a major artery, but to Bud this seems like normal DPD activity.
> > > >>> "Again, how do you explain THREE police officers in line-of-sight of this truck and NOT one of them stopping the man or questioning why they were parked illegally along the parade route?" <<<
>
> > > As mentioned earlier, the logical answer to this question should be
> > > quite clear, even to a CTer like you, Rob --- It's because the "gun
> > > case" wasn't a "gun case" at all. It was probably a toolbox of some
> > > kind.
>
> > No, no, no. Wrong dream sequence. Package out of tool box. (Trucks
> > have those long permanent tool boxes for workers). Carrying the tool
> > box up the hill??? LMAO. What were they going to do...break into
> > cars?
>
> There really is no need to reconcile what she said. Her seeing Ruby
> and rifles on the knoll before the assassination is an amazing
> premise, and her observations are too weak a foundation to support
> that this occurred. Like most kook "what about this" issues, the kooks
> pretend it takes them somewhere it really doesn`t. Too weak to
> establish anything, offers no leads, has no confirmation, so where can
> you go with it? Other than for challenging LN to explain it to kook
> satisfaction, that is.
>
>
Killing JFK in public is an amazing premise. Let's convince everyone
it didn't happen, ok? The only thing it leads to is the most
identifiable person that comes close to the assassination and alleged
assassin. And guess what? The lead panned out when he was
investigated and even eventually talked. It lead to his personal
IDing even before he shot Oswald, and it ties into the same area where
the majority of shot witnesses in Dealey Plaza said the gunfire came
from. Anything else?
>
>
>
> > > And the "illegal parking" part of your question was probably answered
> > > by Officer Murphy's DPD radio call from that morning (supplied by Gil
> > > Jesus earlier in this thread):
>
> > > "Could you send a city wrecker to the Triple Underpass, just
> > > west of the underpass on Elm, to clear a stalled truck from the route
> > > of the escort?"
>
> > > It's possible the truck wasn't "parked" illegally. Perhaps it did,
> > > indeed, "stall" on Elm Street and needed to be pushed up onto the curb
> > > to clear the traffic lane.
>
> > > In any event, surely even CTers must realize how totally reckless (and
> > > ridiculous) any conspirators/assassins would have been if the story
> > > related by Julia Mercer had really been part of any plot to murder JFK
> > > on November 22, 1963.
>
> > > Right?
>
> > Righeoooo! <wink>
>
> If you kooks ever get around to putting all these issues into a
> cohesive package, be sure to include this one in your explanation of
> the day`s activities. It would be interesting to see the CT attempt a
> counter to Bugliosi`s work, taking all these issues and weaving them
> into a comprehensive conspiracy tale.
>
>
You call Bugliosi's pages a work? You better find a new hero,
because you won't find him here defending himself.
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
curtjester1
he looked like. Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > Amazing
> > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> embassy, not Ruby.
>
>
Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
>
> > Of course another ignored witness was
> > Julius Hardie who did go to the authorities about long arms being
> > toted in the region of the Triple Underpass, and I guess that would be
> > the only way to get them there, eh?, since supposedly the parking lot
> > was blocked off. (Note to Gil), Ruby probably was so pissed he had
> > to park there, that he complained by shooting time for them to allow a
> > few cars back there for cover, dispensing of weapons, an eye
> > diversion, a means of escape, or a place to shoot from..etc.etc...)
>
muc...@gmail.com
> On 19 Sep., 00:12, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Mercer saw Ruby on TV during Oswald's midnight press conference on
> > Friday night. She recognized him as the man she saw unloading what
> > looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple
>
> > Thus, she was shown photos. She selected Ruby's picture.
>
> > The cops did nothing about it.
>
> You made up the bits about watching the midnight press conference and
> contacting the DPD, didn't you, Gilly?
Bump
John McAdams
wrote:
>Since the trolls have such a great tarck record on being able to
>provide answers to my first 50 questions (LOL) let's continue....
>
>On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's
>photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a
>rifle from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why
>wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a
>police lineup ?
Because Mercer did not in fact ID Ruby.
You really have no evidence she did besides her unsupported claims.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Sep 18, 6:12 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Mercer saw Ruby on TV during Oswald's midnight press conference on
>> Friday night. She recognized him as the man she saw unloading what
>> looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple
>> overpass on Friday morning. She reported it to police on Saturday.
>>
>> Thus, she was shown photos. She selected Ruby's picture.
>
> This is hilarious. She goes to the cops, and says "I think I saw the
>man I saw behind the wheel of the truck at the press conference." And
>the cops whip out some photos and say "Was it one of these men?" You
>might think she would have to select the man she was referring to from
>the news footage itself,
You are off track here. We have only her unsupported claim that the
FBI showed her the photo of Ruby on Saturday.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
muc...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:47:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 18, 6:12 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Mercer saw Ruby on TV during Oswald's midnight press conference on
> >> Friday night. She recognized him as the man she saw unloading what
> >> looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple
> >> overpass on Friday morning. She reported it to police on Saturday.
>
> >> Thus, she was shown photos. She selected Ruby's picture.
>
> > This is hilarious. She goes to the cops, and says "I think I saw the
> >man I saw behind the wheel of the truck at the press conference." And
> >the cops whip out some photos and say "Was it one of these men?" You
> >might think she would have to select the man she was referring to from
> >the news footage itself,
>
> You are off track here. We have only her unsupported claim that the
> FBI showed her the photo of Ruby on Saturday.
Gil made it up, Bud made fun of it - and you pick on Bud?!
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Bud's not "off track" here, .John.
Bud was merely making fun of Gil Jesus (which is always a good thing
to do as much as humanly possible, of course).
curtjester1
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Since the trolls have such a great tarck record on being able to
> >provide answers to my first 50 questions (LOL) let's continue....
>
> >On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's
> >photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a
> >rifle from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why
> >wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a
> >police lineup ?
>
> Because Mercer did not in fact ID Ruby.
>
Are you claiming she was a liar? Did you not know she ID'd Oswald as
well?
> You really have no evidence she did besides her unsupported claims.
>
Did anyone by name have the gumption to provide the details of the
interviews, local and Feds on Friday, and Feds on Saturday?
CJ
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Sep 20, 11:19 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Since the trolls have such a great tarck record on being able to
>> >provide answers to my first 50 questions (LOL) let's continue....
>>
>> >On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's
>> >photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a
>> >rifle from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why
>> >wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a
>> >police lineup ?
>>
>> Because Mercer did not in fact ID Ruby.
>>
>
>Are you claiming she was a liar? Did you not know she ID'd Oswald as
>well?
>
Years *later* she claimed the guy with the "gun case" was Oswald.
That was not originally part of her story.
>> You really have no evidence she did besides her unsupported claims.
>>
>
>Did anyone by name have the gumption to provide the details of the
>interviews, local and Feds on Friday, and Feds on Saturday?
>
>
Here you go:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#mercer
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
They need a reason to do it, knucklehead. They don`t need a reason
not to do it. Why would they show her a picture of Ruby out of all of
the people in Texas?
> They brought her in. She was telling them what
> he looked like.
You had much, much better looks at Ruby than she could ever
possibly have. Describe him in such a way as I would know you were
describing him.
> Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > > Amazing
> > > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> > <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> > Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> > embassy, not Ruby.
>
> Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
Apparently to Marguerite it did. There is a reasonable explanation
for the FBI to show her that photo. There is no reasonable explanation
for them to show her a photo of Ruby. But you kooks never let
reasoning get in the way of what you want to believe.
Bud
> On 20 Sep., 20:21, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Sep 18, 6:12 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> Mercer saw Ruby on TV during Oswald's midnight press conference on
> > >> Friday night. She recognized him as the man she saw unloading what
> > >> looked like a rifle from the back of a pickup truck near the triple
> > >> overpass on Friday morning. She reported it to police on Saturday.
>
> > >> Thus, she was shown photos. She selected Ruby's picture.
>
> > > This is hilarious. She goes to the cops, and says "I think I saw the
> > >man I saw behind the wheel of the truck at the press conference." And
> > >the cops whip out some photos and say "Was it one of these men?" You
> > >might think she would have to select the man she was referring to from
> > >the news footage itself,
>
> > You are off track here. We have only her unsupported claim that the
> > FBI showed her the photo of Ruby on Saturday.
>
Thanks, Mark. Of course I was off track, I was following Gil.
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
> On Sep 19, 8:26 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 6:54 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 19, 1:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "There were three police officers on the Triple overpass, why did NONE of them stop this man [whom Julia Ann Mercer insisted was a toting a rifle through Dealey Plaza at 11:00 to 11:30 AM on 11/22/63]?" <<<
>
> > > > The obvious answer to that question is:
>
> > > > Because the item being taken out of that green truck was NOT A RIFLE.
>
> > > And yet she said the rifle is what it appeared to be as it was wrapped
> > > in brown paper and that it or they were to some degree visible with
> > > the apparent lack of thickness of the paper.
>
> > Her observation could never establish that it was rifle she saw.
>
> > > > >>> "Why was she [Julia Mercer] NOT called as a witness by the WC?" <<<
>
> > > > Probably because the Commissioners were afraid they'd be laughing too
> > > > hard at the crazy gun-toting scenario being endorsed by Miss Mercer to
> > > > question her properly.
>
> > > > Because the very idea that some assassins would do what Mercer
> > > > suggests they did do on November 22nd is, as mentioned previously,
> > > > just too silly to contemplate for more than two seconds.
>
> > > Oh just like people were detained after the assasination with rifle on
> > > their person? Like the 3 rifles seen in the TSBD during the week
> > > preceding the assassination?
>
> > Good point. Seeing rifles doesn`t establish any connections to the
> > assassination.
>
> Now hear this,Budcannot use BRENNAN anymore!
Seeing a rifle shooting at the President does establish a
connection.
> > > > Therefore, another reasonable NON-RIFLE-CARRYING explanation is almost
> > > > certainly the truth when evaluating this situation.
>
> > > Yes, those Secret Service agents would have certainly stopped them,
> > > right?...-:)
>
> > As DVP explained, there likely wasn`t any rifle at all. Busy
> > street, people all around (including police), truck blocking traffic
> > calling attention to the activity, where is the corroboration? Who
> > else saw a rifle?
>
> Of course an LNT with no witness for their side has a rightful
> theory...like a package too small.
The package exists in evidence, it`s not too small to hold Oswald`s
rifle. Has his prints on it too.
> Actually Julius Hardie reported
> the carrying of "long arms' at that time by the TU...
Mercer saw no rifle.
>and he wasn't
> checked on any further. So, I guess there were no police there?
> They would have surely been concerned with an illegally parked car on
> a major artery, but toBudthis seems like normal DPD activity.
Of course they were concerned. Mercer says three policemen were on
the scene. It was called in over police radio.
> > > > >>> "Again, how do you explain THREE police officers in line-of-sight of this truck and NOT one of them stopping the man or questioning why they were parked illegally along the parade route?" <<<
>
> > > > As mentioned earlier, the logical answer to this question should be
> > > > quite clear, even to a CTer like you, Rob --- It's because the "gun
> > > > case" wasn't a "gun case" at all. It was probably a toolbox of some
> > > > kind.
>
> > > No, no, no. Wrong dream sequence. Package out of tool box. (Trucks
> > > have those long permanent tool boxes for workers). Carrying the tool
> > > box up the hill??? LMAO. What were they going to do...break into
> > > cars?
>
> > There really is no need to reconcile what she said. Her seeing Ruby
> > and rifles on the knoll before the assassination is an amazing
> > premise, and her observations are too weak a foundation to support
> > that this occurred. Like most kook "what about this" issues, the kooks
> > pretend it takes them somewhere it really doesn`t. Too weak to
> > establish anything, offers no leads, has no confirmation, so where can
> > you go with it? Other than for challenging LN to explain it to kook
> > satisfaction, that is.
>
> Killing JFK in public is an amazing premise.
No, killing him in private would be. Killing him in public only
required holding a weapon properly so that bullets leaving that weapon
entered JFK`s body causing fatal wounds. This kind of thing happens
about every 6 seconds or so here in America.
> Let's convince everyone
> it didn't happen, ok? The only thing it leads to is the most
> identifiable person that comes close to the assassination and alleged
> assassin. And guess what? The lead panned out when he was
> investigated and even eventually talked. It lead to his personal
> IDing even before he shot Oswald, and it ties into the same area where
> the majority of shot witnesses in Dealey Plaza said the gunfire came
> from. Anything else?
Well, you are getting ahead of yourself. First, you need to
establish as fact that Mercer IDied Ruby as the man she saw the day
before Ruby shot Oswald. Baby steps, baby steps...
> > > > And the "illegal parking" part of your question was probably answered
> > > > by Officer Murphy's DPD radio call from that morning (supplied by Gil
> > > > Jesus earlier in this thread):
>
> > > > "Could you send a city wrecker to the Triple Underpass, just
> > > > west of the underpass on Elm, to clear a stalled truck from the route
> > > > of the escort?"
>
> > > > It's possible the truck wasn't "parked" illegally. Perhaps it did,
> > > > indeed, "stall" on Elm Street and needed to be pushed up onto the curb
> > > > to clear the traffic lane.
>
> > > > In any event, surely even CTers must realize how totally reckless (and
> > > > ridiculous) any conspirators/assassins would have been if the story
> > > > related by Julia Mercer had really been part of any plot to murder JFK
> > > > on November 22, 1963.
>
> > > > Right?
>
> > > Righeoooo! <wink>
>
> > If you kooks ever get around to putting all these issues into a
> > cohesive package, be sure to include this one in your explanation of
> > the day`s activities. It would be interesting to see the CT attempt a
> > counter to Bugliosi`s work, taking all these issues and weaving them
> > into a comprehensive conspiracy tale.
>
> You call Bugliosi's pages a work? You better find a new hero,
> because you won't find him here defending himself.
I`d lose a lot of respect for him if he did.
Bud
> Bud'snot "off track" here, .John.
>
> Budwas merely making fun of Gil Jesus (which is always a good thing
> to do as much as humanly possible, of course).
Thanks for the support, David. I guess my sarcasm isn`t biting
enough to make it apparent, I`ll have to work on it.
No hard feelings to .John, though, I was on his site checking
Mercer`s statements through the years last night, and .John has
provided a link to that information in his latest posting, something I
intended to do today. His site is one of the most valuable sources of
anti-kook information on the internet, and he has been fighting the
good fight for a long time, so I can overlook a stray shot in my
direction.
David Von Pein
>>> "He [.John] has been fighting the good fight for a long time, so I can overlook a stray shot in my direction." <<<
I also think it's possible that John thought he was speaking to Gil
when he wrote that post, but he hit "reply" to your post instead.
If that's not the case, then John must have missed the first 3 words
of your post ("This is hilarious"), which are words that make it
pretty clear that what follows isn't bound to be supportive of Mr.
Jesus' conclusions. :)
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:smfad45dmk06h8f5j...@4ax.com...
Better than listening to one who was NOT there.
Bud
> On Sep 20, 11:19 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Since the trolls have such a great tarck record on being able to
> > >provide answers to my first 50 questions (LOL) let's continue....
>
> > >On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's
> > >photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a
> > >rifle from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why
> > >wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a
> > >police lineup ?
>
> > Because Mercer did not in fact ID Ruby.
>
> Are you claiming she was a liar?
Are you claiming Rosemary Allen, the notary public who witnesses her
affidavit was a liar?
And you know she signed her affidavit, right? The one where she said
about the man behind the wheel of the truck "I did not see him too
clearly".
> Did you not know she ID'd Oswald as
> well?
When the witnesses start talking to conspiracy writers, they start
telling all kinds of amazing information they neglected to give to the
authorities. Look at Jean Hill.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:48a39d77-50e7-4978...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You sure do like "middle men" Bud.
Until you've read the evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes, you'll never
know which side is Lying to you.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Your side LIED.
curtjester1
look for someone. Jack Ruby would undoubtedly be the one most well-
known and identifiable with DPD of anybody in Dallas or Texas. And
guess what, she said they even showed her a picture with his name on
the back of the photo. So stop being this quasi spy detective and
tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
> > They brought her in. She was telling them what
> > he looked like.
>
> You had much, much better looks at Ruby than she could ever
> possibly have. Describe him in such a way as I would know you were
> describing him.
>
Medium build, muscular, white, dark hair, combed back, 50ish. Hey
that's the guy that lives down here.....we know him.
> > Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > > > Amazing
> > > > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > > > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> > > <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> > > Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> > > embassy, not Ruby.
>
> > Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
>
> Apparently to Marguerite it did. There is a reasonable explanation
> for the FBI to show her that photo. There is no reasonable explanation
> for them to show her a photo of Ruby. But you kooks never let
> reasoning get in the way of what you want to believe.
>
>
You always seem to have 'the only profile that will fit' pat all the
time. Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
trail.
CJ
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
Your side seems retarded.
Bud
Why would they ask her to look for a person that she told them she
didn`t see clearly?
> Jack Ruby would undoubtedly be the one most well-
> known and identifiable with DPD of anybody in Dallas or Texas.
<snicker> Thats your explanation? The cops showed her a picture of
Ruby because he was well-known? Do you realize how stupid that is?
> And
> guess what, she said they even showed her a picture with his name on
> the back of the photo.
Why did they show her Ruby`s photo? Try an answer that makes sense
this time.
> So stop being this quasi spy detective and
> tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
You kooks are trying to use this witness to establish something,
not me.
> > > They brought her in. She was telling them what
> > > he looked like.
>
> > You had much, much better looks at Ruby than she could ever
> > possibly have. Describe him in such a way as I would know you were
> > describing him.
>
> Medium build, muscular, white, dark hair, combed back, 50ish. Hey
> that's the guy that lives down here.....we know him.
You just described the guy photographed going into the embassy.
> > > Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > > > > Amazing
> > > > > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > > > > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> > > > <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> > > > Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> > > > embassy, not Ruby.
>
> > > Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
>
> > Apparently to Marguerite it did. There is a reasonable explanation
> > for the FBI to show her that photo. There is no reasonable explanation
> > for them to show her a photo of Ruby. But you kooks never let
> > reasoning get in the way of what you want to believe.
>
> You always seem to have 'the only profile that will fit' pat all the
> time.
Lets hear you reason why the FBI would show her a photo of Ruby on
the 23rd. Because he was "well known"?
> Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
> trail.
What hard evidence are you talking about?
curtjester1
> On Sep 20, 5:20 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 11:19 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Since the trolls have such a great tarck record on being able to
> > > >provide answers to my first 50 questions (LOL) let's continue....
>
> > > >On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's
> > > >photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a
> > > >rifle from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why
> > > >wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a
> > > >police lineup ?
>
> > > Because Mercer did not in fact ID Ruby.
>
> > Are you claiming she was a liar?
>
> Are you claiming Rosemary Allen, the notary public who witnesses her
> affidavit was a liar?
>
> And you know she signed her affidavit, right? The one where she said
> about the man behind the wheel of the truck "I did not see him too
> clearly".
>
That wouldn't have much credibility when Mercer said along with her
testimony her signature was forged in a Sheriff piece. Affadavits aren't
the strongest pieces anyway since for many it's just to verify you were
there...and many are signed without putting anything in.
> > Did you not know she ID'd Oswald as
> > well?
>
> When the witnesses start talking to conspiracy writers, they start
> telling all kinds of amazing information they neglected to give to the
> authorities. Look at Jean Hill.
>
>
Like authority cop people that usually don't have the highest of or
specialized educations are artful questioners.
CJ
curtjester1
> > the back of the photo.
>
> Why did they show her Ruby`s photo? Try an answer that makes sense
> this time.
>
was their purpose to find out who was in the vehicle. Ruby had a
record of even being on a mission to come from another organized city
to expand organized crime in Dallas and was even recorded by a past
sheriff by tape recorder of the bribe structure and kickbacks, etc.
Ruby was in charge of distribution of heroin via Havana, was
influential in strong arming businesses in Dallas that interfered with
his and had a record for that. I would think that would be the first
photo to be shown if there would be any kind of proverbial list like
that.
> > So stop being this quasi spy detective and
> > tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
>
> You kooks are trying to use this witness to establish something,
> not me.
>
But we aren't calling one a 'liar' that said she pointed the photo out
with his name on it. You simply 'establish' something is a lie, when
it doesn't suit your version of evidence. So, when we have witnesses
saying Oswald and Ruby knew each other, and Mercer IDing Oswald as
well, it just makes it a little more verifiable.
> > > > They brought her in. She was telling them what
> > > > he looked like.
>
> > > You had much, much better looks at Ruby than she could ever
> > > possibly have. Describe him in such a way as I would know you were
> > > describing him.
>
> > Medium build, muscular, white, dark hair, combed back, 50ish. Hey
> > that's the guy that lives down here.....we know him.
>
> You just described the guy photographed going into the embassy.
>
>
I described a guy that they could have pulled a photo out of a drawer
by eliminating a good percentage of potential people, I would think.
>
>
>
> > > > Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > > > > > Amazing
> > > > > > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > > > > > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> > > > > <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> > > > > Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> > > > > embassy, not Ruby.
>
> > > > Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
>
> > > Apparently to Marguerite it did. There is a reasonable explanation
> > > for the FBI to show her that photo. There is no reasonable explanation
> > > for them to show her a photo of Ruby. But you kooks never let
> > > reasoning get in the way of what you want to believe.
>
> > You always seem to have 'the only profile that will fit' pat all the
> > time.
>
> Lets hear you reason why the FBI would show her a photo of Ruby on
> the 23rd. Because he was "well known"?
>
When you tell us why they would show anyone any photo at that time, I
might.
> > Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
> > trail.
>
> What hard evidence are you talking about?
There was a parked vehicle there. She had a receipt for the car
rental she was driving that day. She told an almost identical story
of a man who saw 'long arms' going from the same place in the same
direction. The times she was interrogated......
CJ
Bud
> On Sep 20, 9:23 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 5:20 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 20, 11:19 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >Since the trolls have such a great tarck record on being able to
> > > > >provide answers to my first 50 questions (LOL) let's continue....
>
> > > > >On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's
> > > > >photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a
> > > > >rifle from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why
> > > > >wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a
> > > > >police lineup ?
>
> > > > Because Mercer did not in fact ID Ruby.
>
> > > Are you claiming she was a liar?
>
> > Are you claiming Rosemary Allen, the notary public who witnesses her
> > affidavit was a liar?
>
> > And you know she signed her affidavit, right? The one where she said
> > about the man behind the wheel of the truck "I did not see him too
> > clearly".
>
> That wouldn't have much credibility when Mercer said along with her
> testimony her signature was forged in a Sheriff piece.
Ah, of course, her signature was forged also. And the notary public
who witnessed it lied. Anything else needed to make her story viable?
> Affadavits aren't
> the strongest pieces anyway since for many it's just to verify you were
> there...and many are signed without putting anything in.
She didn`t provide the information on the affidavit now, eh? I guess
the cops just were lucky guessers that so many of the details provided
on the affidavit were the same she would say when she finally did tell
her story. And did you compare the affidavit to the information she
gave to the FBI? Quite a match, must be more liars. But, when you have
to call the cops, FBI and notary public liars, and have to imagine
forged signatures, isn`t it easier to just admit this witness lied
about identifying Ruby to give some conspiracy kook book writer fodder
for his book, so they idiots like yourself could eat it up?
> > > Did you not know she ID'd Oswald as
> > > well?
>
> > When the witnesses start talking to conspiracy writers, they start
> > telling all kinds of amazing information they neglected to give to the
> > authorities. Look at Jean Hill.
>
> Like authority cop people that usually don't have the highest of or
> specialized educations are artful questioners.
<snicker> Yah, it`s the cops fault she told them she didn`t get a
good look at the driver of the broken down truck.
> CJ
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/JackRuby.htm
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7251bca4-5419-4f25...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
Why would she claim that? The NP doesn't have to lie for her story to
be true does it?
> > Affadavits aren't
> > the strongest pieces anyway since for many it's just to verify you were
> > there...and many are signed without putting anything in.
>
> She didn`t provide the information on the affidavit now, eh? I guess
> the cops just were lucky guessers that so many of the details provided
> on the affidavit were the same she would say when she finally did tell
> her story. And did you compare the affidavit to the information she
> gave to the FBI? Quite a match, must be more liars. But, when you have
> to call the cops, FBI and notary public liars, and have to imagine
> forged signatures, isn`t it easier to just admit this witness lied
> about identifying Ruby to give some conspiracy kook book writer fodder
> for his book, so they idiots like yourself could eat it up?
>
Big into affidavits are ya? Of course all people are conspirators to
write books even before books come out. Why can't you just take her word
for it? How come you rail against conspiracy thinking all the time, yet
you make up your own specialized CT theory's at whim to pave the way for
'good evidence'?
> > > > Did you not know she ID'd Oswald as
> > > > well?
>
> > > When the witnesses start talking to conspiracy writers, they start
> > > telling all kinds of amazing information they neglected to give to the
> > > authorities. Look at Jean Hill.
>
> > Like authority cop people that usually don't have the highest of or
> > specialized educations are artful questioners.
>
> <snicker> Yah, it`s the cops fault she told them she didn`t get a
> good look at the driver of the broken down truck.
>
>
Why then did they bother to show her pictures after she said that?
Could it be that she was "eyeball to eyeball" with him carried clout?
CJ
Bud
> > > guess what, she said they even showed her a picture with his name on
> > > the back of the photo.
>
> > Why did they show her Ruby`s photo? Try an answer that makes sense
> > this time.
>
> Why don't you answer what photos in general would they show when it
> was their purpose to find out who was in the vehicle.
Why would they show her any photographs after she told them that she
didn`t see the driver of the truck clearly?
> Ruby had a
> record of even being on a mission to come from another organized city
> to expand organized crime in Dallas and was even recorded by a past
> sheriff by tape recorder of the bribe structure and kickbacks, etc.
> Ruby was in charge of distribution of heroin via Havana, was
> influential in strong arming businesses in Dallas that interfered with
> his and had a record for that. I would think that would be the first
> photo to be shown if there would be any kind of proverbial list like
> that.
Ok, one last chance. Why would they show Mercer a photo of Ruby?
> > > So stop being this quasi spy detective and
> > > tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
>
> > You kooks are trying to use this witness to establish something,
> > not me.
>
> But we aren't calling one a 'liar' that said she pointed the photo out
> with his name on it.
All indication are that she never did anything of the sort. She told
the Dallas Police she didn`t see the driver clearly. Of course, this
information has to go, because it gets in the way of the fanciful
tales the conspiracy monger want to write.
> You simply 'establish' something is a lie, when
> it doesn't suit your version of evidence.
Your version of the evidence being forget what she told the cops,
forget what she told the FBI, and believe what she told the conspiracy
kook book author years and years later.
> So, when we have witnesses
> saying Oswald and Ruby knew each other, and Mercer IDing Oswald as
> well, it just makes it a little more verifiable.
And maybe more eyewitnesses who initially said they saw nothing will
come forward with fantastic tales of identification, and it`ll firm up
some more.
> > > > > They brought her in. She was telling them what
> > > > > he looked like.
>
> > > > You had much, much better looks at Ruby than she could ever
> > > > possibly have. Describe him in such a way as I would know you were
> > > > describing him.
>
> > > Medium build, muscular, white, dark hair, combed back, 50ish.
BTW, your description matches Mel Gibson better than it does Ruby.
> Hey
> > > that's the guy that lives down here.....we know him.
> > You just described the guy photographed going into the embassy.
>
> I described a guy that they could have pulled a photo out of a drawer
> by eliminating a good percentage of potential people, I would think.
I can see it now. The cops pulls out a photo of the Pope. She says
"no". He pulls out a photo of Sammy Davis Junior, she says "no". He
then pulls out a photo of Ruby, and "bingo", they get a hit.
> > > > > Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > > > > > > Amazing
> > > > > > > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > > > > > > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> > > > > > <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> > > > > > Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> > > > > > embassy, not Ruby.
>
> > > > > Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
>
> > > > Apparently to Marguerite it did. There is a reasonable explanation
> > > > for the FBI to show her that photo. There is no reasonable explanation
> > > > for them to show her a photo of Ruby. But you kooks never let
> > > > reasoning get in the way of what you want to believe.
>
> > > You always seem to have 'the only profile that will fit' pat all the
> > > time.
>
> > Lets hear you reason why the FBI would show her a photo of Ruby on
> > the 23rd. Because he was "well known"?
>
> When you tell us why they would show anyone any photo at that time, I
> might.
Ah, because they were conducting an investigation?
> > > Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
> > > trail.
>
> > What hard evidence are you talking about?
>
> There was a parked vehicle there.
Yah, cops too.
> She had a receipt for the car
> rental she was driving that day.
And the police found the air conditioning work truck she saw that
day. She saw a box. After the President was shot, the box seemed gun-
like to her. The human mind makes associations like that sometimes.
> She told an almost identical story
> of a man who saw 'long arms' going from the same place in the same
> direction.
She never said she saw a gun. And she has this box being taken
from a specific place (a truck) and taken up the hill. Did the guy who
saw "long arms" mention a box, or a truck? If not, there is no real
corroboration.
> The times she was interrogated......
She told the truth. But the truth was an impediment to the stories
the conspiracy writers wanted her to tell.
John McAdams
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > guess what, she said they even showed her a picture with his name on
>> > the back of the photo.
>>
>> Why did they show her Ruby`s photo? Try an answer that makes sense
>> this time.
>>
>Why don't you answer what photos in general would they show when it
>was their purpose to find out who was in the vehicle.
There is no evidence that anybody showed Mercer a photo of Ruby before
the assassination.
>Ruby had a
>record of even being on a mission to come from another organized city
>to expand organized crime in Dallas and was even recorded by a past
>sheriff by tape recorder of the bribe structure and kickbacks, etc.
That's not true.
>Ruby was in charge of distribution of heroin via Havana, was
Is there any conspiracy book factoid you don't accept?
Provide a cite for that, please.
>influential in strong arming businesses in Dallas that interfered with
>his and had a record for that. I would think that would be the first
>photo to be shown if there would be any kind of proverbial list like
>that.
>
>
>> > So stop being this quasi spy detective and
>> > tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
>>
>> You kooks are trying to use this witness to establish something,
>> not me.
>>
>But we aren't calling one a 'liar' that said she pointed the photo out
>with his name on it. You simply 'establish' something is a lie, when
>it doesn't suit your version of evidence. So, when we have witnesses
>saying Oswald and Ruby knew each other, and Mercer IDing Oswald as
>well, it just makes it a little more verifiable.
>
Mercer didn't ID the person as "Oswald" until she talked to Hurt in
the 1980s.
>> Lets hear you reason why the FBI would show her a photo of Ruby on
>> the 23rd. Because he was "well known"?
>>
>When you tell us why they would show anyone any photo at that time, I
>might.
>
You really have trouble getting this, don't you?
Mercer was a woman whose story got better and better over time.
>> > Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
>> > trail.
>>
>> What hard evidence are you talking about?
>
>There was a parked vehicle there. She had a receipt for the car
>rental she was driving that day. She told an almost identical story
>of a man who saw 'long arms' going from the same place in the same
>direction. The times she was interrogated......
>
But the "long arm" was actually a tool box.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
> On Sep 22, 4:45 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > guess what, she said they even showed her a picture with his name on
> > > > the back of the photo.
>
> > > Why did they show her Ruby`s photo? Try an answer that makes sense
> > > this time.
>
> > Why don't you answer what photos in general would they show when it
> > was their purpose to find out who was in the vehicle.
>
> Why would they show her any photographs after she told them that she
> didn`t see the driver of the truck clearly?
>
left shoes.
> > Ruby had a
> > record of even being on a mission to come from another organized city
> > to expand organized crime in Dallas and was even recorded by a past
> > sheriff by tape recorder of the bribe structure and kickbacks, etc.
> > Ruby was in charge of distribution of heroin via Havana, was
> > influential in strong arming businesses in Dallas that interfered with
> > his and had a record for that. I would think that would be the first
> > photo to be shown if there would be any kind of proverbial list like
> > that.
>
> Ok, one last chance. Why would they show Mercer a photo of Ruby?
>
Because they were trying to figure out who she was talking about?
You aren't much better than the WC, Bud. <snick snick>
> > > > So stop being this quasi spy detective and
> > > > tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
>
> > > You kooks are trying to use this witness to establish something,
> > > not me.
>
> > But we aren't calling one a 'liar' that said she pointed the photo out
> > with his name on it.
>
> All indication are that she never did anything of the sort. She told
> the Dallas Police she didn`t see the driver clearly. Of course, this
> information has to go, because it gets in the way of the fanciful
> tales the conspiracy monger want to write.
>
Is this your basis for 'solid ground'? Seems like they brought her a
long way for nothing. And they had the gall to make her come in the
next day. Might it be a conspiracy theory of yours that they were
just trying to get in her pants?
> > You simply 'establish' something is a lie, when
> > it doesn't suit your version of evidence.
>
> Your version of the evidence being forget what she told the cops,
> forget what she told the FBI, and believe what she told the conspiracy
> kook book author years and years later.
>
Of course, she has been frothing at the mouths for years to make up
Aesop Fairy Tale. Isn't this the bin you put only the witnesses you
want put in there?...:)
> > So, when we have witnesses
> > saying Oswald and Ruby knew each other, and Mercer IDing Oswald as
> > well, it just makes it a little more verifiable.
>
> And maybe more eyewitnesses who initially said they saw nothing will
> come forward with fantastic tales of identification, and it`ll firm up
> some more.
>
And when one did, you put him in your CT scenario of Witnesses, didn't
you?
> > > > > > They brought her in. She was telling them what
> > > > > > he looked like.
>
> > > > > You had much, much better looks at Ruby than she could ever
> > > > > possibly have. Describe him in such a way as I would know you were
> > > > > describing him.
>
> > > > Medium build, muscular, white, dark hair, combed back, 50ish.
>
> BTW, your description matches Mel Gibson better than it does Ruby.
>
What was he then, like 10 years old?
> > Hey
> > > > that's the guy that lives down here.....we know him.
> > > You just described the guy photographed going into the embassy.
>
> > I described a guy that they could have pulled a photo out of a drawer
> > by eliminating a good percentage of potential people, I would think.
>
> I can see it now. The cops pulls out a photo of the Pope. She says
> "no". He pulls out a photo of Sammy Davis Junior, she says "no". He
> then pulls out a photo of Ruby, and "bingo", they get a hit.
>
>
I bet they knew the measurements of Jack Ruby's girls better than
anything about those clowns.
>
>
>
> > > > > > Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > > > > > > > Amazing
> > > > > > > > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > > > > > > > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> > > > > > > <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> > > > > > > Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> > > > > > > embassy, not Ruby.
>
> > > > > > Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
>
> > > > > Apparently to Marguerite it did. There is a reasonable explanation
> > > > > for the FBI to show her that photo. There is no reasonable explanation
> > > > > for them to show her a photo of Ruby. But you kooks never let
> > > > > reasoning get in the way of what you want to believe.
>
> > > > You always seem to have 'the only profile that will fit' pat all the
> > > > time.
>
> > > Lets hear you reason why the FBI would show her a photo of Ruby on
> > > the 23rd. Because he was "well known"?
>
> > When you tell us why they would show anyone any photo at that time, I
> > might.
>
> Ah, because they were conducting an investigation?
>
An investigation of who might be in an unmoving vehicle and what he
might look like?!
> > > > Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
> > > > trail.
>
> > > What hard evidence are you talking about?
>
> > There was a parked vehicle there.
>
> Yah, cops too.
>
> > She had a receipt for the car
> > rental she was driving that day.
>
> And the police found the air conditioning work truck she saw that
> day. She saw a box. After the President was shot, the box seemed gun-
> like to her. The human mind makes associations like that sometimes.
>
Like your human mind making up pure fiction here? She told that the
object was taken out of the toolbox. She must have caught a whale by
the time they got to the top of the hill.
> > She told an almost identical story
> > of a man who saw 'long arms' going from the same place in the same
> > direction.
>
> She never said she saw a gun. And she has this box being taken
> from a specific place (a truck) and taken up the hill. Did the guy who
> saw "long arms" mention a box, or a truck? If not, there is no real
> corroboration.
>
Why do you care what he said...you don't believe anything anyway?
Did she ever say it was an unwrapped gun? No. But she said it
appeared from all aspects to be one. Why do you think she was
telling this at the turnpike stop? She had to be saying something
about a rifle there else they wouldn't have bothered to bring her in.
> > The times she was interrogated......
>
> She told the truth. But the truth was an impediment to the stories
> the conspiracy writers wanted her to tell.
>
>
Like the tune the band always played in the Western movies when they
were chasing the bad guys? They knew just which hill to set the
equipment up for the perfect sound effects for the event? Nice 'CT'
tale, Bud.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:45:39 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
>
> >> > guess what, she said they even showed her a picture with his name on
> >> > the back of the photo.
>
> >> Why did they show her Ruby`s photo? Try an answer that makes sense
> >> this time.
>
> >Why don't you answer what photos in general would they show when it
> >was their purpose to find out who was in the vehicle.
>
> There is no evidence that anybody showed Mercer a photo of Ruby before
> the assassination.
>
different agency's?
> >Ruby had a
> >record of even being on a mission to come from another organized city
> >to expand organized crime in Dallas and was even recorded by a past
> >sheriff by tape recorder of the bribe structure and kickbacks, etc.
>
> That's not true.
>
Read the WC testimony of former Sheriff Steve Guthrie.
> >Ruby was in charge of distribution of heroin via Havana, was
>
> Is there any conspiracy book factoid you don't accept?
>
What is a conspiracy book factoid?
> Provide a cite for that, please.
>
>
Why, when it's a conspiracy book factoid? You might try Scheim, or
simply Googling it up.
>
>
>
> >influential in strong arming businesses in Dallas that interfered with
> >his and had a record for that. I would think that would be the first
> >photo to be shown if there would be any kind of proverbial list like
> >that.
>
> >> > So stop being this quasi spy detective and
> >> > tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
>
> >> You kooks are trying to use this witness to establish something,
> >> not me.
>
> >But we aren't calling one a 'liar' that said she pointed the photo out
> >with his name on it. You simply 'establish' something is a lie, when
> >it doesn't suit your version of evidence. So, when we have witnesses
> >saying Oswald and Ruby knew each other, and Mercer IDing Oswald as
> >well, it just makes it a little more verifiable.
>
> Mercer didn't ID the person as "Oswald" until she talked to Hurt in
> the 1980s.
>
Weren't they through questioning her on the 23rd? How do you know she
knew who he was?
> >> Lets hear you reason why the FBI would show her a photo of Ruby on
> >> the 23rd. Because he was "well known"?
>
> >When you tell us why they would show anyone any photo at that time, I
> >might.
>
> You really have trouble getting this, don't you?
>
Getting what, exactly?
> Mercer was a woman whose story got better and better over time.
>
Is that merely your biase opinion, or just a factoid?
> >> > Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
> >> > trail.
>
> >> What hard evidence are you talking about?
>
> >There was a parked vehicle there. She had a receipt for the car
> >rental she was driving that day. She told an almost identical story
> >of a man who saw 'long arms' going from the same place in the same
> >direction. The times she was interrogated......
>
> But the "long arm" was actually a tool box.
>
It was? Can you clarify more concisely?
CJ
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On Sep 22, 5:42 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Sep 22, 4:45 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > guess what, she said they even showed her a picture with his name on
> > > > > the back of the photo.
>
> > > > Why did they show her Ruby`s photo? Try an answer that makes sense
> > > > this time.
>
> > > Why don't you answer what photos in general would they show when it
> > > was their purpose to find out who was in the vehicle.
>
> > Why would they show her any photographs after she told them that she
> > didn`t see the driver of the truck clearly?
>
> Why would they ever bring her in, in the first place?? Dumb as two
> left shoes.
C`mon Curt, even you can get this one. They brought her in so they
could get information from her, in order to look into what she said
she saw.
> > > Ruby had a
> > > record of even being on a mission to come from another organized city
> > > to expand organized crime in Dallas and was even recorded by a past
> > > sheriff by tape recorder of the bribe structure and kickbacks, etc.
> > > Ruby was in charge of distribution of heroin via Havana, was
> > > influential in strong arming businesses in Dallas that interfered with
> > > his and had a record for that. I would think that would be the first
> > > photo to be shown if there would be any kind of proverbial list like
> > > that.
>
> > Ok, one last chance. Why would they show Mercer a photo of Ruby?
>
> Because they were trying to figure out who she was talking about?
She told them she didn`t see the driver clearly, so they figured
it must be Ruby she saw?
> You aren't much better than the WC, Bud. <snick snick>
>
> > > > > So stop being this quasi spy detective and
> > > > > tarding up the bandwidth for your monthly stop.
>
> > > > You kooks are trying to use this witness to establish something,
> > > > not me.
>
> > > But we aren't calling one a 'liar' that said she pointed the photo out
> > > with his name on it.
>
> > All indication are that she never did anything of the sort. She told
> > the Dallas Police she didn`t see the driver clearly. Of course, this
> > information has to go, because it gets in the way of the fanciful
> > tales the conspiracy monger want to write.
>
> Is this your basis for 'solid ground'? Seems like they brought her a
> long way for nothing.
Best to look into it. That way conspiracy kooks can`t claim she was
ignored.
> And they had the gall to make her come in the
> next day. Might it be a conspiracy theory of yours that they were
> just trying to get in her pants?
Probably just the information of what she saw.
> > > You simply 'establish' something is a lie, when
> > > it doesn't suit your version of evidence.
>
> > Your version of the evidence being forget what she told the cops,
> > forget what she told the FBI, and believe what she told the conspiracy
> > kook book author years and years later.
>
> Of course, she has been frothing at the mouths for years to make up
> Aesop Fairy Tale.
Hard to say what motivated her. Money, most likely. If I were her,
I`d say it was Ruby for a few bucks, Who gets hurt? Ruby is long dead,
and only an idiot would buy into that story anyway.
> Isn't this the bin you put only the witnesses you
> want put in there?...:)
So, if a witness cam forward today, and said they saw Oswald
shooting at the motorcade, you`d believe that witness, right?
> > > So, when we have witnesses
> > > saying Oswald and Ruby knew each other, and Mercer IDing Oswald as
> > > well, it just makes it a little more verifiable.
>
> > And maybe more eyewitnesses who initially said they saw nothing will
> > come forward with fantastic tales of identification, and it`ll firm up
> > some more.
>
> And when one did, you put him in your CT scenario of Witnesses, didn't
> you?
These kinds of witnesses are no use to me. They come forward because
idiots like you exist. Supply and demand. There is a market for
conspiracy yarns.
> > > > > > > They brought her in. She was telling them what
> > > > > > > he looked like.
>
> > > > > > You had much, much better looks at Ruby than she could ever
> > > > > > possibly have. Describe him in such a way as I would know you were
> > > > > > describing him.
>
> > > > > Medium build, muscular, white, dark hair, combed back, 50ish.
>
> > BTW, your description matches Mel Gibson better than it does Ruby.
>
> What was he then, like 10 years old?
Today, the description you gave matches Mel Gibson. When you are
trying to describe Ruby, and your description more closely matches
what Mel Gibson looks like today, this shows how difficult it is it
identify a particular person in words that narrow it down to an
individual.
> > > Hey
> > > > > that's the guy that lives down here.....we know him.
> > > > You just described the guy photographed going into the embassy.
>
> > > I described a guy that they could have pulled a photo out of a drawer
> > > by eliminating a good percentage of potential people, I would think.
>
> > I can see it now. The cops pulls out a photo of the Pope. She says
> > "no". He pulls out a photo of Sammy Davis Junior, she says "no". He
> > then pulls out a photo of Ruby, and "bingo", they get a hit.
>
> I bet they knew the measurements of Jack Ruby's girls better than
> anything about those clowns.
That makes as much sense as a process of elimination by showing
Mercer random photos (especially after she says she didn`t see the
person she is trying to identify clearly).
> > > > > > > Ruby had a history of DPD detainment.
> > > > > > > > > Amazing
> > > > > > > > > too, that the FBI would produce the same thing for Marguerite before
> > > > > > > > > the shooting of Oswald, too.
>
> > > > > > > > <snicker> "Here is the man who is going to kill your son tomorrow."
> > > > > > > > Of course, the photo she was shown was the man seen entering the
> > > > > > > > embassy, not Ruby.
>
> > > > > > > Does that guy look like Jack Ruby?!
>
> > > > > > Apparently to Marguerite it did. There is a reasonable explanation
> > > > > > for the FBI to show her that photo. There is no reasonable explanation
> > > > > > for them to show her a photo of Ruby. But you kooks never let
> > > > > > reasoning get in the way of what you want to believe.
>
> > > > > You always seem to have 'the only profile that will fit' pat all the
> > > > > time.
>
> > > > Lets hear you reason why the FBI would show her a photo of Ruby on
> > > > the 23rd. Because he was "well known"?
>
> > > When you tell us why they would show anyone any photo at that time, I
> > > might.
>
> > Ah, because they were conducting an investigation?
>
> An investigation of who might be in an unmoving vehicle and what he
> might look like?!
Yah, they ask the person if she got a look at the driver. When the
witness indicates that she didn`t see the driver clearly, that avenue
of investigation is pretty well shut down.
> > > > > Don't deviate from hard evidence....it might throw you on the
> > > > > trail.
>
> > > > What hard evidence are you talking about?
>
> > > There was a parked vehicle there.
>
> > Yah, cops too.
>
> > > She had a receipt for the car
> > > rental she was driving that day.
>
> > And the police found the air conditioning work truck she saw that
> > day. She saw a box. After the President was shot, the box seemed gun-
> > like to her. The human mind makes associations like that sometimes.
>
> Like your human mind making up pure fiction here? She told that the
> object was taken out of the toolbox.
Did she tell the cops this? the FBI? Oh, right, just a box wasn`t
good enough for the conspiracy writer, it had to be removed.
> She must have caught a whale by
> the time they got to the top of the hill.
>
> > > She told an almost identical story
> > > of a man who saw 'long arms' going from the same place in the same
> > > direction.
>
> > She never said she saw a gun. And she has this box being taken
> > from a specific place (a truck) and taken up the hill. Did the guy who
> > saw "long arms" mention a box, or a truck? If not, there is no real
> > corroboration.
>
> Why do you care what he said...you don't believe anything anyway?
Not stupid shit. You seem to swallow all the stupid shit you can get
and ask for seconds.
> Did she ever say it was an unwrapped gun? No. But she said it
> appeared from all aspects to be one.
What aspects do an unseen gun have?
> Why do you think she was
> telling this at the turnpike stop?
It`s called association. She probably did see a box. And it was
probably just a box. Hearing of the shooting, she wonders if perhaps
it wasn`t something more. Thinking harder, she convinces herself that
it must have been something more.
> She had to be saying something
> about a rifle there else they wouldn't have bothered to bring her in.
Yah, they looked into it. Turned out to be a broken down air
conditioner truck. The cops had to moved away.
> > > The times she was interrogated......
>
> > She told the truth. But the truth was an impediment to the stories
> > the conspiracy writers wanted her to tell.
>
> Like the tune the band always played in the Western movies when they
> were chasing the bad guys? They knew just which hill to set the
> equipment up for the perfect sound effects for the event? Nice 'CT'
> tale, Bud.
You got to admit, "Jack Ruby" makes for a better book than "I
didn`t see the man clearly".
curtjester1
>
> > Why do you care what he said...you don't believe anything anyway?
>
> Not stupid shit. You seem to swallow all the stupid shit you can get
> and ask for seconds.
I'm sorry for snipping so much, Bud, but this is the only one that
made me laugh. BTW, what kind of toolbox did you say Brennan saw?
CJ
Bud
Oswald was the tool he saw.
> CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quit trying to make a Monkey Wrench out of me. Why would he or
anyone stick his neck out of a window that was more than half shut?
And how could anyone tell how much they weighed and how tall they were
when it would show about a 1/4 of one's body if they were standing up?
CJ
Bud
Yah, for Mercer`s claim that the affidavit was altered, forged, or
whatever she claimed, the NP would need to be lying about witnessing the
affadavit.
> > > Affadavits aren't
> > > the strongest pieces anyway since for many it's just to verify you were
> > > there...and many are signed without putting anything in.
>
> > She didn`t provide the information on the affidavit now, eh? I guess
> > the cops just were lucky guessers that so many of the details provided
> > on the affidavit were the same she would say when she finally did tell
> > her story. And did you compare the affidavit to the information she
> > gave to the FBI? Quite a match, must be more liars. But, when you have
> > to call the cops, FBI and notary public liars, and have to imagine
> > forged signatures, isn`t it easier to just admit this witness lied
> > about identifying Ruby to give some conspiracy kook book writer fodder
> > for his book, so they idiots like yourself could eat it up?
>
> Big into affidavits are ya?
It`s where you can find what the witnesses told the authorities. You do
realize that if you scrap her affidavit, and what she told the FBI, we
have nothing from her around the time of the assassination that she saw a
broken down truck at all. Or don`t you realize that?
> Of course all people are conspirators to
> write books even before books come out. Why can't you just take her word
> for it?
I do. I take her word that she didn`t see the driver clearly.
> How come you rail against conspiracy thinking all the time, yet
> you make up your own specialized CT theory's at whim to pave the way for
> 'good evidence'?
Have you come with a reasonable explanation as to why the DPD would show
Mercer a photo of Jack Ruby on the 23rd? You can`t clear the very first
"this is stupid" hurdle.
> > > > > Did you not know she ID'd Oswald as
> > > > > well?
>
> > > > When the witnesses start talking to conspiracy writers, they start
> > > > telling all kinds of amazing information they neglected to give to the
> > > > authorities. Look at Jean Hill.
>
> > > Like authority cop people that usually don't have the highest of or
> > > specialized educations are artful questioners.
>
> > <snicker> Yah, it`s the cops fault she told them she didn`t get a
> > good look at the driver of the broken down truck.
>
> Why then did they bother to show her pictures after she said that?
The correct question is "why WOULD they show her questions after
that".
> Could it be that she was "eyeball to eyeball" with him carried clout?
Undoubtedly, the DPD was working from what Mercer told them in the
affidavit she provided for them, that she didn`t see the driver clearly.
That "eyeball to eyeball" is from a book that wouldn`t be written until
decades later.
>
> CJ
Bud
> On Sep 23, 5:00 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 5:24 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Why do you care what he said...you don't believe anything anyway?
>
> > > > Not stupid shit. You seem to swallow all the stupid shit you can get
> > > > and ask for seconds.
>
> > > made me laugh. BTW, what kind of toolbox did you say Brennan saw?
>
> > Oswald was the tool he saw.
>
> > > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Quit trying to make a Monkey Wrench out of me. Why would he or
> anyone stick his neck out of a window that was more than half shut?
Who said Oswald stuck his neck out the window?
> And how could anyone tell how much they weighed and how tall they were
> when it would show about a 1/4 of one's body if they were standing up?
The police needed information, so I guess Brennan did his best at
guessing. Where do you think the weight and height came from if not
Brennan?
> CJ
curtjester1
The floor was only a foot lower than the window ledge, so the guy that
would have shot from there would have to be stooped or laying on a box
to even shoot, and when he got up, he couldn't look out a window...and
they couldn't see any big portion of his body. So even if Brennan
made a guess (I don't even think he guessed THAT window), he would
have been untruthful in whatever he said. And the windows themselves
were extremely opaque as not to be conducive to anything concise,
guess-wise either. Now some other windows in that whole side were
wide open or close to hit....
Well anyway, at least you seem to take yourself out of Oz evidence for
that particular issue.
CJ
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
No, Brennan said Oswald was sitting on the window sill for awhile
previously, affording him a better view. But, I think the most import
feature Brennan supplied was the word "slender". That narrows down the
search quite a bit. Male cuts the search in half. White narrows it
down further. Kooks seem to expect that the words Brennan used should
be a perfect fit for Oswald, and isolate him as an individual. That
can`t happen, unless he had a peg leg and pink hair. If you assume the
other witnesses all saw the same person on the 6th floor, then you can
see how widely Fischer, Rowland(?) and Edwards describe someone who is
probably all the same person. Everything from light hair to dark hair.
Walt likes to pretend that Brennan`s description rules out Oswald as
the man he saw. Walt is an idiot.