Official comments on LHO's Guilt
robcap...@netscape.com
functioned neither as a court presiding over an adversary proceeding
nor as a prosecutor determined to prove a case, but as a fact finding
agency committed to the ascertainment of the truth" (Rxiv). This is to
say that neither innocence nor guilt was presumed from the outset of
the inquiry, in effect stating that the Commission conducted a "chips-
fall-where-they-may" investigation.
Yet NOT one agency conducted an investigation with the premise that
LHO was NOT the sole assassin. His guilt was presumed and passed on
via the media to the country as a whole shortly after his arrest. The
N.Y. Times ran banner headlines just days after the assassination that
said:
"Police Say Prisoner is the Assassin."
"Evidence Against Oswald Described as Conclusive."
The Philadelphia Inquirer said:
"Police on Saturday said they have an airtight case against pro-Castro
Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy."
On the front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/24/63, was the
headline "Dallas Police Insist Evidence Proves Oswald Killed
Kennedy."
"Dallas police said today that Lee Harvey Oswald . . . assassinated
President John F. Kennedy and they have the evidence to prove
it. . . . 'The man killed President Kennedy. We are convinced without
any doubt that he did the killing. There were no
accomplices,' [Captain] Fritz asserted. Police Chief Jesse E. Curry
outlined this web of evidence that, he said, showed Oswald was the
sniper."
The N.Y. Times finally did their duty and condemned the assumption of
guilt bestowed upon LHO, unfortunately for LHO, it was after he was
shot dead in the basement. Here it is:
"The Dallas authorities, abetted and encouraged by the newspaper, TV
and radio press, trampled on every principle of justice in their
handling of Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . The heinousness of the crime
Oswald was alleged to have committed made it doubly important that
there be no cloud over the establishment of his guilt.
Yet -- before any indictment had been returned or any evidence
presented and in the face of continued denials by the prisoner -- the
chief of police and the district attorney pronounced Oswald
guilty." (New York Times, November 25, 1963, p. 18.)
Much of the blame can go directly to the top law enforcers in Dallas,
D.A. Henry Wade, Jesse Curry and Capt. Fritz. During a press
conference on the night of the assassination Wade would say the
following:
"I figure we have sufficient evidence to convict him" [Oswald] . . .
there's no one else but him (24H751).
The next day, 11/23/63, Curry was asked about the guilt of LHO, and he
did caution that the evidence was NOT yet positive, he said in various
interviews:
"Personally, I think we have the right man" (24H754).
"I think this is the man who killed the President" (24H764).
Capt. Fritz added his two cents to the discussion:
"There is only one thing that I can tell you without going into the
evidence before first talking to the District Attorney. I can tell you
that this case is cinched -- that this man killed the President.
There's no question in my mind about it. . . . I don't want to get
into the evidence. I just want to tell you that we are convinced
beyond any doubt that he did the killing." (24H787)
Was this after weeks or months of exhautive investigating? NO! It was
on Saturday, 11/23/63, afternoon! 24 hours or so after the
assassination and he says the case is cinched!
On 11/24/63 we see Curry become even more firm in his assertions:
"This is the man, we are sure, that murdered the patrolman and
murdered -- assassinated the President (24H772)."
Now D.A. Henry Wade joined in pronouncing the verdict before trial or
indictment:
WADE: I would say that without any doubt he's the killer -- the
law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I --
there's no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.
Q. That case is closed in your mind?
WADE: As far as Oswald is concerned yes. (24H823)
This is all TWO DAYS after the assassination!!! Why didn't they teach
courses on how to wrap-up capital crimes in 48 hours or less?
On December 1, the Washington Post in a major article told its readers
that "all the police agencies with a hand in the investigation . . .
insist that [the case against Oswald] is an unshakable one."
Time magazine, in the week before the FBI report was forwarded to the
Commission, said of the report, "it will indicate that Oswald, acting
in his own lunatic loneliness, was indeed the President's assassin."
Newsweek reported that "the report holds to the central conclusion
that Federal and local probers had long since reached: that Oswald was
the assassin."
The New York Times was privy to the most specific leak concerning the
FBI report. On December 10 it ran a front-page story headed "Oswald
Assassin Beyond a Doubt, FBI Concludes." This article, by Joseph
Loftus, began as follows:
"A Federal Bureau of Investigation report went to a special
Presidential commission today and named Lee H. Oswald as the assassin
of President Kennedy.
The Report is known to emphasize that Oswald was beyond doubt
the assassin and that he acted alone. . . .
The Department of Justice, declining all comment on the content
of the report, announced only that on instruction of President Johnson
the report was sent directly to the special Commission."[New York
Times, December 10, 1963, p. 1.]
The FBI had long maintained that their reports did NOT reach or draw
conclusions regarding guilt, but this report to the WC was
declassified in 1965 and it shows it did just that. In the preface to
this once-secret report (released in 1965), the FBI stated:
"Part I briefly relates the assassination of the President and
the identification of Oswald as his slayer.
Part II sets forth the evidence conclusively showing that Oswald
did assassinate the President. (CD 1)"
This report was leaked to the press and it exasperated the WC. On
December 16, Chairman Warren stated:
CHAIRMAN: Well, gentlemen, to be very frank about it, I have
read that report two or three times and I have not seen anything in
there yet that has not been in the press.
SEN. RUSSELL: I couldn't agree with that more. I have read it
through once very carefully, and I went through it again at places I
had marked, and practically everything in there has come out in the
press at one time or another, a bit here and a bit there.[Transcript
of the December 16, 1963, Executive Session of the Warren Commission,
p. 11.]
The Commission was NOT happy with the FBI report. The Commission
members themselves, in private, grumbled about the unsatisfactory
nature of the FBI report, as the following passage from the December
16 Executive Session reveals:
MR. MC CLOY: . . . The grammar is bad and you can see they did
not polish it all up. It does leave you some loopholes in this thing
but I think you have to realize they put this thing together very
fast.
REP. BOGGS: There's nothing in there about Governor Connally.
CHAIRMAN: No.
SEN. COOPER: And whether or not they found any bullets in him.
MR. MC CLOY: This bullet business leaves me confused.
CHAIRMAN: It's totally inconclusive.[Ibid., p. 12.]
Thus, by January 1964, the American public had been assured by both
the Dallas Police and the FBI that Oswald was the assassin beyond all
doubt. For those who had not taken the time to probe the evidence, who
were not aware of its inadequacies and limitations, such a conclusion
was easy to accept.
YoHarvey
wrote:
Hey dumb dumb, does the following mean anything to an idiot your
stature?
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm curious. Does anybody on this NG have any problem with the above
posting by our resident pathological lying homophobe Chicojesus/
Robcap? I ask this question because he AGAIN produced NO
evidence.....he again offers his speculation and conjecture on the
mindset of the arresting officers. Apparently Chico believes because
he was a part time cop before failing that occupation the he's the new
Sherlock Holmes, able to KNOW what was in the mind of these people.
Any opinions appreciated.
robcap...@netscape.com
Not really, because IF you knew the evidence you would know it was far
from conclusive. Circumstantial is too generous. They had NO motive,
NO evidence showing he was in the window at the time of the shooting,
NO evidence showing he fired the rifle at 12:30 p.m., NO evidence
showing he hit JFK and JBC, etc... The "evidence" for the JDT case is
just as weak. Learn the case.
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you believe this moron? He now wants to start anew the exact same
bullshit as produced by the conspiracy crowd over 44 years. Good
lord. They never learn.
robcap...@netscape.com
Look who is talking!! Have you EVER listed any evidence? I think
not. Quit showing your mental deficiences as this post was NOT
designed to show a ton of evidence, but rather to show how the press
and officials condemned LHO before he had a chance to defend himself.
This is NOT what our way of life is all about, except in your sick
world that is.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Answer ONE question. The bag found in the TSBD that carried the
weapon into same building contained fibers, ballistically matched to
the blanket found in the Paine Garage. Who carried the weapon into
the TSBD and when? No bullshit. No speculation. No suppostiion.
Who and when? EVIDENCE.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:febbfe2b-a7bd-4198...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
Hey dumb dumb, does the following mean anything to an idiot your
stature?
"Evidence Against Oswald Described as Conclusive."
******************
I write;
Hey child-molester;
If the "Evidence" is so "Conclusive"?
WHY do you shit your panties Every time I ask you to address it?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Shackelford
to any investigation having been completed, or even well begun, the
White House Situation Room sent a message to Air Force One and to
the Cabinet plane that there was "no conspiracy."
And we all know about the famous Nick Katzenbach memo in which
he states that the public "must be satisfied" that there was no conspiracy--
also prior to the completion of any investigation.
Finally, we know that when the Warren Commission outlined its planned
investigation, they didn't have a section on who the assassin might be--they
had a section instead on Oswald as the assassin. Nothing else was really
pursued seriously--certainly not by the agencies doing the "investigation"
for them.
The oldest line in this case is the one where WC staffers and media people
say "It would have made my career" had they discovered evidence of a
conspiracy. In fact, careers often depend on reliability at following
orders,
not sabotaging them.
Martin
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:b7167245-026b-42ed...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Can you believe this moron?" <<<
"Robcap" is easily one of the screwiest CTers I've ever encountered.
"Mega-Kook" is too kind a term for this nutcase.
He takes every piece of evidence against Oswald (which, of course, is
piled 20 stories high) and sweeps all of it arbitrarily into the
gutter. Every piece. Without exception. Even the rock-solid Tippit
evidence. Even THAT murder was, somehow, committed by somebody other
than Oz, per Robby.
Probably the most insane thing Robby has maintained (or at least I get
this very distinct feeling whenever wading through his unsupportable
BS, i.e., when I feel like having a good laugh) is the fact that it
would appear (at least for "show" at this silly asylum posing as a
"JFK Forum") that not only has Rob-Kook convinced himself that there's
not a SCRAP of evidence against Oswald in EITHER 11/22 murder....but
Rob doesn't even seem to want to consider the POSSIBILITY that Oswald
pulled the trigger on either JFK or JDT in '63.
Go figure them apples.....A case where the evidence against the double-
killer is beyond all reasonable doubt is considered by a certain kook
to be a case where it's not even remotely possible for the proven
double-murderer to be guilty...of EITHER crime.
One can only sit back in awe of such stupidity. And just hope that
Rob's offspring didn't inherit his "Conspiracy/Kook" Gene.
It's possible, however, that "Robcap" has merely been putting on a
good "I'm A Mega-Kook" act since he joined this asylum's forces in
October of 2007. I sometimes wonder if that's the case about several
of the ultra "ABO" kooks I've encountered over the years.
Because it's almost beyond belief that someone who supposedly has
looked into this major murder case in-depth can be silly enough to say
something like "LHO shot no one that day" (verbatim "Kook Kwote" from
Rob; Oct. 22, 2007; link below to original post, in case anyone wants
their daily belly-laugh). .....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cb6da7263046ee6a
And yet...there it is above, in black-&-white (and 'red' too, if the
author has the sense to be embarrassed by such an absurd statement,
which he should be).
aeffects
David Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes) you can quote the entire Library of
Congress, no one believes your el-crappo anymore, you're damaged
goods, son....
You got on the wrong train.....
David Von Pein
>>> "No one believes your el-crappo anymore." <<<
As if any of the Super-Kooks in this joint ever did??
El-Oh-El!
<tips cap to Healy>
You actually spelled "you're" correctly for once. Pretty soon, maybe
when you're a 69-year-old ABO Kook, you'll learn proper punctuation
too. Won't that be a fun learning experience for you?!
Walt
ROTFLMAO..... A clever one liner, that fits perfectly. Thanks for
the chuckle
Walt
nlnn
Walt
Not True.... He's doing exactly what all SERIOUS CT's should be
doing....Focusing on the basics.
He's ignoring the LNer's who attempt to distract and divert attention
away from the basics. The conspiracy aiders and abetters have been
pretty sucessful in diverting attention away from the basics. They
have got CT's to argue about what color socks Ruby was wearing when he
shot Oswald, and all sorts of nonsense. The Conspiracy abetters have
been so sucessful that many of the basic details that were once well
known, are no longer known to new comers. Rob is on the right track
on this one..... Let's hope he don't start citing Mortal Error as
source information.
Walt
Good
lord. They never learn.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Whoa!!.... I say WHOA!!...You camel headed SOB!!.... Hold it right
there. You're gonna have to PROVE that the rifle was carried into the
TSBD in that paper bag, before we can continue. Now then, PROVE that
the rifle was carried in that bag.
Walt
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Can you believe this moron?" <<<
"Robcap is easily one of the screwiest CTers I've ever encountered."
I take that as a compliment, thanks!
"Mega-Kook is too kind a term for this nutcase."
IF only it were true, it would make your propaganda job so much
easier!
"He takes every piece of evidence against Oswald (which, of course, is
piled 20 stories high) and sweeps all of it arbitrarily into the
gutter. Every piece. Without exception. Even the rock-solid Tippit
evidence. Even THAT murder was, somehow, committed by somebody other
than Oz, per Robby."
What are you babbling about? This post showed how the officials and
their best friends, the media, mislead the American public with lies
and untruths within the first few days and weeks of the
assassination. Address that.
"Probably the most insane thing Robby has maintained (or at least I
get this very distinct feeling whenever wading through his
unsupportable BS, i.e., when I feel like having a good laugh) is the
fact that it would appear (at least for "show" at this silly asylum
posing as a "JFK Forum") that not only has Rob-Kook convinced himself
that there's not a SCRAP of evidence against Oswald in EITHER 11/22
murder....but
Rob doesn't even seem to want to consider the POSSIBILITY that Oswald
pulled the trigger on either JFK or JDT in '63."
I have considered it my nutjob NG keyboard pal, but after viewing the
evidence and reading the whole story I came away with the knowledge
LHO shot at NO ONE on 11/22/63. This doesn't mean he was totally
innocent, as he could have been involved in the conspiracy in some
way, or he could have been what he said he was, a Patsy.
Unfortunately, the DPD made sure none of us would know for sure when
they escorted Ruby in with a handgun, delayed the transfer until Ruby
was ready (with his lawyer right next to him by the way), honked the
horn and let him walk right up and say "Oswald" you're it!!!
"Go figure them apples.....A case where the evidence against the
double-killer is beyond all reasonable doubt is considered by a
certain kook to be a case where it's not even remotely possible for
the proven double-murderer to be guilty...of EITHER crime."
Go figure what apples? If you are making apples a metaphor for no
evidence I agree, go figure, if not please clarify how someone can be
guilty with NO evidence against them. Your definition of reasonable is
very different from the majority of us as NO evidence is reasonable to
a kook like you.
"One can only sit back in awe of such stupidity. And just hope that
Rob's offspring didn't inherit his "Conspiracy/Kook" Gene."
Sure, letting them be brainwashed to believe everything Hitler's
historical writer (the writer of the WC by the way) tells them is so
much better!
"It's possible, however, that "Robcap" has merely been putting on a
good "I'm A Mega-Kook" act since he joined this asylum's forces in
October of 2007. I sometimes wonder if that's the case about several
of the ultra "ABO" kooks I've encountered over the years."
I wonder that about EVERY LNer I meet, as it seems IMPOSSIBLE that
grown adults could be this easily mislead.
"Because it's almost beyond belief that someone who supposedly has
looked into this major murder case in-depth can be silly enough to say
something like "LHO shot no one that day" (verbatim "Kook Kwote" from
Rob; Oct. 22, 2007; link below to original post, in case anyone wants
their daily belly-laugh). ....."
I say this about LNers who are paid WC apologists for the most part,
as NO real reasonable person can read about this case and walk away
with the thought LHO did it.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cb6da7263046ee6a
"And yet...there it is above, in black-&-white (and 'red' too, if the
author has the sense to be embarrassed by such an absurd statement,
which he should be)."
Speaking the truth is NEVER something to be embarrassed about, only
misleading is.