Text From This Evening's BlackOp Radio Program
Gil Jesus
By Gil Jesus ( 2009 )
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?
Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called
and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a
scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on. ( 2 H 392 )
Lee Harvey Oswald claimed that the Dallas Police would not let him
have a lawyer. He repeatedly asked for "someone to come forward and
give me legal assistance". Nearly every single time he appeared before
reporters, he lamented about not having counsel on his behalf.
At the same time, the Dallas authorities were telling different
stories to those who came forward in response to Oswald's pleas. One
version was that Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. A second version
was that Oswald had declined any and all legal assistance, save for
one attorney named John Abt from New York.
While Oswald did express a preference for Abt, he also requested a
second choice --- any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its
representatives were discouraged from doing so.
OSWALD REQUESTS A LAWYER DURING THE FIRST INTERROGATION SESSION
According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first
interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday,
November 22nd. ( 1 )
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that
during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him
and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 2 )
THE ACLU TO THE RESCUE....OR MAYBE NOT
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberites
Union. He had been contacted by one of his board
members at 10:30pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald's being
denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him
that Oswald had been given the opportunity
to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because as I just mentioned, Fritz told the
Commission that Oswald made known his "second
choice" of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation
session, some 6-8 hours previously.
( 3 )
After deliberation, Olds and three others headed for Dallas Police
Headquarters.
Olds and his party arrived on the fourth floor, where they met Charles
Webster, a lawyer and professor of law at SMU,
who took them in to see Capt. Glen King.
Olds testified that "Captain King ......assured us that Oswald had not
made any requests for counsel."
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
"Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where
Justice of the Peace David Johnston was......
he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's
rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing
beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry." ( 4 )
So here we have two different stories:
On the one hand the police say that Oswald was given the opportunity
to request counsel and he didn't, and the judge saying that he
declined counsel.
And of course, we know that both of these accounts are lies because in
his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had
requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater.
( 5 )
Later in his testimony, Hill reiterates:
Mr. HILL .........he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his
attorney.
Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre?
Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his
rights.
( 6 )
Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference", where Oswald AGAIN
publicly requested that "someone come forward to give me legal
assistance".
Having been discouraged by the police, the law professor and the judge
from contacting Oswald, Olds was
left to choose whom to believe....them or Oswald. It was a choice he'd
later regret.
He testified that...
"......I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald,
because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that
night or not."
Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him?
Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part.
( 7 )
We now know today that many of Wade's convictions in criminal court
have been overturned. ( 8 )
Olds then told the Commission that the visit of Dallas Bar Association
President H. Louis Nichols to speak with Oswald
on Saturday went a long way in reasurring Olds' questions about
suspected denial of counsel to Oswald:
Mr. OLDS. Mr. Nichols went down late this afternoon, I think around
5:30, and he reported after that that he had seen
Oswald in respect to the same reasons that we had for going down there
Saturday night, to see if he wanted some sort of legal representation,
and to make sure whether or not he was denied---being denied it, and
he said that he was satisfied that--in essence, Oswald told Nichols he
was satisfied with the situation. ( 9 )
BEFORE THE JUDGE
At the midnight press conference, Oswald told reporters that he had
appeared before a judge and had protested that
he was not allowed a lawyer:
" I was questioned by a judge. I protested at that time that I was not
allowed legal
representation during that very short and sweet hearing." ---Lee
Harvey Oswald
In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Nichols stated that
indigent defendants
in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their
request.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the
appointment of counsel for
indigents accused in criminal cases?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which
provide that where it comes
to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not
represented by an attorney
that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him. .........
.....The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention
of the judge that an
accused in jail is not represented by an attorney--I am talking about
a felony case now---or a
man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the court
to appoint him a lawyer, the
judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to
represent those people. (10 )
None of the authorities who were present at Oswald's arraignment for
the murder of JD Tippit, and who
testified under oath before the Warren Commission, could recall what
Oswald said during that hearing.
The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment,
but could not remember what that comment was. ( 11 )
Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald
said (12 )
The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 13 )
and Detective Richard Sims couldn't remember what either the judge or
Oswald said. ( 14 )
What are the chances that every official who was called to give
testimony on what Oswald said during the Tippit
arraignment is going to have a total loss of memory ?
OSWALD & THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION
District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers
regarding the treatment of Oswald. One of the issues was Oswald's
repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal
representation.
In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association
and the Criminal Bar Association.
On saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade
contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to
request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal
representation, wanted legal representation,or wanted it but had been
denied of it.
Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an
inquiry. ( 15 )
Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that
as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer,so Nichols asked
Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would
provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade
said he'd pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for
a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him. ( 16 )
Of course, the reason why Wade's response was a lie is that Oswald HAD
been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the
evening before during the "Midnight Press Conference".
After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the
criminal bar association should visit and talk with
Oswald.
But according to Nichols, he couldn't get a member of the criminal bar
to go with him.
When he contacted Henry Wade, Wade told him to go visit Oswald alone
and to "tell him you will get him a lawyer".
( 17 )
To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.
A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions:
Was he being beaten ?
was he being starved ?
Was he being deprived of sleep ?
Was he being isolated from his friends and family ?
Was he being denied counsel ?
In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was "connected"
to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.
Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office, and at the time
of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city
credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known
many of these city authorities for years. ( 18 )
Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to
ask if Oswald had a lawyer:
"Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one
representing him, and as far as he
knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the
right to call a lawyer, and had
not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him---" ( 19 )
Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday,
the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea
the night before for "someone to come forward to give me legal
assistance" and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by
William Whaley, who testified:
"He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought
about them.
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him
and he wanted his lawyer." ( 20)
Nichols attempts to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to
deliver a message to Oswald:
I said, "Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a
lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell
him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association,
and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one." ( 21 )
Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols
"didn't know whether I wanted to or not at this point".
I didn't know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become
embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer,
and I didn't anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don't
practice criminal law. ( 22 )
However, Nichols was pressured into going by a law professor from
SMU.
I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at
S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was
doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had
transpired, what I had done, and I hadn't decided what should be done
at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association.
He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if
I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to
whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking
for a lawyer and hadn't been able to get one, and I told him that I
had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to
be done. It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough
uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a
lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up
and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall.
That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon. ( 23 )
The law professor, in a sense, twists his arm as if saying, "It's been
over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn't asked for an attorney
yet ?"
When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief's
office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and
introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to
Oswald's cell himself. ( 24 )
When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining
about his treatment:
Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he
really didn't know what it was all about, that he
was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well,
I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I
understand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he
said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy,
or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that
killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that.
This is a little bit vague. ( 25 )
Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of
President Kennedy, and he can't remember what was said in the
exchange.
Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word "incommunicado" to describe----
Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.
Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any---or indicate to you that
he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of
his choice?
Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything.
Just didn't elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN'T ASK HIM at that point. MY
INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know
whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If
he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was
contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as
the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man
had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for
the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing
whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a
lawyer and been refused..... I didn't go into the other questions, or
whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn't been permitted.
I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted
a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one.
( 26 )
In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the
American Civil Liberites Union, Nichols told him that he didn't know
Abt and he didn't know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but
admitted under oath that "as it turned out later, a number of lawyers
I know ARE members". ( 27 )
According to Nichols' testimony, this was the exchange between himself
and Oswald:
NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me
or the Dallas Bar Association to try to
get you a lawyer?"
Oswald. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don't
get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get
somebody to represent me.
Nichols. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and
to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar
Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now.
Oswald. No. ( 28 )
As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to
the press:
"....As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a
statement to the press, and I said, "Well,
I don't know whether I do or not. I don't know whether it is the thing
to do or not." And he said, "Well, they are going to
be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this
would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am
very glad you came up here. We don't want any question coming up about
us refusing to let him have a lawyer.
As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to
call one." ( 29 )
Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused
his offer for help:
"He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his
rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently--
at least the conversation was that if he didn't get somebody to
represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar
association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next
week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the
extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not
appear to be irrational. He appeared to be calm. He turned down my
offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to
do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that
anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn't get a
lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that's all I know
about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald." ( 30 )
Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald's request for John Abt or
the American Civil Liberties Union.
He never mentioned to the press Oswald's complaint of being held
"incommunicado".
CONFUSED CHIEF CURRY
Chief Curry, the only witness to the exchange between Oswald and
Nichols, could not remember which day it occurred, testifying that
Nichols' visit was on Friday ( 31 ).
Later in his testimony, Curry is told that Nichols' visit was on
Saturday, not Friday.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that
afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information
that he came there on the Saturday afternoon.
Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on
Saturday.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.
(Discussion off the record.)
At that point, a "discussion off the record" is conducted and when the
discussion comes back on the record, Curry's
memory has improved. He tells the Commission that Nichols offered to
provide counsel to Oswald, but Oswald
"didn't care to at this time" but in the event he couldn't secure
counsel for himself, he would "call on you later".
Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question:
Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another ?
( 32 )
THE SATURDAY CALL
FBI agent James Bookhout testified that he attended two interrogation
sessions of Oswald on November 23rd
( Saturday ). One was at 10:30 am and the second was at 6:30 pm. In
the first one he attended, he said that
Fritz gave Oswald directions on how to make a collect call. In the
second Oswald thanked him for allowing him to make
the call.
Mr. BOOKHOUT. Yes, it was in this interview that he mentioned he
wanted to contact Attorney Abt [spelling] A-b-t, New York City. I
recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said
he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the
Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he
knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know
what his address was, but he was in New York.
I recall that Captain Fritz explained to him that he would allow him
to place a long distance call for Abt, and he
explained to Oswald how to ask the long distance operator to trace him
down and locate him, even though Oswald didn't even know his address
or telephone number.
Mr. STERN. Did he actually make the call in your presence?
Mr. BOOKHOUT. No; he didn't make the call in my presence. The next
interview that we had with him, I recall that Captain Fritz asked him
if he had been able to contact Mr. Abt. Oswald stated that he had made
the telephone call and thanked Captain Fritz for allowing him to make
the call, but actually he had not been able to talk to Abt. He wasn't
available. Wasn't in his office or something---- ( 33 )
Bookhout's account is supported by Forrest Sorrels. ( 34 )
So Bookhout puts the time of Oswald's use of the phone between 11:30
am and 6:30 pm on Saturday.
William Whaley testified that Oswald was still screaming for his
lawyer at the 2:30 lineup he viewed:
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what
he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were
trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer. ( 35 )
Ruth Paine testified that Oswald called her about 3:30 or 4 pm and
asked her to contact John Abt after 6 pm. ( 36 )
Marguerite Oswald testified that she didn't see her son until sometime
after 4:30 pm and that he told her that he'd
already requested to get in touch with attorney Abt. (37 )
From the time of his arrest, the longer the wait for Oswald to contact
an attorney, the less chance that that
contact was going to be made.
Try contacting a lawyer long distance in his New York office on a
Saturday evening in 1963.
Good luck.
And the police knew this, which is why Oswald was held incommunicado
through Friday and up until Saturday noon.
The authorities could not allow him to come in contact with either
counsel directly or family and friends, who would have sought counsel
on his behalf.
Once they were satisfied that his chances of securing counsel were
next to nil, they allowed him to make the call.
When Oswald couldn't contact Abt, because it was a collect call and
there was no one there to accept the charges, he
turned to Ruth Paine for help. Mrs. Paine testified that she called
both numbers, home and office that Oswald had
given her, but was unsuccessful in contacting Abt. When Oswald called
back at 9:30 pm, she said that she "couldn't recall" whether she
reported to him that she was unable to contact Abt.
She could only tell the Commission that "something was said but I do
not recall it specifically" ( 38 )
Mrs. Paine further told the Commission that "I am of the impression I
again tried the home telephone of John Abt on Sunday morning, but I am
not certain, and there was no answer. That I certainly
remember." ( 39 )
When the Commission inquired if Mrs. Paine had ever attempted to
report to Oswald that she was unable to contact attorney Abt, she was
forced to admit that she "made no effort" to call the police station
and speak with him. ( 40 )
The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls
on Oswald's behalf ?
And if she did, why didn't she keep Oswald informed of her progress ?
John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off
for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut
and on Saturday, the press "began to call me up there" and that "these
calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning". ( 41 )
How could all of these reporters reach Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not ?
Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn't Mrs. Paine, as a member
of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that
organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so ?
Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled
by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son.
Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was
doing nothing about it:
"I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking
about that, and Mrs. Paine said, "Oh,
don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union,
and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you."
I said to myself 'but when ?' Of course, I didn't want to push her,
argue with her. But the point was if she was a
member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then ? So
I wasn't too happy about that. ( 42 )
CONCLUSION
The testimony presented in this narrative has shown that Lee Harvey
Oswald requested a lawyer from the time of his arrest until late
Saturday afternoon, when he contacted Ruth Paine for help. The
testimony has also shown that Oswald was held incommunicado until
after noon on Saturday. During that period between his arrest and the
visit of his family, Oswald repeatedly pled for legal assistance and
when the ACLU responded to that plea, they were lied to by the Dallas
Police and chose to believe that lie.
The Dallas Police were successful in keeping Oswald "incommunicado"
until Saturday afternoon, at a time when the likelihood of Oswald's
securing counsel before Monday had diminished. It was at this time
that the Dallas Police allowed his family to see him and allowed him
to make his phone call.
The importance of the timing of Oswald's access to a telephone can be
summed up in this way:
Attorney Abt testified that he and his wife didn't leave for the cabin
until Friday evening. ( 43 )
Had Oswald been allowed to make that phone call at the time of his
arrest, he would have made contact with Abt before they left for
Connecticut.
The authorities were eager to put the "denial of counsel" issue to
rest, so they agreed to allow a civil lawyer with connections to the
city and its police department and the president of the Dallas Bar
Association, to "question" Oswald about the denial of counsel issue in
private.
After that interview, the lawyer faced the press and declared that
Oswald had refused his offer for help.
It's difficult to imagine, given the press coverage of that weekend,
that Nichols never saw on TV, never heard on radio or never read in
the newspapers, Oswald's pleas for assistance and instead was forced
to rely on "what I had been told".
The purpose of his "intentionally very limited" interview of Oswald
seems to have been to take the pressure off of the authorities in
Dallas rather than to insure that Oswald had counsel. By his own
admission, his "concern" was not for how Oswald was being treated.
When Oswald complained, Nichols admitted that he "didn't ask any
questions".
His testimony that Oswald told him to "come back next week" defies
logic and common sense and is contrary to documented video showing
Oswald repeatedly asking for "someone to come forward".
Not John Abt........someone..............ANYONE.
I find it hard to believe that Nichols could have been impartial and
not have mentioned that Oswald HAD requested the name of John Abt or
the American Civil Liberties Union. I also find it hard to believe
that an impartial party would not mention Oswald's complaint about his
treatment.
In the end, Nichols served the interests of the Dallas authorities
better than he served the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Perhaps that was the plan all along.
The proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence is documented in the way in
which the Dallas Police conducted the police lineups, tampered with
the evidence and held him incommunicado for over 24 hours, effectively
delaying his contacting counsel.
When you have a guilty suspect, you don't need to do those things
because the evidence will always stand on its own merit.
The fact that they DID do those things is a testament, IMO to his
innocence.
NOTES
OSWALD REQUESTS A LAWYER DURING THE FIRST INTERROGATION SESSION
1. ( 7 H 123, 7 H 165 )
2. ( 4 H 214-215 )
THE ACLU TO THE RESCUE....OR MAYBE NOT
3. ( 4 H 214-215 )
4. ( 7 H 323 )
5. ( 7 H 52 )
6. ( 7 H 61 )
7. ( 7 H 324 )
8. www.ctka.net/2008/Wade.html
9. ( 7 H 325 )
BEFORE THE JUDGE
10. ( 7 H 331 )
11. ( 15 H 507 )
12. ( 7 H 130 )
13. ( 4 H 217 )
14. ( 7 H 171 )
OSWALD & THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION
15. ( 7 H 327 )
16. ( ibid. )
17. ( 5 H 240 )
18. ( 7 H 327 )
19. ( ibid. )
20. ( 2 H 261 )
21. ( 7 H 327 )
22. ( 7 H 331 )
23. ( 7 H 327-328 )
24. ( 7 H 328 )
25. ( ibid. )
26. ( 7 H 330 )
27. ( 7 H 329 )
28. ( ibid. )
29. ( ibid. )
30. ( 7 H 330 )
CONFUSED CHIEF CURRY
31. ( 4 H 155 )
32. ( 4 H 158 )
THE SATURDAY CALL
33. ( 7 H 314 )
34. ( 7 H 356 )
35. ( 2 H 261 )
36. ( 3 H 85 )
37. ( 1 H 149 )
38. ( 3 H 88 )
39. ( 3 H 89 )
40. ( ibid. )
41. ( 10 H 116 )
42. ( 1 H 146 )
CONCLUSION
43. ( 10 H 116 )
Sam McClung
> What are the chances that every official who was called to give
> testimony on what Oswald said during the Tippit
> arraignment is going to have a total loss of memory ?
it was either loss of memory or pushing up daisies eh?
dallas, so cosmopolitan back then, and the sheriff was modern
Sam McClung
news:8df65100-d4e5-4531...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question:
>
> Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another ?
> ( 32 )
ford plays president
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw
shrub plays president
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushsegway.htm
mucher1
Rather shoddy analysis above. For starters, you fail miserably in your
attempt to prove your thesis: that Oswald was "denied" legal
representation. Your boy clearly knew his rights, was allowed to place
phone calls, talk to the press & see his family, so what's the big
deal? He could easily have gotten a local lawyer, but decided to hold
out for Abt. Had the process not been so unexpectedly & dramatically
interrupted by Ruby, not even the most deluded conspiracist would try
to make an issue of this today.
You seem to put a lot of stock into Oswald's protestations,
considering the obvious motivation for a guilty person to disrupt
identification parades, portray himself as a victim of legal rights
violations & stuff like that. That more wasn't done to help Oswald get
in contact with Abt and/or the ACLU in no way indicates that he was
innocent, only that the interrogators suspected that a lawyer would
advise Oswald to keep his mouth shut, thus greatly diminishing the
chances of obtaining a confession.
mucher1
>
> By Gil Jesus ( 2009 )
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?
>
> Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called
> and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a
> scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on. ( 2 H 392 )
This is a transcript of the show?! Did you do all the voices yourself?
Gil Jesus
> it was either loss of memory or pushing up daisies eh?
>
> dallas, so cosmopolitan back then, and the sheriff was modern
Oswald "protested" that he didn't have a lawyer at the Tippit
arraignment. By Texas law, he should have had one appointed for him at
that time. It didn't happen. Those authorities present collectively
could not remember what he said at that hearing.
Yeah, right.
They held him incommunicado and prevented his contact with other
people until late Saturday afternoon, thus preventing him from asking
family and friends to secure counsel for him.
They delayed his use of the phone until Saturday afternoon, when his
chances for securing counsel would have been greatly reduced. In the
meantime, they lied to those who came forward offering legal
assistance by telling them that Oswald had not asked for any.
All three of these actions together indicate that the authorities were
doing everything they could to see that Oswald wasn't going to secure
counsel before Monday.
THAT'S exclusively from the 26 volumes of testimony.
And THAT'S official !!!!
In Part 2 of my examination of Oswald and the Dallas Police, I'll be
looking at the police lineups. I believe that this is where the
evidence is strong that Oswald was framed because the lineups were
definitely "stacked" against Oswald.
That will be my next presentation on BlackOp.
Sam McClung
control of the usa through their puppet hick lyndon johnson and others
cia illegally took control of the investigation of the murder of jfk and
used their own personnel as the patsy and the assassins (oswald, lawrence,
white, tippit, et al.)
allowing the cia to take control of the usa domestically on 11-22-63
w h e n t h e y h a d n o j u r i s d i c t i o n
was one of if not the saddest act we as a nation have ever allowed
look at what cia has done to usa since 11-22-63 = neonazi activity
furthering illuminati adolph hitler's new world order
cia still hiding documents regarding their 11-22-63 operation kill democracy
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:df19b364-c832-46a2...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
You're bowling the nutter-trolls over with testimony-evidence and
facts. The morons don't like that.... tsk-tsk
Gil Jesus
> Top Post
>
> You're bowling the nutter-trolls over with testimony-evidence and
> facts. The morons don't like that.... tsk-tsk
They don't seem to like the testimony shoved up their tutu sideways.
AND THAT WAS ONLY PART 1 !!!!!
They better get used to it because I intend to finish destroying the
case against Oswald in part 2.
AND I'M GOING TO DO IT USING THE WC HEARINGS TESTIMONY ONLY !!!!
No conspiracy books, no theories........just testimony.
David Von Pein
>>> "They better get used to it[,] because I intend to finish destroying the case against Oswald in part 2." <<<
Yeah, Gil is going to put on his David Copperfield hat and magically
change all of the "Oswald Did It" evidence into other evidence.
It's either that, or Gilbert will put on his "All The Evidence Was
Faked, Forged, And Manufactured" hat. And Gil will offer up zero proof
to back up the latter allegation (as per usual).
IOW -- Gil J. Jesus, like all conspiracy theorists before him
(including Black Op Radio alumnus James DiEugenio), will PRETEND that
every piece of evidence that hangs Lee Harvey Oswald cannot be
trusted.
And Gil J. Jesus, as all conspiracy theorists do, will sound like an
absolute nut when he attempts to perform the above-mentioned task
(which will include virtually every last piece of evidence connected
to Oswald's murder of Officer J.D. Tippit as well, including Gil's
pathetic attempt at discrediting ALL TWELVE WITNESSES who positively
identified Mr. Oswald as either Tippit's murderer or the one and only
person who fled the scene of the Tippit shooting with gun in hand).
But sounding like an absolute nutcase certainly won't stop a
conspiracy theorist like Gilbert J. Jesus. Not at all. Gil, like all
conspiracists before and after him, will continue to drag that dead
horse through his courtyard of fantasy for the 2,500th time (and
beyond).
aeffects
sit-down you sicko turd David Von Pein before you fall down, your 3
other personalities are peeking through moron -- my but you composite
lone nut-trolls are mighty sensitive these day's....
David Von Pein
Learn to spell sit down, Mr. Kook. You manage to screw that up every
time.
The faux blogspot thing was cute, though. I liked that one.
aeffects
just remember hon, a CT snaps - YOU jump! Good boy!
mucher1
Remember not to wear your hair-piece too tight. Would hate to see you
snap like a twig.
Walt
> >>> "They better get used to it[,] because I intend to finish destroying the case against Oswald in part 2." <<<
>
> Yeah, Gil is going to put on his David Copperfield hat and magically
> change all of the "Oswald Did It" evidence into other evidence.
>
> It's either that, or Gilbert will put on his "All The Evidence Was
> Faked, Forged, And Manufactured" hat. And Gil will offer up zero proof
> to back up the latter allegation (as per usual).
>
> IOW -- Gil J. Jesus, like all conspiracy theorists before him
> (including Black Op Radio alumnus James DiEugenio), will PRETEND that
> every piece of evidence that hangs Lee Harvey Oswald cannot be
> trusted.
>
> And Gil J. Jesus, as all conspiracy theorists do, will sound like an
> absolute nut when he attempts to perform the above-mentioned task
> (which will include virtually every last piece of evidence connected
> to Oswald's murder of Officer J.D. Tippit as well, including Gil's
> pathetic attempt at discrediting ALL TWELVE WITNESSES who positively
> identified Mr. Oswald as either Tippit's murderer or the one and only
> person who fled the scene of the Tippit shooting with gun in hand).
I'm sure you know that there were NOT twelve witnesses to the
shooting.....But I'm happy that you exposed yourself as a liar once
again. Only TWO people ...."TWO"!!...actually saw the shooting.
Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides....That's it!!..... ( You do have
the ability to count to two don't you Von Pea Brain?) Helen Markham
was hysterical and unreliable at the police line up ( even the cops
attested to this FACT) and Domingo Benavides was NEVER called to view
a police line up. Benavides was without any doubt the MOST RELIABLE
and CREDIBLE person who could have identified Oswald if Oswald had
been the killer. He was only 15 feet away from the killer and the
killer was facing him when Tippit was shot. There's no doubt that
Benevides KNEW that Oswald was NOT the killer....because if he had
known that the killer was Oswald the cops would have tracked him down
at the used car lot ( a whole block away) and brought him to view a
line up just as they did Howard Brennan, Cecil Mc Watters, William
Whaley and other LESS important witnesses. Then the cops would have
shouted it from the house tops.... Why is it that the one most
credible witness to the Tippit's murder was never called to view a
line up nor asked for a written affidavit??? It's obvious to anybody
with an IQ greater than a common garden slug that the cops avoided
Benavides because he told them that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen
shoot Tippit.
aeffects
excellent post, Walt!
aeffects
perhaps you too can get a gig on BlackOp radio, hon. Do you have
anything, ANYTHING to contribute to the case? Or are you just another
dingleberry hanging around the nutter-troll collective rearend?
Carry on markey-mark the deficient!
aeffects
Dance troll, D--A-N-C-E ! ! Carry on!
On Oct 31, 2:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I'm sure you know that there were NOT twelve witnesses to the [Tippit] shooting..." <<<
>
> And I never said there were 12 witnesses to the Tippit shooting, Mr.
> Retard. Here's what I really said (in case anybody cares):
>
> "Gil J. Jesus, as all conspiracy theorists do, will sound like
> an absolute nut when he attempts to perform the above-mentioned task
> (which will include virtually every last piece of evidence connected
> to Oswald's murder of Officer J.D. Tippit as well, including Gil's
> pathetic attempt at discrediting ALL TWELVE WITNESSES who positively
> identified Mr. Oswald as either Tippit's murderer or the one and only
> person who fled the scene of the Tippit shooting with gun in hand)."
>
> >>> "But I'm happy that you exposed yourself as a liar once again." <<<
>
> No lie up there in that quote, idiot. Just the complete truth. Maybe
> you should learn to read.
>
> >>> "Only TWO people ...."TWO"!!...actually saw the shooting." <<<
>
> Wrong. Four people saw it.
>
> Try again, Mr. Retarded Person.
>
> >>> "Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides....That's it!!" <<<
>
> Wrong.
>
> 1.) Helen Markham
> 2.) Domingo Benavides
> 3.) William Scoggins
> 4.) Jack Tatum
>
> BTW, conspiracy kooks who don't include Scoggins as a witness who
> literally "saw" the shooting of J.D. Tippit are complete idiots.
>
> >>> "You do have the ability to count to two[,] don't you [Mr. Von Pein, sir]?" <<<
>
> Sure. But it seems you cannot count to four. Or twelve.
>
> >>> "Helen Markham was hysterical and unreliable at the police line up." <<<
>
> And yet she picked out your favorite patsy as the person who she saw
> shoot the policeman, didn't she Mr. Kook?
>
> >>> "...and Domingo Benavides was NEVER called to view a police line up." <<<
>
> And that's logical, since Domingo told the police he probably wouldn't
> be able to positively identify the shooter.
>
> Next....
>
> >>> "Benavides was without any doubt the MOST RELIABLE and CREDIBLE person who could have identified Oswald if Oswald had been the killer. He was only 15 feet away from the killer and the killer was facing him when Tippit was shot." <<<
>
> It's nice to be able to decide who is "without any doubt the MOST
> RELIABLE and CREDIBLE person" in any given situation, isn't it Walt-
> Kook? That's one your self-written "kook rules".
>
> >>> "There's no doubt that Benevides [sic] KNEW that Oswald was NOT the killer." <<<
>
> <chuckle>
>
> How would this be possible, Walter, since everyone with an ounce of
> sense knows that Oswald WAS J.D. Tippit's killer?
>
> There's no doubt that Walt Cakebread is a complete idiot and a retard.
>
> >>> "Why is it that the one most credible witness to the Tippit's murder was never called to view a line up nor asked for a written affidavit???" <<<
>
> Walt is digging into his "Rule Book For Kooks" again, I see. He gets
> to decide who the "most credible witness" is regarding Tippit's
> murder....even though Benavides said this to the Warren Commission:
>
> DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there
> was two officers came by and asked for me...and [I] told them what I
> had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I
> don't think I could. .... I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't
> going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."
>
> >>> "It's obvious to anybody with an IQ greater than a common garden slug that the cops avoided Benavides because he told them that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen shoot Tippit." <<<
>
> Even if Benavides did say that to the police (which he didn't, of
> course), we still know Oswald was the murderer of J.D. Tippit via
> other evidence.
>
> But to a mega-retard like Walt, it doesn't make a bit of difference
> that the Tippit murder weapon was FOUND ON OSWALD just 35 minutes
> after Tippit was slain. Right, Walt? That type of solid and
> irrefutable evidence, as always, is considered to be useless garbage
> in the eyes of an Anybody-But-Oswald joke like Walter Cakebread.
>
> Right, Walt?
>
> www.Battling-A-Conspiracy-Kook.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm sure you know that there were NOT twelve witnesses to the [Tippit] shooting..." <<<
And I never said there were 12 witnesses to the Tippit shooting, Mr.
Retard. Here's what I really said (in case anybody cares):
"Gil J. Jesus, as all conspiracy theorists do, will sound like
an absolute nut when he attempts to perform the above-mentioned task
(which will include virtually every last piece of evidence connected
to Oswald's murder of Officer J.D. Tippit as well, including Gil's
pathetic attempt at discrediting ALL TWELVE WITNESSES who positively
identified Mr. Oswald as either Tippit's murderer or the one and only
person who fled the scene of the Tippit shooting with gun in hand)."
>>> "But I'm happy that you exposed yourself as a liar once again." <<<
No lie up there in that quote, idiot. Just the complete truth. Maybe
you should learn to read.
>>> "Only TWO people ...."TWO"!!...actually saw the shooting." <<<
Wrong. Four people saw it.
Try again, Mr. Retarded Person.
>>> "Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides....That's it!!" <<<
Wrong.
1.) Helen Markham
2.) Domingo Benavides
3.) William Scoggins
4.) Jack Tatum
BTW, conspiracy kooks who don't include Scoggins as a witness who
literally "saw" the shooting of J.D. Tippit are complete idiots.
>>> "You do have the ability to count to two[,] don't you [Mr. Von Pein, sir]?" <<<
Sure. But it seems you cannot count to four. Or twelve.
>>> "Helen Markham was hysterical and unreliable at the police line up." <<<
And yet she picked out your favorite patsy as the person who she saw
shoot the policeman, didn't she Mr. Kook?
>>> "...and Domingo Benavides was NEVER called to view a police line up." <<<
And that's logical, since Domingo told the police he probably wouldn't
be able to positively identify the shooter.
Next....
>>> "Benavides was without any doubt the MOST RELIABLE and CREDIBLE person who could have identified Oswald if Oswald had been the killer. He was only 15 feet away from the killer and the killer was facing him when Tippit was shot." <<<
It's nice to be able to decide who is "without any doubt the MOST
RELIABLE and CREDIBLE person" in any given situation, isn't it Walt-
Kook? That's one your self-written "kook rules".
>>> "There's no doubt that Benevides [sic] KNEW that Oswald was NOT the killer." <<<
<chuckle>
How would this be possible, Walter, since everyone with an ounce of
sense knows that Oswald WAS J.D. Tippit's killer?
There's no doubt that Walt Cakebread is a complete idiot and a retard.
>>> "Why is it that the one most credible witness to the Tippit's murder was never called to view a line up nor asked for a written affidavit???" <<<
Walt is digging into his "Rule Book For Kooks" again, I see. He gets
to decide who the "most credible witness" is regarding Tippit's
murder....even though Benavides said this to the Warren Commission:
DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there
was two officers came by and asked for me...and [I] told them what I
had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I
don't think I could. .... I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't
going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."
>>> "It's obvious to anybody with an IQ greater than a common garden slug that the cops avoided Benavides because he told them that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen shoot Tippit." <<<
Even if Benavides did say that to the police (which he didn't, of
course), we still know Oswald was the murderer of J.D. Tippit via
other evidence.
But to a mega-retard like Walt, it doesn't make a bit of difference
that the Tippit murder weapon was FOUND ON OSWALD just 35 minutes
after Tippit was slain.
That type of solid and irrefutable evidence, as always, is considered
to be useless garbage in the eyes of an Anybody-But-Oswald joke like
Walter Cakebread.
================================================
THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3959008382f45641
THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS DEFENSE OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90
TIPPIT TIMELINES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3dd04bbf82d03e0
"WITH MALICE":
www.With--Malice.blogspot.com
================================================
Walt
When they asked Benavides if he could identify "HIM".....Benavides had
already seen Oswald on TV, and he KNEW that Oswald was NOT the man
he'd seen shoot Tippit.
That's why he said that he couldn't identify "HIM"
I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could
identify and go down and couldn't have."
Isn't that the whole point of having a witness veiw a line up?? The
FACT that Benavides said that he couldn't identify "HIM" clearly
indicates that he had a specific person in mind. Why else would he say
that he couldn't ID HIM??.... Benavides KNEW who they had in mind
for him to identify....and he said he couldn't identify HIM (Oswald)
as Tippit's killer. Yer not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you
Von Pea Brain?
David Von Pein
When Domingo Benavides said he couldn't identify "him", he meant THE
MAN WHO SHOT TIPPIT.
But even if the cops DID mean "CAN YOU IDENTIFY OSWALD AS TIPPIT'S
KILLER?" -- so what?
And even if Benavides DID only mean "I CANNOT IDENTIFY OSWALD
SPECIFICALLY, SO DON'T BOTHER TAKING ME DOWNTOWN TO VIEW A LINE-UP" --
so what?
Either way, Benavides was telling the police, in effect, he obviously
wasn't confident enough on November 22nd to make a positive
identification of ANYONE who might be in a line-up at police
headquarters.
Your elevator is stuck in the sub-basement, ain't it Walter?
Bud
BENAVIDES: "It looked like a guy, resemble the guy. Thats the reason
I figured it was Oswald"
> > >>> "It's obvious to anybody with an IQ greater than a common garden slug that the cops avoided Benavides because he told them that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen shoot Tippit." <<<
>
> > Even if Benavides did say that to the police (which he didn't, of
> > course), we still know Oswald was the murderer of J.D. Tippit via
> > other evidence.
>
> > But to a mega-retard like Walt, it doesn't make a bit of difference
> > that the Tippit murder weapon was FOUND ON OSWALD just 35 minutes
> > after Tippit was slain.
>
> > That type of solid and irrefutable evidence, as always, is considered
> > to be useless garbage in the eyes of an Anybody-But-Oswald joke like
> > Walter Cakebread.
>
> > ================================================
>
> > THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8www.googl...
LT
David Von Pein is truly a disgusting human being.
No one who is real would be so militantly passionate about defending
the Warren Commission and willing to put so much time into it.
Why don't you tell us the truth, David? We know you're on the payroll.
Is "David Von Pein" even your real name?
David Von Pein
>>> "David Von Pein is truly a disgusting human being." <<<
If that's even his real name. Right?
>>> "No one who is real would be so militantly passionate about defending the Warren Commission and willing to put so much time into it." <<<
I guess Vincent T. Bugliosi isn't "real" either. Right, kook?
>>> "Why don't you tell us the truth, David? We know you're on the payroll." <<<
Yep. Vince and the Langley boys pay quite well. Thank you.
>>> "Is "David Von Pein" even your real name?" <<<
To paraphrase your favorite patsy: "You're the conspiracy kook...you
figure it out."
But if I were to pick out an alias for myself, why on Earth would I
choose "David Von Pein" as my moniker. Nobody can ever even pronounce
it right. Just ask Gil Jesus. (At least DiEugenio gets it right 47% of
the time.)
Bud
> On Oct 31, 9:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When Domingo Benavides said he couldn't identify "him", he meant THE
> > MAN WHO SHOT TIPPIT.
>
> > But even if the cops DID mean "CAN YOU IDENTIFY OSWALD AS TIPPIT'S
> > KILLER?" -- so what?
>
> > And even if Benavides DID only mean "I CANNOT IDENTIFY OSWALD
> > SPECIFICALLY, SO DON'T BOTHER TAKING ME DOWNTOWN TO VIEW A LINE-UP" --
> > so what?
>
> > Either way, Benavides was telling the police, in effect, he obviously
> > wasn't confident enough on November 22nd to make a positive
> > identification of ANYONE who might be in a line-up at police
> > headquarters.
>
> > Your elevator is stuck in the sub-basement, ain't it Walter?
>
> David Von Pein is truly a disgusting human being.
>
> No one who is real would be so militantly passionate about defending
> the Warren Commission and willing to put so much time into it.
What about all the time retards have spent covering up for Kennedy
and Tippit`s murderer?
> Why don't you tell us the truth, David? We know you're on the payroll.
> Is "David Von Pein" even your real name?
I wonder whatever happened to Counr Baldoni.
Gil Jesus
>
> Wrong. Four people saw it.
>
> Try again, Mr. Retarded Person.
>
> 1.) Helen Markham
> 2.) Domingo Benavides
> 3.) William Scoggins
> 4.) Jack Tatum
Markham didn't identify Oswald by his face.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that
question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that
lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
( 3 H 310 )
Benavides was never taken to a lineup to view Oswald. He said that he
saw Oswald's "pictures" and that Oswald "resembled" the guy. Hardly a
positive ID.
Mr. BELIN. Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if
you could identify him?
Mr. BENAVIDES. No; they didn't.
Mr. BELIN. You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was
Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES. From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy,
resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
( 6 H 452 )
"Looked like" ?
"Resembled" ?
"I figured" ?
Not exactly a positive identification, is it ?
Scoggins described the shooter as a 25-26 year old white male and
chose Oswald out of a lineup that included a non-white Mexican and a
17 year old and an 18 year old.
( 7 H 200 )
Oswald was the only white male close to 25-26 in the lineup.
Tatum isn't even mentioned in the Hearings by witnesses or the
Police.
He didn't come forward as a witness until 15 years later ---- February
1, 1978.
THERE'S YOUR FOUR WITNESSES.
ROFLMAO
Walt
Say that again.....and think about it. Benavides said that Oswald
was NOT the man he'd seen shoot Tippit. He said that Oswald
"RESEMBLED" the killer.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if
> you could identify him?
>
> Mr. BENAVIDES. No; they didn't.
>
> Mr. BELIN. You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was
> Oswald?
>
> Mr. BENAVIDES. From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy,
> resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
>
> ( 6 H 452 )
>
> "Looked like" ?
>
> "Resembled" ?
>
> "I figured" ?
>
> Not exactly a positive identification, is it ?
>
> Scoggins described the shooter as a 25-26 year old white male and
> chose Oswald out of a lineup that included a non-white Mexican and a
> 17 year old and an 18 year old.
>
> ( 7 H 200 )
>
> Oswald was the only white male close to 25-26 in the lineup.
>
> Tatum isn't even mentioned in the Hearings by witnesses or the
> Police.
> He didn't come forward as a witness until 15 years later ---- February
> 1, 1978.
>
> THERE'S YOUR FOUR WITNESSES.
>
> ROFLMAO
Von Pea Brain knows that there were only TWO people who actually saw
the shooting..... Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides.... Markham was
hysterical and even the Warren Commission dismissed her as
"unreliable" ( I must admit that they painted her as a screwball
because her affidavit was impossible to dismiss) Benavides was the
ONLY, yes the ONE AND ONLY, witness who was most qualified to identify
the killer....and he stated:..." From the pictures I had seen. It
looked like a guy, resembled the guy."....
"FROM THE PICTURES I HAD SEEN,IT LOOKED LIKE A GUY, RESEMBLED THE
GUY"
It's pretty obvious that the cops showed Benevides "pictures" of
Oswald and he did NOT recognize Oswald as the killer. He said that
Oswald "RESEMBLED" the killer. Since Domingo Benavides was the MOST
QUALIFIED person to ID the killer and he said that Oswald only
"RESEMBLED" the killer, the authorities wanted nothing to do with
Benavides. They wanted witnesses who would identifiy Oswald as the
killer..... and when a person HONESTLY examines the statements of
witnesses who were near the murder scene it's obvious that ONLY
benavides was qualified to positively identify the killer. But even
in their attempt to present "witnesses" who could ID Oswald they had
to resort to slight of hand and flim flammary. When you read the
statements of witnesses like Cecil Mc Watter's, William Whaley, Howard
Brennan, and others it's pretty clear that they DID NOT think Oswald
was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused.
Gil Jesus
> �When you read the
> statements of witnesses like Cecil Mc Watter's, William Whaley, Howard
> Brennan, and others it's pretty clear that they DID NOT think Oswald
How's this for a kicker:
Whaley told the Commission that he identified 18 year old David Knapp
as the one who rode in his cab to Oak Cliff.
Knapp was No 2 in the lineup.
Mr. WHALEY. They brought out four of them and stood them up there, and
he was under No. 2. I mentioned he was the third one that come out.
There were four and all handcuffed together.
( 6 H 430 )
When they appeared on the stage, they entered from left to right.
No. 4 was always first, then 3, then 2, then No 1 was last to appear.
( 7 H 254 )
That would make Knapp the third one "that come out" because he was No
2 in the lineup.
Mr. POTTS. Daniel Lujan, and then Oswald was No. 3, Knapp No. 2.
Mr. BALL. What is Knapp's full name?
Mr. POTTS. David Knapp and John Thurman Horne was No. 1.
( 7 H 200 )
Now here's the kicker-------David Knapp lived in Oak Cliff:
Mr. BALL. And what about David Knapp, what was he in for?
Mr. POTTS. He was in for investigation of theft and he lived at 2922
Alabama. That's in Oak Cliff.
( 7 H 201 )
But the commission had a signed affidavit from Whaley identifying # 3
( Oswald ) in the lineup as the man who rode in his cab. The Commision
sought to rectify this conflict by asking Whaley to explain it. Poor
Mr. Whaley followed by slipping and saying something he wasn't
supposed to:
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now in here it says, "The No. 3 man who I now
know is Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who I carried from the Greyhound
Bus Station. Was this the No. 3 or the No. 2 man?
Mr. WHALEY. I signed that statement before they carried me down to
see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me
down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon.
( 6 H 430 )
WHOA......HE SIGNED A STATEMENT SAYING THAT HE IDENTIFIED OSWALD FROM
A LINEUP THAT HE HADN'T SEEN YET ?
Realizing that he's done something wrong, Whaley backpedals:
Mr. BELIN. You signed this affidavit before you saw the lineup.
Mr. WHALEY. Well, now, let's get this straight. You are getting me
confused.
( ibid.)
THEN HE TRIES TO EXPLAIN IT
Mr. WHALEY. Let me tell you how they fixed this up. They had me in
the office saying that. They were writing it out on paper, and they
wrote it out on paper, and this officer, Leavelle, I think that is his
name, before he finished and before I signed he wanted me to go with
him to the lineup, so I went to the lineup, and I come back and he
asked me which one it was, which number it was, and I identified the
man, and we went back up in the office again, and then they had me
sign this. That is as near as I can remember.
( ibid.)
HE ADMITS HE DIDN'T READ THE STATEMENT BEFORE SIGNING IT
Mr. BELIN. When you saw the statement the first time, did you see the
statement before you went down to see the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. No; I didn't see the statement. I don't think I did. I am
not for sure.
I think I signed it after I came back. It was on paper. They were
writing it up on paper.
Mr. BELIN. Now, when you signed it--what I want to know is, before you
went down, had they already put on there a statement that the man you
saw was the No. 3 man in the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I don't remember that. I don't remember whether it said
three or two, or what.
( 6 H 431 )
WHALEY SAYS HE SIGNED THE STATEMENT BECAUSE THE DPD TOLD HIM THAT IT
CONTAINED "WHAT HE SAID".
Mr. BELIN. Did they have any statements on there before you went down
to the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I never saw what they had in there. It was all written
out by hand. The statement I saw, I think, was this one, and that
could be writing. I might not even seen this one yet. I signed my name
because they said that is what I said.
( ibid.)
The cops putting things in depositions and affidavits that the witness
never said ?
"Lucy...you got some splainin' to do".....Desi Arnaz
Bud
> On Oct 31, 5:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wrong. Four people saw it.
>
> > Try again, Mr. Retarded Person.
>
> > 1.) Helen Markham
> > 2.) Domingo Benavides
> > 3.) William Scoggins
> > 4.) Jack Tatum
>
> Markham didn't identify Oswald by his face.
All you retards do is lie to cover up for a cop killer. She said "I
told them I wanted to be sure, and looked at his face mostly..."
> Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that
> question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Retard, Markham misunderstood what was being asked of her. she
thought she was being asked if there was anyone in the line-up known
to her, like someone she knew previous to the shooting.
> Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that
> lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
>
> Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
>
> Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Markham positively identified Oswald as the man she saw kill Tippit.
> ( 3 H 310 )
>
> Benavides was never taken to a lineup to view Oswald. He said that he
> saw Oswald's "pictures" and that Oswald "resembled" the guy. Hardly a
> positive ID.
Who has ever claimed that Benavides made a positive ID, retard?
> Mr. BELIN. Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if
> you could identify him?
>
> Mr. BENAVIDES. No; they didn't.
>
> Mr. BELIN. You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was
> Oswald?
>
> Mr. BENAVIDES. From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy,
> resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
>
> ( 6 H 452 )
>
> "Looked like" ?
>
> "Resembled" ?
>
> "I figured" ?
>
> Not exactly a positive identification, is it ?
No, but he did say he figured it was Oswald he saw. Hardly the
"Benavides knew it wasn`t Oswald he saw" line of horseshit Walt was
peddling.
> Scoggins described the shooter as a 25-26 year old white male and
> chose Oswald out of a lineup that included a non-white Mexican and a
> 17 year old and an 18 year old.
He said a ypung white guy shot Tippit, and positively identified
Oswald as that young white guy.
> ( 7 H 200 )
>
> Oswald was the only white male close to 25-26 in the lineup.
Scoggins wasn`t asked to make select the person who matched the age
of the person he saw retard. He was asked to select the person he saw
kill Tippit. Scoggins said it was Oswald he saw.
> Tatum isn't even mentioned in the Hearings by witnesses or the
> Police.
> He didn't come forward as a witness until 15 years later ---- February
> 1, 1978.
>
> THERE'S YOUR FOUR WITNESSES.
Two positive identifications out of four. Why have none of the
witnesses to the shooter ever said that they are positive it wasn`t
Oswald they saw, retard?
> ROFLMAO
Bud
<snicker> Only a retard like Walt would use a witness who figured he
saw Oswald kill Tippit,and try to use that witness to make the case
that the witness knew it wasn`t Oswald he saw.
Gil Jesus
> �He said a ypung white guy shot Tippit, and positively identified
> Oswald as that young white guy.
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR BUD
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was a medium-height fellow with, kind of a slender
look, and approximately, I said 25, 26 years old, somewhere along
there.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. It was light; let's see, was it light or not-medium
brown, I would say.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Medium brown, I would say--now, wait a minute. Now,
medium brown or dark.
Mr. BELIN. Medium brown or dark hair?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a Negro or a white man?
Mr. SCOGGINS. White, light complected, not real brown.
( 3 H 333 )
White male 25-26, just like I said.
Not 17, not 18, not Mexican.
They were put in that lineup to make Oswald's ID a no brainer.
Even you could have done it.
So go pound your disinformation up a creek.
Walt
Go git im Gil!...... The Dud has been spewin his BS for far too
long. He's a gutless idiot.
Walt
Gil, Don't you believe that Whaley was illiterate?..... When reading
the above I feel sure that Whaley didn't have a clue...The cops wrote
up the affidait and Whaley signed it, but he had no idea what they had
written,.....because he couldn't read or write. Whaley couldn't read
or write but he wasn't stupid.... He recognized that the cops were
railroading Oswald, and he said so.
Mr. WHALEY. Well, now, let's get this straight. You are getting me
confused.
"YOU'RE GETTING ME ALL CONFUSED" ...William Whaley
And that's exactly what the shyster lawyers intended...... You can
pick out almost any testimony in the records and find the Lawyer
leading the witness, or twisting the witnesses words, or putting
unintended meaning to a witness's words.
Walt
Hey Dud...Find a ten year old who can understand what's written and
have him explain this to you......
Mr. BELIN. You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was
Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES. From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy,
resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
On the second thought, perhaps I'd better explain it to you, I
understand that youare prohibited from making any contact with any
child under the age of 18.
The question was....."How did you know this man was Oswald?"....and
Benavides answered:...."From the pictures I had seen.".....
In other words.....Benavides knew the pictures he was being shown were
of Oswald because he'd previously seen Oswald's picture on the TV.
>
> > Scoggins described the shooter as a 25-26 year old white male and
> > chose Oswald out of a lineup that included a non-white Mexican and a
> > 17 year old and an 18 year old.
>
> He said a ypung white guy shot Tippit, and positively identified
> Oswald as that young white guy.
>
> > ( 7 H 200 )
>
> > Oswald was the only white male close to 25-26 in the lineup.
>
> Scoggins wasn`t asked to make select the person who matched the age
> of the person he saw retard. He was asked to select the person he saw
> kill Tippit. Scoggins said it was Oswald he saw.
>
> > Tatum isn't even mentioned in the Hearings by witnesses or the
> > Police.
> > He didn't come forward as a witness until 15 years later ---- February
> > 1, 1978.
>
> > THERE'S YOUR FOUR WITNESSES.
>
> Two positive identifications out of four. Why have none of the
> witnesses to the shooter ever said that they are positive it wasn`t
> Oswald they saw, retard?
Yer kiddin...right?.... The cops were yellin at the top of their
lungs that Oswald was guilty.... Who would be foolish enough to go
infront of a news reporter's camera and say the the cops were
FOS.??...... Dom Benavides, and Howard Brennan both KNEW that Oswald
was NOT the man they'd seen shooting a gun at either murder victim,
and Benavides lacked the stones (or was too smart to get involved) so
he played dumb. I'd be willing to bet the farm that Benavides gave
the cops a written affidavit ..... It has never been made public, and
was probably destroyed by the cops. The cops took affidavits from
many less important witnesses but failed to get one from Benavides??
Gimme a break!!
>
>
>
> > ROFLMAO- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
sitdown Dudster, you might hurt yourself... <snicker> btw, you're
assuming a lot of David VonPein aka Dave Reitzes-pieces traits, are
you having a senior moment. hon?
Bud
Yah, they`ve both been known to waste their time trying to explain
things to retards also.
Bud
I`ve explained this to you before,retard, please try to pay
attention this time. These line-up witnesses viewed the line-ups to
select the person they saw. Not the closest to who they saw. Not to
select the non-Mexican. The person they saw. Many positively selected
Oswald as the person they saw. You know, the murderer you guys invest
all this time trying to cover up for his crimes.
Bud
In addition to when he saw him murder Tippit.
> > > Scoggins described the shooter as a 25-26 year old white male and
> > > chose Oswald out of a lineup that included a non-white Mexican and a
> > > 17 year old and an 18 year old.
>
> > He said a young white guy shot Tippit, and positively identified
> > Oswald as that young white guy.
>
> > > ( 7 H 200 )
>
> > > Oswald was the only white male close to 25-26 in the lineup.
>
> > Scoggins wasn`t asked to make select the person who matched the age
> > of the person he saw retard. He was asked to select the person he saw
> > kill Tippit. Scoggins said it was Oswald he saw.
>
> > > Tatum isn't even mentioned in the Hearings by witnesses or the
> > > Police.
> > > He didn't come forward as a witness until 15 years later ---- February
> > > 1, 1978.
>
> > > THERE'S YOUR FOUR WITNESSES.
>
> > Two positive identifications out of four. Why have none of the
> > witnesses to the shooter ever said that they are positive it wasn`t
> > Oswald they saw, retard?
>
> Yer kiddin...right?.... The cops were yellin at the top of their
> lungs that Oswald was guilty.... Who would be foolish enough to go
> infront of a news reporter's camera and say the the cops were
> FOS.??......
It`s well established that all you conspiracy folks are a bunch of
pussies who would tell the cops anything they wanted to hear. I just
don`t see you putting anything tangible on the table to show this is
what these people did.
Of of course if Benavides really wanted to lie, why not just say he
ducked down and stayed down. Why didn`t Scoggins just say he ducked
down behind his cab and never looked? Why doesn`t Markham say she kept
her hands in front of her face the whole time?
> Dom Benavides, and Howard Brennan both KNEW that Oswald
> was NOT the man they'd seen shooting a gun at either murder victim,
> and Benavides lacked the stones (or was too smart to get involved) so
> he played dumb. I'd be willing to bet the farm that Benavides gave
> the cops a written affidavit ..... It has never been made public, and
> was probably destroyed by the cops. The cops took affidavits from
> many less important witnesses but failed to get one from Benavides??
<snicker> Retards always claim that evidence not in evidence would
back up their retarded contentions in it was available.
aeffects
hon, the BEST any nutter-troll over the past 6 years has been able to
do, on this particular board, is call CT's retards, that's it -- my
beauty one!
Walt, Gil, Laz, Ben Holmes, etc., buried you moron's, MONTHS ago.
These day's you're simply suffering the effects of a mental
vasectomy...
I'm surprised any of you nutter-trolls can even spell the 'Warren
Commission'.
Bud
We LN are known for our accuracy.
> Walt, Gil, Laz, Ben Holmes, etc., buried you moron's, MONTHS ago.
Ben Holmes? That pussy has stopped even trying to defend his ideas
against LN over a years ago. He was driven off by that lightweight
robcap.
> These day's you're simply suffering the effects of a mental
> vasectomy...
>
> I'm surprised any of you nutter-trolls can even spell the 'Warren
> Commission'.
Have you ever formed a coherent sentence in favor of conspiracy,
junkie?
Bud
No, retard, that doesn`t work. You need to check in Benavides
testimony and find where he used the name "Oswald" previously. It was
when he said this... "The door was open, and I was pretty close to
him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the
other side of the car". So, he wasn`t referring to photos he seen, he
was referring to the man he saw that killed Tippit. And on what planet
do you use a name when you *know* it isn`t the person you saw, retard?
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:00aca838-ec39-4a8c...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/28/2883-001.gif
>
> Not 17
> Not 18
> Not Mexican
>
> The only choice in that lineup was Oswald. The others weren't even
> close.-
Why did they put guys in the lineup whose descriptions weren't even
close
to Oswald's when that wasn't the procedure ?
"Let me say this, that it would be very unusual if we had a showup
and .........if they put anything other than men that fit their
approximate size and age in there with them......because we just
don't
operate that way." --- Dallas Detective L. C. Graves ( 7 H 253 )
These are the lying criminals that the LN liars support.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f0147a89-bd0f-4017...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 5:35�pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Whaley's affidavit confirms what Scoggins said, 25-26.
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/28/2883-001.gif
>
> Not 17
> Not 18
> Not Mexican
>
> The only choice in that lineup was Oswald. The others weren't even
> close.-
Why did they put guys in the lineup whose descriptions were even close
Walt
Benavides describing the scene when Tippit was shot......
"The door was open, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald,
or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car".
The door of the police car was open, and I was only about 15 feet away
and I saw the guy that shot Tippit standing on the other side of the
car. He RESEMBLED Oswald.
Bud
Once more for the retarded, the witnesses were not there to select
people who were close to the person they saw. they were to identify
the person they did see. Many selected Oswald as the person they saw.
Bud
Once more for the retarded, in what world would he use the name
"Oswald" if he knew it couldn`t be Oswald he saw?
Gil Jesus
Mrs. Markham's description of the Tippit killer as given to Officer
J.M. Poe was a white male, about 25, about 5 feet 8, brown hair,
medium build . ( 7 H 68 )
So how did the physical attributes of the participants in the Markham
lineup compare to the description given by Mrs. Markham ?
Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair ( 7 H 235 )
Clark was 31 yo 5-11 177 blond hair ( 7 H 239 )
Ables was 26 yo 5-9 165 dark hair ( 7 H 242-243 )
Two of the three police employees were too old and too tall to even
come close to the description given by Mrs. Markham and the third was
too heavy:
Mr. BALL. Was the man, is it your memory now that the man who shot
Tippit was short, a little on the heavy side?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. He wasn't too heavy. ( 3 H 317-318 )
Oh my....there's another "slam dunk". That's two slam dunk lineups
( # 1 & # 4 ) out of four.
Gues what ?
They used these same police employees for lineup # 2.
That's 3 out of 4
Wanna know about the fat guys they used in lineup # 3 ?
They all had 20-30 lbs on Oswald.
That's 4 out of 4.
"........it would be very unusual if we had a showup and .........if
David Von Pein
Gil The Retard actually thinks that these physical attributes aren't
even close to LHO's attributes of 24 yrs. old, 5'9", 150 lbs. (keeping
in mind that both Howard Brennan AND Marrion Baker described Oswald as
being in his 30s and weighing up to 165 pounds):
34 yrs. old, 5'11", 150 lbs.
31 yrs. old, 5'11", 177 lbs.
26 yrs. old, 5'9", 165 lbs.
So, we have only a 2-inch height difference (at most), with the third
man matching LHO's height precisely, and the weight difference is
minimal, with one of the men matching Oswald's estimated weight at
autopsy perfectly (150 lbs.) and another one of the men matching a
weight estimate given by two witnesses who we know saw Oswald (Brennan
& Baker).
Looks like the nit-picking kook named Gil wouldn't be satisfied unless
every single man in each of the police lineups weighed exactly 150
pounds, was exactly 5-feet-9, and looked exactly like Lee Oswald
(right down to LHO's trademark smirk).
Right, Gil-Kook?
It's time to repeat something that's always worth repeating.....
The ridiculous and laughable conspiracy-happy jokers who populate this
forum and others like it are the VERY LAST PEOPLE on the planet who
should be looking into the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.
I wonder why so many people are so eager and willing to toss a double-
murderer named Oswald a lineline at every single turn in the road?
I know that kooks like Gilbert Jesus desperately want and need a
conspiracy in this case...but even so, why the desire to turn Oswald
into a totally-innocent dupe? Do these CTers think they need to follow
in the footsteps of Jim Garrison or something?
But since Garrison, who was one of the first charter members of the
"Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, was so obviously one of the biggest
frauds and charlatans of all time, I'm at a loss to figure out WHY so
many conspiracy theorists since the late 1960s (i.e., the years when
Garrison was in his prime as "King Kook Of The Kennedy Assassination
Investigation") feel the need to imitate that sack of shit named
Garrison?
~large-sized shrug~
Bud
> Here's another one --- the FIRST lineup, viewed only by Helen Markham:
>
> Mrs. Markham's description of the Tippit killer as given to Officer
> J.M. Poe was a white male, about 25, about 5 feet 8, brown hair,
> medium build . ( 7 H 68 )
>
> So how did the physical attributes of the participants in the Markham
> lineup compare to the description given by Mrs. Markham ?
>
> Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair ( 7 H 235 )
>
> Clark was 31 yo 5-11 177 blond hair ( 7 H 239 )
>
> Ables was 26 yo 5-9 165 dark hair ( 7 H 242-243 )
All acceptable approximations for Oswald in weight, height, hair
color and age. They aren`t looking to match Oswald, retard.
> Two of the three police employees were too old and too tall to even
> come close to the description given by Mrs. Markham and the third was
> too heavy:
Do you know what was available to choose from, retard?
Ball asked Markham "Were they anywhere near similar build or size or
coloring?". Markham replied "Yes, they were all about the same
height."
> Mr. BALL. Was the man, is it your memory now that the man who shot
> Tippit was short, a little on the heavy side?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. He wasn't too heavy. ( 3 H 317-318 )
>
> Oh my....there's another "slam dunk". That's two slam dunk lineups
> ( # 1 & # 4 ) out of four.
>
> Gues what ?
>
> They used these same police employees for lineup # 2.
>
> That's 3 out of 4
>
> Wanna know about the fat guys they used in lineup # 3 ?
>
> They all had 20-30 lbs on Oswald.
>
> That's 4 out of 4.
>
> "........it would be very unusual if we had a showup and .........if
> they put anything other than men that fit their approximate size and
> age in there with them......because we just don't operate that way."
> --- Dallas Detective L. C. Graves
"approximate" decided by them, not decided by retards 45 years
later.
> ( 7 H 253 )
>
> These are the lying criminals that the LN liars support.
These are the things retards cling to to cover-up for Oswald`s
crimes. The retards would have you believe that the DPD was trying to
make sure the person who killed one of their own would go free.
Markham said she was sure Oswald was the man she saw kill Tippit.
Scoggins said he was sure Oswald was the man he saw kill Tippit.
Callaway said he was sure Oswald was the man he saw running from the
scene of the crime with a gun.
It isn`t about who was standing next to Oswald in the line-ups,
retards.
Gil Jesus
> Looks like the nit-picking kook named Gil wouldn't be satisfied unless
> every single man in each of the police lineups weighed exactly 150
> pounds, was exactly 5-feet-9, and looked exactly like Lee Oswald
> (right down to LHO's trademark smirk).
>
> Right, Gil-Kook?
Why is it that the "kooks" always cite evidence and testimony and you
don't ?
What qualifies you to determine that the lineups were fair ?
Are you or have you ever been a police officer ?
Mr. BALL. It's unusual to use officers to showup with prisoners?
Mr. BOYD. Well, I would say so, but I know that there has been
officers.
Mr. BALL. Is that usual to use Don Ables, the clerk, in a showup?
Mr. BOYD. No, sir.
( 7 H 125 )
Gil Jesus
In the second lineup, which used the same particiants as the first,
Cecil McWatters admitted to the WC that his "ID" of Oswald was
influenced by the other participants being "larger men", making Oswald
the smallest and thus the one who most resembled the teenager he
described in his affidavit:
"...... the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest
of them were larger men ........The only one I could identify at all
would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come
near fitting the description." ( 2 H 281 )
That's not a positive identification.
So don't say that the witnesses weren't influenced by the other
participants Von Pinhead.
They made IDs based on "process of elimination", not by identifcation.
David Von Pein
>>> "What qualifies you to determine that the lineups were fair?" <<<
Once more, we're bearing witness to a person (Gil) who will chuck
1,000 pounds of wheat in order to hang onto 3 ounces of chaff.
A dozen (or more) witnesses all identified Gil's favorite patsy as the
ONE & ONLY person who either shot Tippit or as the ONE & ONLY person
who fled the Tippit murder scene carrying a gun.
And the gun that was used to kill Officer Tippit was IN OSWALD'S HANDS
only thirty-five minutes after Tippit was slain.
And Oswald fought wildly with the police in the theater just 35
minutes after Tippit was killed.
And Oswald said one or two very incriminating things when he was
arrested in the theater just 35 minutes after Tippit was killed --
"It's all over now" and/or "This is it".
Show me an INNOCENT man who would utter EITHER of those two things
WHILE WAVING AROUND A REVOLVER AT THE VERY SAME TIME!
The morons who continue to pretend that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent
of shooting J.D. Tippit are the worst kind of frauds. They're right up
there with another one of their heroes -- Earling Carothers "Jim"
Garrison.
Gil Jesus
Every time you can't answer a question you try to change the subject.
The subject is the police lineups. I've supplied testimony that
indicates that they were conducted in such a way as to facilitate the
identifcation of Oswald.
You claim that they did not, but you've failed again to supply any
evidence, other than your opinion that a couple of inches doesn't make
a difference.
Now what qualifies you to determine that the lineups were conducted
fairly ?
David Von Pein
>>> "Now what qualifies you to determine that the lineups were conducted fairly?" <<<
You, yourself, provided ample proof that the lineups were conducted
fairly (at least as far as the one lineup that you provided detailed
information for, supplying the stats of the three people in the lineup
with Oswald).*
* = Of course, I'm taking Gil's word for those stats of the three men
in the lineup (I didn't bother to double-check Gil's data), which is
probably not a wise thing to do, since it's never a good idea to take
anything stated by a conspiracy nut like Gil on face value.
But if the physical data of those three guys is accurate, you YOURSELF
have demonstrated that that particular lineup wasn't designed so that
the witnesses would be forced to pick out Oswald (which is obviously
what you think the DPD was doing with their lineups--i.e., trying to
make Oswald stick out like a sore thumb).
But tell me, Gil, how Oswald (age 24, 5'9", approx. 150 lbs.) sticks
out like a sore thumb when placed in a police lineup with three men
who have the following physical features/stats?:
34 yrs. old, 5'11", 150 lbs.
31 yrs. old, 5'11", 177 lbs.
26 yrs. old, 5'9", 165 lbs.
If you think this lineup makes Oswald the "odd man out", so to speak,
you're crazy.
Walt
Nice try for an imbecile..... Did any of these people look anything
like Oswald?? Were they white, latino or oriental? What's the hair
color? Obviously the two closest to Oswald's age were "stocky" and
not slender like LHO. We both know that NONE of the people in those
line ups looked much like Oswald.....
Just as William Whaley said.... " You could easily pick him ( LHO)
out".....
Gil Jesus
> * = Of course, I'm taking Gil's word for those stats of the three men
> in the lineup (I didn't bother to double-check Gil's data), which is
> probably not a wise thing to do, since it's never a good idea to take
> anything stated by a conspiracy nut like Gil on face value.
More insults with no citations. Typical Von Pein.
Your problem is that
a.) you're too lazy to look it up and
b.) you don't know the testimony
I love it when you question your own evidence.
Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair ( 7 H 235 )
Oswald was 24 yo 5-9 140+ dark hair ( 7 H 132 )
Bud
> On Nov 2, 6:17 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Looks like the nit-picking kook named Gil wouldn't be satisfied unless
> > every single man in each of the police lineups weighed exactly 150
> > pounds, was exactly 5-feet-9, and looked exactly like Lee Oswald
> > (right down to LHO's trademark smirk).
>
> > Right, Gil-Kook?
>
> Why is it that the "kooks" always cite evidence and testimony and you
> don't ?
Why is it you kooks always need LNers to explain to you what the
information you cite really means?
> What qualifies you to determine that the lineups were fair ?
Well, for one thing he isn`t retarded.
But what do you think qualifies you to determine they weren`t fair?
Isn`t it up to the cops to determine "approximate", not you? And isn`t
it retarded to cite the cops you think rigged the line-up and the
witnesses you believe are lying about seeing Oswald to make your case?
> Are you or have you ever been a police officer ?
Is that what you did as a cop, rigged line-ups so that cop killers
could go free?
tomnln
No wonder Von Pain (in the ass) RAN from a radio debate ! ! !
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:474067e3-45f1-4eff...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Bud
> In the second lineup, which used the same particiants as the first,
> Cecil McWatters admitted to the WC that his "ID" of Oswald was
> influenced by the other participants being "larger men", making Oswald
> the smallest and thus the one who most resembled the teenager he
> described in his affidavit:
>
> "...... the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest
> of them were larger men ........The only one I could identify at all
> would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come
> near fitting the description." ( 2 H 281 )
>
> That's not a positive identification.
Who said it was?
> So don't say that the witnesses weren't influenced by the other
> participants Von Pinhead.
What "description" was McWatters referring to? He wasn`t there to
match anyone to a description.
> They made IDs based on "process of elimination", not by identifcation.
You just said McWatters didn`t make an ID, retard.
McWatters was trying to identify one of the hundreds of people who
board his bus during the course of the day. He wasn`t close by while
Oswald killed a man, he didn`t see Oswald running down the street with
a gun.
Bud
You`ve provided testimony that only a retard would conclude
indicates they were conducted to facilitate the identification of
Oswald.
> You claim that they did not, but you've failed again to supply any
> evidence, other than your opinion that a couple of inches doesn't make
> a difference.
It makes it "approximate" retard, which is what the cop you cited
said they shoot for. Being retarded, you think this means they have to
match Oswald`s characteristics. Once more, it isn`t about the
information you cited, it is the inability of retards like you to
process information in any way resembling a reasonable manner.
> Now what qualifies you to determine that the lineups were conducted
> fairly ?
That the Dallas police rigged line-ups so that a cop killer could go
free is an extraordinary idea that you haven`t come close to producing
the extraordinary evidence necessary to support such an idea.
Bud
Why did Whaley say he could easily pick him out, retard?
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:41b902d5-6db3-4252...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
getting lonely hon? No one paying attention to your drivel these
day's? EEK, you're running from the testimony these day's, AGAIN? Perk
up Dudster.... NOBODY will let you sniff his nutter-troll jockstrap!
Carry on!
Walt
the extraordinary evidence necessary to support such an idea.-
If you didn't have your head planted so firmly in yer ass, you might
understand that the cops worked for Chief Curry... And took orders
from Curry. Curry was ordered by Lyin Bastard Johnson to stop looking
for anyother person.....LBJ told Curry.... "You've got you man, the
case is closed"...
Your argument that the cops wouldn't have let the real killer go is
absurd. Those hicks like Henry Wade, weren't particularly interested
in finding the real criminal....They were content to close the case
and crow about the conviction. We now know that many of Henry Wade's
convictions are being overturned. Perhaps you'd get a clearer
understanding of Texas justice if you would read the book "White
Lies"
Walt
Since you're to stupid to understand ....Let me bring this down to a
level that even you should be able to understand..... If you know that
the police have described the suspect as a 21 year old negro wearing a
blaze orange sweatshirt, and lime green trousers, Then when you go
view the line up there are three white men and a latino and a black.
The only one wearing a blaze orange sweat shirt is the young black
guy..... Would it be easy to "pick him out"
>
>
>
> > > If you think this lineup makes Oswald the "odd man out", so to speak,
> > > you're crazy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
One more for the retarded, the purpose of line-ups is to pick out
the person you saw. Not the closest, like you retards seem to think.
Bud
In order to support the extraordinary claim that Curry told his men
to railroad Oswald you would need something a little bit more
substantial than you retarded imagination Walt. You`d need at some
point someone in the loop saying this was done. You kooks can never
produce the kind of support your retarded ideas require because
nothing like what you claim occurred did.
> Your argument that the cops wouldn't have let the real killer go is
> absurd.
Of course to a retard it would seem reasonable that the cops would
want to let the killer of one of their own go. One plus one always
equals seven, or nine, or any other number but two.
> Those hicks like Henry Wade, weren't particularly interested
> in finding the real criminal....They were content to close the case
> and crow about the conviction. We now know that many of Henry Wade's
> convictions are being overturned. Perhaps you'd get a clearer
> understanding of Texas justice if you would read the book "White
> Lies"
You have to show that the things you imagine happened in this case,
Walt.
Bud
Only retards run in packs. I`m a lone wolf.
> No one paying attention to your drivel these
> day's?
Ah, besides you?
> EEK,
Find a dead mouse in your bong?
>you're running from the testimony these day's, AGAIN?
Explaining the words used in the testimony to retards again.
> Perk
> up Dudster.... NOBODY will let you sniff his nutter-troll jockstrap!
Isn`t that a good thing?
> Carry on!
I intend to. It`s getting pretty good, the kooks are pinning their
hopes on what a retard like Gil Jesus can mangle, misrepresent and
outright lie about.
mucher1
According to the legend, it was Fritz who received the call, but don't
let attention to detail get in the way of your narrative.
Walt
That's correct Dud..(did ya figger that out all by yerself?) But
that's NOT what happened in this case. NOT one witness positively
identified Oswald....They ALL said that they couldn't be sure but a
couple of them thought that Oswald most RESEMBLED Tippit's murderer.
Bud
Yes they did retard.
>They ALL said that they couldn't be sure but a
> couple of them thought that Oswald most RESEMBLED Tippit's murderer.
Now you`re just making shit up.
Walt
> Gil The Retard actually thinks that these physical attributes aren't
> even close to LHO's attributes of 24 yrs. old, 5'9", 150 lbs. (keeping
> in mind that both Howard Brennan AND Marrion Baker described Oswald as
> being in his 30s and weighing up to 165 pounds):
Dippy Von Pea Brain wrote:....(keeping in mind that both Howard
Brennan AND Marrion Baker described Oswald as being in his 30s and
weighing up to 165 pounds):
It is a FACT that Howard Brennan did NOT describe Oswald. DVP
acknowledges this fact when he says Brennan described the man with the
sniper's rifle as being in his 30's and weighing between 165 and 175
pounds ( Caught you lying again DVP) DVP KNOWS that Howard Brennan
DID NOT describe Oswald , and yet the stupid bastard tries to twist
the facts .
David Von Pein
>>> "It is a FACT that Howard Brennan did NOT describe Oswald. DVP acknowledges this fact when he says Brennan described the man with the sniper's rifle as being in his 30's and weighing between 165 and 175 pounds. (Caught you lying again DVP.) DVP KNOWS that Howard Brennan DID NOT describe Oswald, and yet the stupid bastard tries to twist the facts." <<<
Pot/Kettle moment here. I love it.
Brennan DESCRIBED the person he saw shooting from the sixth floor as
best he could to J. Herbert Sawyer prior to 12:43 PM CST on 11/22/63.
And that description was a decent approximation of the owner of the
gun that was later found on that SAME SIXTH FLOOR.
Walt (being a retard), of course, wouldn't even be satisfied if Howard
Brennan had nailed every detail concerning Oswald's physical
appearance. In such a case, Walt (a retard) would insist that
Brennan's description was TOO GOOD or TOO PERFECT, and thus there's no
way Brennan could have nailed all of those details.
But here in the world of reasonable people (which doesn't include Walt
Cakebread, because he can be classified as an "unreasonable retard"),
the reasoned-thinking people of Planet Earth all realize that a
witness probably isn't going to be able to perfectly nail every single
physical attribute associated with a particular individual that the
witness only saw for a brief period of time and from a distance.
Howard Brennan made REASONABLE GUESSES as to the description of the
man he saw shooting at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the
Texas School Book Depository. And those reasonable guesses certainly
do not rule out Walt's favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders in
Dallas:
"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking,
slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." -- Howard L.
Brennan; Via his 11/22/63 affidavit
"To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair
complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10...from
160 to 170 pounds." -- Howard L. Brennan; Via his 1964 Warren
Commission testimony
Now, on what crazy planet filled with retarded kooks could the above
two descriptions of the sixth-floor sniper COMPLETELY ELIMINATE LEE
HARVEY OSWALD AS A SUSPECT?
The answer to that last question is fairly simple --- It's on the
planet called "EVERYBODY IS A SUSPECT IN THE KENNEDY AND TIPPIT
MURDERS EXCEPT LEE HARVEY OSWALD". (That planet is located just beyond
Uranus. The ghost of Jim Garrison rules that universe. And Jim Fetzer
and Bob Groden are Garrison's right-hand men.)
FYI (for anyone who might not know this fact):
Dallas Police Officer Marrion Baker, who we know for an ironclad FACT
saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor of the TSBD very shortly
after JFK was assassinated, provided the following information about
the man he encountered in the second-floor lunchroom on November 22,
1963 (note the similarities in age, height, and weight when comparing
Baker's description with the data provided by Brennan):
"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." -- Marrion L.
Baker; 11/22/63
www.JFKLancerForum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=17758
aeffects
Davey da wonder woman Von Pein has arrived <chuckle-chuckle>
On Nov 2, 4:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip the lone nut-troll nonsense of course>
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ff40569-28bd-4189...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Top Post
It seems like Everyone is Quoting Gil Jesus.
The only one who qoutes Von Pain (in the ass) is Von Pain (in the ass)
Sam Brown
On Nov 2, 6:17�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Looks like the nit-picking kook named Gil wouldn't be satisfied unless
> every single man in each of the police lineups weighed exactly 150
> pounds, was exactly 5-feet-9, and looked exactly like Lee Oswald
> (right down to LHO's trademark smirk).
>
> Right, Gil-Kook?
Why is it that the "kooks" always cite evidence and testimony and you
don't ?
What qualifies you to determine that the lineups were fair ?
What qualifies you to determine that they weren't?
Are you or have you ever been a police officer ?
Have you? If so, proof is required.
Sam Brown
This is further evidence that Gil is lying about being a former police
officer. This stuff is elementary. Gil is out of his depth as usual but it's
fun watching him flail around.
Gil Jesus
>
> Since you're to stupid to understand ....Let me bring this down to a
> level that even you should be able to understand..... If you know that
> the police have described the suspect as a 21 year old negro wearing a
> blaze orange sweatshirt, and lime green trousers, �Then when you go
> view the line up there are three white men and a latino and a black.
> The only one wearing a blaze orange sweat shirt is the young black
> guy..... � �Would it be easy to "pick him out"
The cops made sure that they put guys in the lineups who weren't even
close to the descriptions given by the witnesses.
They put guys in there who were taller, heavier and older than the
descriptions.
That influenced the witnesses selection of Oswald.
Then they told the Warren Commission that they didn't do that sort of
thing.
Which makes them LIARS.
The only way these lineups could have been more ridiculous would have
been if they put OFFICERS IN UNIFORM in there with Oswald.
The LN liars would still say the lineups were fair.
Bud
> On Nov 2, 2:29 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Since you're to stupid to understand ....Let me bring this down to a
> > level that even you should be able to understand..... If you know that
> > the police have described the suspect as a 21 year old negro wearing a
> > blaze orange sweatshirt, and lime green trousers, Then when you go
> > view the line up there are three white men and a latino and a black.
> > The only one wearing a blaze orange sweat shirt is the young black
> > guy..... Would it be easy to "pick him out"
>
> The cops made sure that they put guys in the lineups who weren't even
> close to the descriptions given by the witnesses.
That is just a retard`s claim, you haven`t shown that at all.
> They put guys in there who were taller, heavier and older than the
> descriptions.
<snicker> What a retard. He thinks they have tens of thousands of
options to represent all the tens of thousand of different possible
combinations (when you add sex and race).
> That influenced the witnesses selection of Oswald.
Thats just another retard claim. The witnesses who selected Oswald
recognized him as the man they saw.
> Then they told the Warren Commission that they didn't do that sort of
> thing.
They make a general effort to get close. And they did, as the stats
you produced show.
> Which makes them LIARS.
Which shows you to be retarded. You are much too stupid to be
looking into anything.
And speaking of liars, weren`t you lying when you said Markham
didn`t look at Oswald`s face when she identified him?
> The only way these lineups could have been more ridiculous would have
> been if they put OFFICERS IN UNIFORM in there with Oswald.
The witnesses do not have to select any of the people shown to them,
retard.
> The LN liars would still say the lineups were fair.
Would you say that it is impossible to select someone you`ve seen
before if they are standing next to a cop in uniform?
Gil Jesus
>
> > That influenced the witnesses selection of Oswald.
>
> � Thats just another retard claim. The witnesses who selected Oswald
> recognized him as the man they saw.
"...... the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest
of them were larger men ........The only one I could identify at all
would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come
near fitting the description." --- Cecil McWatters ( 2 H 281 )
Bud
Did Cecil McWatters select Oswald as the man he saw, retard? If he
was so influenced, why didn`t he select Oswald, that is your claim,
isn`t it? Why not give an example that supports your claim?
Gil Jesus
McWatters testimony shows how witnesses can be influenced by
participants OTHER than the suspect.
A positive identifcation always refers to the SUSPECT:
THAT'S THE GUY
I'D KNOW HIM ANYWHERE
I'LL NEVER FORGET THAT FACE
A positive ID is never a result of a "process of elimination".
RETARD
Bud
> On Nov 3, 7:22 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 6:57 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > That influenced the witnesses selection of Oswald.
>
> > > > Thats just another retard claim. The witnesses who selected Oswald
> > > > recognized him as the man they saw.
>
> > > "...... the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest
> > > of them were larger men ........The only one I could identify at all
> > > would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come
> > > near fitting the description." --- Cecil McWatters ( 2 H 281 )
>
> > Did Cecil McWatters select Oswald as the man he saw, retard? If he
> > was so influenced, why didn`t he select Oswald, that is your claim,
> > isn`t it? Why not give an example that supports your claim?
>
> > The witnesses who selected Oswald recognized him as the man they saw.
>
> McWatters testimony shows how witnesses can be influenced by
> participants OTHER than the suspect.
It didn`t influence him to make an ID, retard. It doesn`t support
your premise.
McWatter may have only had an impression about the size of the guy
he saw, he might not have even had a good enough idea about what the
guy looked like to even view a line-up.
Markham, who positively identified Oswald as the man she saw kill
Tippit, said the men in the line-up she viewed were all about the same
height.
> A positive identifcation always refers to the SUSPECT:
>
> THAT'S THE GUY
> I'D KNOW HIM ANYWHERE
> I'LL NEVER FORGET THAT FACE
Thats what they did. They positively identified Oswald as the man
they saw.
> A positive ID is never a result of a "process of elimination".
And you can`t show that that was how this selected Oswald in this
case, retard.
> RETARD
Signing your posts now?
Gil Jesus
>
> � Markham, who positively identified Oswald as the man she saw kill
> Tippit, said the men in the line-up she viewed were all about the same
> height.
The description she gave was a white male, 25 5-8 brown hair medium
build. ( 7 H 68 )
How does a 31 yo BLOND fit that description ?
How does a fat guy 5-9 and 165 fit that description ?
How does a 34 yo thin guy 5-11 and 150 fit that description ?
She also testified that she didn't recognize any of them "by their
face".
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people
over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that
question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
( 3 H 310 )
And she didn't even mention " # 2 " until she was led by counsel
Joseph Ball. ( 3 H 310-311 )
That's what you call a positive identfication ?
ROFLMAO
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "It is a FACT that Howard Brennan did NOT describe Oswald. DVP acknowledges this fact when he says Brennan described the man with the sniper's rifle as being in his 30's and weighing between 165 and 175 pounds. (Caught you lying again DVP.) DVP KNOWS that Howard Brennan DID NOT describe Oswald, and yet the stupid bastard tries to twist the facts." <<<
>
> Pot/Kettle moment here. I love it.
>
> Brennan DESCRIBED the person he saw shooting from the sixth floor as
> best he could to J. Herbert Sawyer prior to 12:43 PM CST on 11/22/63.
> And that description was a decent approximation of the owner of the
> gun that was later found on that SAME SIXTH FLOOR.
Prove it. Name the officer who took the description because Sawyer
NEVER said it was himself. Explain the lack of clothing in the
description too for us DVP.
> Walt (being a retard), of course, wouldn't even be satisfied if Howard
> Brennan had nailed every detail concerning Oswald's physical
> appearance. In such a case, Walt (a retard) would insist that
> Brennan's description was TOO GOOD or TOO PERFECT, and thus there's no
> way Brennan could have nailed all of those details.
Explain how Brennan saw so much detail from such a distance when the
building had dirty windows and the person could only be seen from the
waist up.
I do agree with you on one thing -- Wally is a retard!
LOL!!
> But here in the world of reasonable people (which doesn't include Walt
> Cakebread, because he can be classified as an "unreasonable retard"),
> the reasoned-thinking people of Planet Earth all realize that a
> witness probably isn't going to be able to perfectly nail every single
> physical attribute associated with a particular individual that the
> witness only saw for a brief period of time and from a distance.
Explain how he nailed any since he had eye issues, was so far away,
the building had dirty windows and he at best saw the person from the
waist up ONLY!
Why did he refuse to ID LHO in the lineup too????
> Howard Brennan made REASONABLE GUESSES as to the description of the
> man he saw shooting at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the
> Texas School Book Depository. And those reasonable guesses certainly
> do not rule out Walt's favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders in
> Dallas:
Explain how the DPD used this vague description of the JFK shooter
(allegedly) to ARREST LHO FOR THE TIPPIT MURDER!
> www.JFKLancerForum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=...
Walt
wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "It is a FACT that Howard Brennan did NOT describe Oswald. DVP acknowledges this fact when he says Brennan described the man with the sniper's rifle as being in his 30's and weighing between 165 and 175 pounds. (Caught you lying again DVP.) DVP KNOWS that Howard Brennan DID NOT describe Oswald, and yet the stupid bastard tries to twist the facts." <<<
>
> > Pot/Kettle moment here. I love it.
>
> > Brennan DESCRIBED the person he saw shooting from the sixth floor as
> > best he could to J. Herbert Sawyer prior to 12:43 PM CST on 11/22/63.
> > And that description was a decent approximation of the owner of the
> > gun that was later found on that SAME SIXTH FLOOR.
>
> Prove it. Name the officer who took the description because Sawyer
> NEVER said it was himself. Explain the lack of clothing in the
> description too for us DVP.
>
> > Walt (being a retard), of course, wouldn't even be satisfied if Howard
> > Brennan had nailed every detail concerning Oswald's physical
> > appearance. In such a case, Walt (a retard) would insist that
> > Brennan's description was TOO GOOD or TOO PERFECT, and thus there's no
> > way Brennan could have nailed all of those details.
>
> Explain how Brennan saw so much detail from such a distance when the
> building had dirty windows and the person could only be seen from the
> waist up.
Lets see ....130 feet from Brennan's position at the north end of the
reflecting pool to the WIDE OPEN WEST END window....That's less than
half the length of a football field and you think Brennan couldn't
have distinguished the mans approximate age and weight?? Nor could
he have been able to distinguish the difference between LIGHT colored
clothing ( possibly a "dingy WHITE") and DARK colored clothing
( Reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers) Oswals was wearing a
redishish brown shirt and DARK gray trousers.....Brennan said the
sixth floor man with the sniper's rifle was wearing LIGHT colored
clothing ( possibly a dingy WHITE)
And thank you for publicly acknowledging that the 30 to 35 year old,
175 pound sniper, who was dressed in white clothing was STANDING and
Brennan saw him from his belt to the top of his head.
> >www.JFKLancerForum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=...- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
Detective Clark testified that Don Ables was NOT handcuffed to him.
( 7 H 237 )
As soon as he says that, they immediately go off the record for a
"discussion".
By not having Ables handcuffed to Clark, the authorities create the
image of prisoner Oswald being handcuffed to a police officer on
either side, rather than the image of four prisoners handcuffed
together.
Bud
> On Nov 3, 8:27 am, SmokinDaBud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Markham, who positively identified Oswald as the man she saw kill
> > Tippit, said the men in the line-up she viewed were all about the same
> > height.
>
> The description she gave was a white male, 25 5-8 brown hair medium
> build. ( 7 H 68 )
Less than 1% of the population would match that description, you
think they have a pool of hundreds of people to choose from? It is a
decent description of Oswald, though.
> How does a 31 yo BLOND fit that description ?
>
> How does a fat guy 5-9 and 165 fit that description ?
>
> How does a 34 yo thin guy 5-11 and 150 fit that description ?
Who said that they try to match the witness descriptions?
> She also testified that she didn't recognize any of them "by their
> face".
Are you going to tell this lie again, gil?
> Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people
> over, these four men?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that
> question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
As pointed out, she thought she was being asked if she knew the
people in the line-up previous to this event. Kooks are always
misrepresenting what the witnesses said. It`s what they have to do
because their ideas have no merit.
> ( 3 H 310 )
>
> And she didn't even mention " # 2 " until she was led by counsel
> Joseph Ball. ( 3 H 310-311 )
Now I have to explain Q&A to you, retard?
> That's what you call a positive identfication ?
Yah, many of these witnesses positively identified Oswald as the man
they saw.
> ROFLMAO
Walt
> >>> "It is a FACT that Howard Brennan did NOT describe Oswald. DVP acknowledges this fact when he says Brennan described the man with the sniper's rifle as being in his 30's and weighing between 165 and 175 pounds. (Caught you lying again DVP.) DVP KNOWS that Howard Brennan DID NOT describe Oswald, and yet the stupid bastard tries to twist the facts." <<<
>
> Pot/Kettle moment here. I love it.
Dippy Von Pea Brain wrote ....."keeping in mind that both Howard
Brennan AND Marrion Baker described Oswald as being in his 30s and
weighing up to 165 pounds"
Apparently Von Pea Brain is so focused on supporting the Liars of the
Warren Commission that he fails to see that both Brennan and Baker
DESCRIBE a man who obviously is NOT lee Oswald.
Instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that a normal rational
person would ( That Brennan and Baker saw someone other than Oswald)
the liar attempts to twist it and say that Brennan and Baker were
wrong.) A honest and rational person would realize that Brennan and
Baker saw a man who was NOT Oswald.
Of course honesty is something alien to Von Pea Brain.... Just notice
what he wrote in a few short words......"both Howard Brennan AND
Marrion Baker described Oswald as being in his 30s and weighing up to
165 pounds"
Howard Brennan did NOT limit lhe sniper's weight at 165 pounds, as the
liar wrote..... In his affidavit Brennan wrote that The sniper in
light colored clothing weighed "ABOUT 165 to 175 POUNDS"
That's as much as 35 pounds more than the skinny Lee Oswald
weighed....... and if anybody doesn't believe that 35 pounds is a
significant amount of weight on a 5'9" frame there either lying or a
lunatic.
> www.JFKLancerForum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=...
Gil Jesus
> On Nov 3, 9:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 8:27 am, SmokinDaBud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Markham, who positively identified Oswald as the man she saw kill
> > > Tippit, said the men in the line-up she viewed were all about the same
> > > height.
>
> > The description she gave was a white male, 25 5-8 brown hair medium
> > build. ( 7 H 68 )
>
> � Less than 1% of the population would match that description, you
> think they have a pool of hundreds of people to choose from? �It is a
> decent description of Oswald, though.
>
> > How does a 31 yo BLOND �fit that description ?
>
> > How does a fat guy 5-9 and 165 �fit that description ?
>
> > How does a 34 yo thin guy 5-11 and 150 fit that description ?
>
> � Who said that they try to match the witness descriptions?
RETARD:
Don't tell me they don't try to match the participants with the
suspect.
You get a positive identification by making them as close as
possible.
You don't get it by having a thin man, a fat man and a blond in there
with Oswald.
Ya know, you really are a cementhead. You argue things to an absurdity
that you have no expertise, experience or training about.
I find it hard to believe that anyone breathing could be as stupid as
you portray yourself.
If you wanna talk TESTIMONY use citations.
Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your foolishness.
Bud
> On Nov 3, 3:13 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 9:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 8:27 am, SmokinDaBud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Markham, who positively identified Oswald as the man she saw kill
> > > > Tippit, said the men in the line-up she viewed were all about the same
> > > > height.
>
> > > The description she gave was a white male, 25 5-8 brown hair medium
> > > build. ( 7 H 68 )
>
> > Less than 1% of the population would match that description, you
> > think they have a pool of hundreds of people to choose from? It is a
> > decent description of Oswald, though.
>
> > > How does a 31 yo BLOND fit that description ?
>
> > > How does a fat guy 5-9 and 165 fit that description ?
>
> > > How does a 34 yo thin guy 5-11 and 150 fit that description ?
>
> > Who said that they try to match the witness descriptions?
>
> RETARD:
>
> Don't tell me they don't try to match the participants with the
> suspect.
Who said they do? The voices in your head?
> You get a positive identification by making them as close as
> possible.
You get a positive identification when the witness points out the
preson they saw, retard.
> You don't get it by having a thin man, a fat man and a blond in there
> with Oswald.
Perhaps Oswald would have been better off killing people in an area
that had more skinny cops.
> Ya know, you really are a cementhead. You argue things to an absurdity
> that you have no expertise, experience or training about.
You don`t need any of that stuff. You just need not to be
retarded.
> I find it hard to believe that anyone breathing could be as stupid as
> you portray yourself.
Why don`t you tell the lie about Markham not looking at Oswald`s
face, it gets better with age.
> If you wanna talk TESTIMONY use citations.
The problem is not the testimony. The problem is that you are too
retarded to understand the cocepts being expressed in the testimony.
> Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your foolishness.
How could I possibly waste your time, retard?
Nobody
I agree Bud he wastes enough time on his own. Gil Jesus is a
egotistical macadams wannabe!
mucher1
Even someone as intellectually and morally confused as Gil knows that
McAdams is a whole other league.
Nobody
I guess I'm lost. I thought we was trying to find who killed jfk and
most in here are retards or egomaniacal turds!