The Bolden Story: Oswald Registered Owner of Vallee Car
John McAdams
http://www.hvpress.net/news/138/ARTICLE/4293/2008-05-14.html
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
Corroboration from one of my recent posts.
2:00 P.M. November 22, 1963
At 2:00 P.M. on November 22, Mr. T.F. White was working at Mack's
Automobile Service at 113 W. 7th Street, 1 block south of Davis Street and
6 blocks north of the Texas Theater. From his garage Mr. White noticed a
1961 red Ford Falcon speeding west on Davis Street, and saw the same car a
short while later as it drove into the El Chico Restaurant parking lot
across the street.
The driver parked the red Falcon behind a large billboard and appeared to
be hiding from the police who were patrolling the streets. With news of
the President's assassination fresh in everyone's mind Mr. White was
curious and walked toward the parking lot. As he approached the vehicle
he observed a white male wearing a white t-shirt, and noticed the car
engine was still running. When Mr. White got to within 10-15 yards of the
car the driver turned and looked directly at him, and then quickly sped
out of the parking lot throwing gravel with his rear tires. White wrote
the make and model of the car and the license plate number (PP 4537) in
his notebook as the red Ford Falcon sped out of the parking lot and west
on Davis Street.
When interviewed by FBI agent Charles Brown, Mr. White said the man drivng
the car was indentical with LEE Harvey Oswald, and gave the agent a
description of the car and the license plate number. The authorities soon
determined the license plates were registered to a two-tone blue 1957
Plymouth, and not to a red Ford Falcon. The blue Plymouth belonged to
Carl A. Mather, an employed of Collins Radio of Richardson, Texas, who was
J.D. Tippit's best friend. (One of Carl Mather's jobs in 1963 was
servicing the communications equipment aboard Air Force Two,
Vice-President Lyndon Johnson's plane.)
About 2:00 P.M., when Mr. White saw the red Ford Falcon, Mrs. (Barbara)
Mather received a phone call at her home in Garland, Texas. The call came
from her close friend Marie Tippit, who informed her of the death of her
husband, J.D. Tippit, Mrs. Mather immediately telephoned her husband at
work and informed him of Tippit's death. Carl Mather left work at Collins
Radio shortly after 2:00 P.M. and drove from Richardson (a Dallas suburb)
to his home at 4309 Colgate in Garland (a Dallas suburb). Mather picked up
his wife and children and drove them to Tippit's home in South Oak Cliff.
(It is interesting to note that after the assassination, the FBI
interviewed Mrs. Barbara Mather on two occasions but never interviewed
Carl Mather. Neither Carl nor Barbara Mather were interviewed by the
Warren Commission).
News reporter Wes Wise (later mayor of Dallas) heard the story and,
accompanied by a CBS reporter, decided to interview Carl and Barbara
Mather during dinner. Wise said that while Barbara Mather was fairly
calm, her husband was "so upset" and "agitated" that he was unable to eat.
The HSCA interviewed Wes Wise in 1978, but before they interviewed Carl
Mather he insisted on a grant of immunity. (To this day Mather's HSCA
testimony remains classifed and is unavailable to the public.)
Another employee of Collins Radio, Kenneth Porter, quit his job after the
assassination of President Kennedy, left his wife, took up with Marina
Oswald, and married her in Fate, Texas on June 1, 1965.
In August 1994 the President and Congress were surprised to learn the U.S.
government funded construction of a massive $350 million dollar structure
for the National Reconaissance Office headquarters in Virginia. Government
officials learned the NRO used the address of Rockwell International's
Collins Radio as it's offical address.
CJ
alexfoyle
> http://www.hvpress.net/news/138/ARTICLE/4293/2008-05-14.html
>
> .John
This is interesting news, John, and I am surprised that apart from
curtjester nobody reacted to this.
Is this a hoax, disinformation (some truth in it) or the plain truth.
I couldn't find anything on this forum that discussed Bolden, Vallee,
Oswald and that registration plate.
There is a snippet from Time magazine from April 1970:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944016,00.html
There is also a good ABC piece with an interview of Bolden here:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=5787903
Has this been properly researched yet? If true, this story could
develop.
In any case, I ordered Boldens book to see what it is all about.
Quote from text: "In research at The National Archives in Washington
of The Assassination files of 25 Million documents it turned up that
in fact NY plate 311-ORF at the Vallee Traffic stop was registered in
the Name of Lee Harvey Oswald." Has this been verified?
Glad about any commennts anybody might have on this.
yeuhd
NY plate 311-ORF at the Vallee Traffic stop was registered in the Name of
. . . some specific information about the document would be more helpful.
In what group of documents within the NARA's JFK Assassination Records was
this document found? What is the NARA document number? Has the document
been posted anywhere on the Internet?
In other words, give enough information about the document so that others
may verify its existence and its validity.
alexfoyle
helpful.
> In what group of documents within the NARA's JFK Assassination Records was
> this document found? What is the NARA document number? Has the document
> been posted anywhere on the Internet?
>
> In other words, give enough information about the document so that others
> may verify its existence and its validity.
I agree. Maybe the document number is given in Boldens book. Will let
you know.
Two other researchers who have been on this case are Sherman Skolnick
and Edwin Black.
There is an entertaining interview with Skolnick done by Kenn Thomas
in Steamshovel Press. Conspiracy Nation has an excerpted version of
this interview which only deals with the Chicago plot:
http://www.theconspiracy.us/9408/0020.html
The part where Skolnick raves about Lifton, Weisberg and others of the
research community is quite funny.
According to Jim DiEugenios scathing review of Lamar Waldrons
"Ultimate Sacrifice" Edwin Black wrote the "seminal essay on Chicago".
DiEugenio amongst many other points of critique apparently rightfully
accuses Waldron of deliberately misquoting Black and misleading the
reader as to the source, i.e. Blacks article (see:
http://www.ctka.net/ultimate_final.html).
I will try to locate a copy of that article from Edwin Black. It was
published as the cover story in a periodical (edited by Black and his
wife) titled "Chicago Independent" in November 1975.
The Time magazine piece from 1970 (see link in last post) reports
about Skolnicks suit against the National Archives and Records Service
to release certain documents that could shed light on the Chicago
plot. The suit was eventually put out of court without legal formality
according to Skolnick. Quote from Time magazine: "The Justice
Department, however, has responded to Skolnick's suit with a "No
comment," and National Archivist Marion Johnson claims that he has
"seen no evidence in the records connecting Vallee to an assassination
attempt."" With the latest news on this these statements by the
Justice Department and Marion Johnson sound slightly stonewalling and
misleading respectively.
Skolnicks suit can be found here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62459&relPageId=184
According to the suit Skolnick says 4 men were involved in the plot:
Thomas Arthur Vallee, somebody named Lee Harvey Oswald, a Mr. Bradley
and a Mr. Gonzalez. The plot was aborted by one Daniel Groth. There is
also mention of John Hurt, the man Oswald supposedly called from
prison (the Raleigh call).
Can't wait for Boldens book.
Peter Fokes
>On 15 Mai, 22:59, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> http://www.hvpress.net/news/138/ARTICLE/4293/2008-05-14.html
>>
>> .John
>
>This is interesting news, John, and I am surprised that apart from
>curtjester nobody reacted to this.
>
>Is this a hoax, disinformation (some truth in it) or the plain truth.
>
>I couldn't find anything on this forum that discussed Bolden, Vallee,
>Oswald and that registration plate.
>
>There is a snippet from Time magazine from April 1970:
>
>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944016,00.html
>
>There is also a good ABC piece with an interview of Bolden here:
>
>http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=5787903
>
>Has this been properly researched yet? If true, this story could
>develop.
>
>In any case, I ordered Boldens book to see what it is all about.
I have Bolden's book. Haven't had time to read it yet.
But Vallee's name is not in the book's index.
PF
alexfoyle
>
> I haveBolden'sbook. Haven't had time to read it yet.
>
> But Vallee's name is not in the book's index.
>
> PF
Thanks, Peter, that is strange. I just read Johns review of Boldens
book in an earlier thread and if I read correctly there seems to be
nothing in the book about that registration plate.
Maybe I'll try to get in touch with the author of the article, Ed
McCarthy, to see if he can provide the number of that document. Alex
John McAdams
I'm frankly wondering whether his whole account is a sham.
The claim that he was somehow railroaded and convicted unjustly
particularly doesn't ring true.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald Registered Owner of Vallee Car." <<<
Too bad Oswald didn't have a driver's license though. Plus there's the
fact, per Ruth Paine, that he couldn't drive very well either.
So Oswald owned a car he couldn't drive?
But, then too, I own a fleet of Boeing 747-400s that I'll never be
able to take aloft either.
So....ya never can tell. ;)
alexfoyle
> I'm frankly wondering whether his whole account is a sham.
>
> The claim that he was somehow railroaded and convicted unjustly
> particularly doesn't ring true.
>
> .John
But in your review of his book you wrote: "Bolden clearly is innocent
of the charge for which he spent more than
three years in jail."
I agree with you that the vendetta against him could have been due to
the racial issue rather than his trying to contact the WC.
So what makes you change your mind?
alexfoyle
>I'm frankly wondering whether his whole account is a sham.
>
> The claim that he was somehow railroaded and convicted unjustly
> particularly doesn't ring true.
>
> .John
There was a slip-up in my last post, because I thought John had reviewed
the Bolden book in the thread with the same name since there were no
links, sources or authors given by him.
In my internet searches over the weekend I found that the review was
actually written by Bruce Watson for the Washington Post and was called
"By Duty Bound, and Betrayed". See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503344.html
So, John, please source your book reviews ... and although you didn't
write that review let me know why you think Bolden was not convicted
unjustly. "Doesn't ring true" is not good enough.
Alex
John McAdams
I'm not sure what you mean, since I never referenced any review.
I got the information about Bolden's apparently bogus identification
of the "Oswald auto" via e-mail.
And yes, it doesn't "ring true." It sounds like a corrupt Secret
Service agant playing the race card to try to vindicate himself.
Certainly, nobody knows until they find independent sources describing
the trial and the evidence against him.
So far, nobody here has anything but his unsourced claims.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
> Certainly, nobody knows until they find independent sources describing
> the trial and the evidence against him.
355 F.2d 453
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Abraham W. BOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14907.
Dec. 29, 1965, Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1966, En Banc.
Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Joseph Samuel Perry,
Judge, of soliciting bribe in return for violating defendant's
official duties as Secret Service agent, and defendant appealed. The
Court of Appeals, Swygert, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia [among
other things], that Secret Service agent charged with soliciting bribe
could not first complain on appeal of deprivation of counsel at
prearrest interrogation.
Affirmed.
[page 454] Raymond J. Smith, James F. Ward, Chicago, Ill., for
appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U.S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, John Powers
Crowley, Richard T. Sikes, Asst. U.S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for
appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Abraham W. Bolden, a former Secret Service agent for the
Treasury Department, appeals from a judgment of conviction on all
counts of an indictment charging his with seeking a bribe in return
for acting in violation of his official duty, 18 U.S.C. § 201,
corruptly obstructing the due administration of justice, 18 U.S.C. §
1503, and conspiring with Frank Jones to commit the crimes defined in
these sections, 18 U.S.C. § 371. FN [footnote] 1 A sentence of six
years was imposed. Defendant also appeals from the denial of a motion
for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.FN2
FN1. The verdict of guilty was returned by a jury after a second
trial. A mistrial had been declared in an earlier trial because of the
failure of the jury to agree.
FN2. The appeals were consolidated by an order of this court.
The evidence, as developed at the trial and considered in the light
most favorable to the Government, tends to establish the following
circumstances.
On April 26, 1964, Agent John E. Russell of the Secret Service office
in Chicago prepared an original and seven copies of a report relating
to the investigation of a counterfeit savings bond case involving,
among others, one Joseph Spagnoli. The copies were distributed to
agents in the Chicago office, including the defendant Abraham Bolden.
On May 8, Agent Conrad Cross received from the defendant the copy of
the report which had been designated for the defendant and him. Cross
thereafter left his office for a short time; when he returned the
report was gone.
On May 9, following the return of a grand jury indictment, arrests of
Spagnoli and others who had been included in the counterfeiting
investigation were made. After his arrest and while in the Secret
Service office, Spagnoli [page 455] spoke to Agent Bolden. He asked if
Secret Service agents took money. The defendant replied that out of
fourteen thousand agents, some did.
On the morning of May 11, the defendant went to the home of Frank
Jones. Jones was then under indictment for counterfeiting and had
twice been arrested by the defendant. Agent Bolden told Jones a number
of facts about the Spagnoli case, including the whereabouts of Sandra
Hafford. Hafford, an erstwhile friend of Spagnoli, had testified
against him before the grand jury, and was being held in protective
custody by the Secret Service in a downtown Chicago hotel. The
defendant produced several onionskin papers stapled together and a
small, typewritten piece of paper containing an excerpt from the
summary report of the Spagnoli investigation. He asked Jones to go to
Spagnoli's home, give Spagnoli the piece of paper, and tell him that
he could have the entire file for $50,000. The defendant said that the
money would be split between Jones and him.
Jones visited Spagnoli's home the following day and delivered the
piece of paper. He told Spagnoli that he had a contact in the Secret
Service and that the Spagnoli file was available for $50,000. Jones
returned home and called the defendant. Soon thereafter Bolden picked
Jones up in his official car. The defendant instructed Jones to inform
Spagnoli that the Secret Service had arranged to have Sandra Hafford's
hair dyed red that afternoon. The defendant also suggested that
Spagnoli be cautioned not to curse when talking to Hafford on the
phone because the conversation would be taped.
On the morning of May 13, Spagnoli called Maurice G. Martineau, the
Secret Service agent in charge, and related Jones' offer to him. The
fact of Spagnoli's call was in turn repeated within earshot of the
defendant. Later that day the defendant called Jones, told him that
Spagnoli had called the ‘boss,’ and instructed him not to talk to
Spagnoli.
Subsequently, Spagnoli gave Martineau the paper he received from Jones
and identified Jones as the person who had approached him. Jones was
arrested on May 18. In the meantime, Agent Russell retrieved all
copies of the Spagnoli summary report with the exception of the one
designated for Agent Cross and the defendant.
The defendant left for Washington, D.C. on May 17 to attend a Secret
Service training school. In the afternoon of the following day, in the
company of three agents, he was returned to Chicago under pretext and
taken to the United States Attorney's office. There Agent Martineau
began to explain the situation. At one point the defendant interrupted
him to observe that the Secret Service was free to check his
typewriter. Martineau had not mentioned the typewritten nature of the
excerpt from the Spagnoli file. Later, in response to a question by
Agent Jordan, the defendant said he didn't know that the Secret
Service was going to dye Hafford's hair. Then, within a few minutes,
he volunteered that he didn't know they were going to dye her hair
‘red.’
The defendant was formally placed under arrest late in the evening of
May 18. A few days later he told a Secret Service informant, Richard
Walter, that he would give $500 to the man who would kill Jones, the
‘stool pigeon.’
The defendant's motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered
evidence relates to certain events surrounding the counterfeiting
trial of Government witness Spagnoli in January, 1965, some five
months after the defendant's trial and sentencing.
At his own trial, Spagnoli testified that he had committed perjury in
certain respects as a Government witness in the defendant's trial. He
testified that his livelihood was gambling and that he had falsely
testified during the defendant's trial that his mother supported him.
He stated that this perjury was suborned by Government counsel in
order to make him look better in the eyes of the jury. Spagnoli also
testified that he had lied [page 456] during the defendant's trial in
reference to the date on which his call to Agent Martineau was placed,
and possibly with reference to other dates. Spagnoli was thereafter
found guilty and received a fifteen year sentence.
The defendant's motion for new trial also included the affidavit of
his trial counsel. The affidavit stated that counsel had a
conversation with Spagnoli following the latter's conviction in which
Spagnoli complained that an assistant United States Attorney had
‘backed down from a deal’ with him concerning his testimony against
the defendant. During the defendant's trial, Spagnoli had testified
that he had received no promise of leniency from the Government in
exchange for his testimony.
The district judge, who presided at the trials of both Spagnoli and
the defendant, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law with
respect to the defendant's newly discovered evidence and denied the
motion for a new trial.
I.
The defendant's first contention is that he was deprived of a fair
trial by the prejudiced attitude of the trial judge, by certain
prejudicial rulings, and by the misconduct of the prosecuting
attorney. More specifically, the defendant points to a number of
circumstances which, by reason of the district judge's allegedly
preconceived opinion of the defendant's guilt, resulted in the
unconscious oppression of defense counsel's best efforts, and which
also purportedly demonstrate the excessive zeal of Government counsel.
We have examined each of the defendant's charges in detail, but will
discuss only a few of the more serious allegations.
After the jury had reached a deadlock in the defendant's first trial,
the jury was returned to the courtroom and the so-called ‘Allen
charge'FN3 was given by the trial judge. The judge added that in his
opinion the evidence would sustain a verdict of guilty on all three
counts of the indictment, but clearly informed the jury that his
opinion could be entirely disregarded. The jury remained deadlocked
and a mistrial was declared.
FN3. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528
(1892).
Prior to the second trial, defense counsel moved for a substitution of
judges on the ground of prejudice. The motion was denied. The
defendant says that the motion should have been granted, that since
the judge had expressed an opinion of guilt, an impartial trial before
the same judge was impossible. The defendant, significantly, cites no
authority for his proposition. Nor do we find any merit in it.
A federal judge may, in his discretion, comment upon the evidence or,
in exceptional cases, express an opinion of the guilt of the accused.
United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381
(1933); United States v. Gibas, 300 F.2d 836 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,
371 U.S. 817, 83 S.Ct. 32, 9 L.Ed.2d 58 (1962). We do not see how the
exercise of that discretion in one trial, without more, could
necessarily result in prejudice against an accused in a second trial.
An opinion as to what the evidence has demonstrated cannot be equated
with personal bias. Trial judges are invariably called upon to conduct
impartial trials despite whatever opinion they may have or which they
may formulate during the course of the trial concerning the guilt or
innocence of an accused. Such impartiality is precisely what is
expected of them, and an experienced trial judge must be assumed
capable of performing his essential function. In short, prejudice must
be shown by trial conduct; it may not be presumed or inferred from the
subjective views of the judge.
The defendant next contends that the record substantiates his view of
the existence of preconceived judicial prejudice. He states that his
trial counsel frequently failed to object to improper evidentiary
procedures because of a timidity occasioned by the ‘criticism,
belittling, [page 457] condemnation and admonitions' of the trial
judge. As an illustration, the defendant refers to a warning issued by
the judge to defense counsel in connection with the cross-examination
of Government witness Frank Jones. The court's admonition was
prompted, inter alia, by an attempt on the part of defense counsel to
impeach the witness from memory, without referring to the transcript
of the defendant's first trial. The court interrupted, stating:
‘Counsel is admonished not to follow that procedure any more. When you
wish to ask an impeaching question, go back to the record and ask him
correctly.’ The jury was then excused, the warning was repeated, and
the judge suggested the possibility of stronger measures if the
offending practice were continued. We find no error. The improper
method of questioning by defense counsel justified the reprimand.
Moore v. United States, 132 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318
U.S. 784, 63 S.Ct. 854, 87 L.Ed. 1151 (1943).
The trial court's censure of defense counsel for the latter's
attempted impeachment of another witness through the showing of mere
arrest was also justified. Further, defense counsel's persistence in
this regard does not reveal the ‘timidity’ to which the defendant has
referred. We do not find that defense counsel ‘trimmed his sails to
such a judicial wind as prevailed in the courtroom,’ United States v.
Ah Kee Eng, 241 F.2d 157, 161, 62 A.L.R.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1957).
Finally, the defendant refers to a number of remarks by the assistant
United States Attorney which, he says, were highly improper and
inflammatory. He notes that the prosecutor called the jury's attention
to the fact that Sandra Hafford was in the protective custody of the
Secret Service. He contends that from this statement the jury may have
drawn an erroneous conclusion about the defendant's intentions toward
her. The jury, however, was well apprised of Hafford's Secret Service
custody prior to the prosecutor's comment. In view of her testimony
concerning her association with Spagnoli, we do not see how the jury
could have drawn the conclusion suggested by the defendant. The other
comments of the prosecutor assailed by the defendant were either
ambiguous or only slightly importune at best. The defendant did not
object to any of these remarks and we do not believe that prejudicial
error could have resulted therefrom.
II.
The defendant's next allegation of error relates to the admission into
evidence, without objection, of his inculpatory remarks to Agents
Martineau and Jordan shortly after his return from Washington, D.C. in
Secret Service custody. The defendant contends that these statements
were elicited after a request for the assistance of counsel had been
denied, at a time when he was being personally accused of a crime, and
that therefore the constitutional principle enunciated in Escobedo v.
State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964),
requires a reversal of his conviction. He further alleges, citing Rule
52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that this error
resulted in such a substantial constitutional deprivation as to excuse
his failure to object to the admissibility of the statements.
The record shows, and the Government does not dispute, that the
defendant was returned from Washington to Chicago on May 18 under
pretext. He was told by his superiors that he was needed for certain
undercover work in connection with a counterfeiting case. Actually, he
was being returned to answer the charge that he had attempted to sell
a Secret Service file to Spagnoli.
The defendant testified, without contradiction, that he was taken to
the Chicago Secret Service office for interrogation at approximately
5:15 p.m. and was not formally placed under arrest until shortly
before midnight. More importantly, the defendant testified, again
without contradiction, that early in the course of his questioning by
Agent Martineau, when it became evident that he [page 458] was being
accused in the Spagnoli matter, he requested the services of an
attorney. He further testified that his request was not granted.
The record contains no other reference bearing upon defendant's
request for an attorney. No attempt was made by the Government to
contradict the defendant's testimony. In this posture, we must accept
as fact: (1) that the defendant requested the aid of counsel, (2) that
his request fell on deaf ears, and (3) that certain inculpatory
statements were thereafter made.
The inculpatory statements themselves have already been mentioned.
Both were volunteered by the defendant and were ostensibly intended to
be exculpatory; however, both tended to show guilty knowledge on his
part. The first statement indicated that he knew, without having been
told, that the file excerpt given to Spagnoli was typewritten. The
second, in response to a question from Agent Jordan, indicated that
the defendant knew more about the dyeing of Sandra Hafford's hair than
he had represented.
As previously noted, the incriminating statements were admitted into
evidence without objection. No motion to suppress was ever filed.
During both trials, defense counsel brought out other remarks of an
exculpatory nature attributable to the defendant's period of
questioning by his superiors. FN4 Full opportunity was provided,
particularly after the defendant was able to assess the damaging
character of his statements when a mistrial was declared in his first
trial, to attempt the exclusion of these statements from the jury's
consideration.FN5 For these reasons we hold that the defendant is
precluded from raising the constitutional question for the first time
on this appeal. As we said recently in United States v. Childress, 347
F.2d 448, 451 (7th Cir. 1965), ‘we cannot say that defendant now has a
right to have us pass upon the admissibility of the * * * testimony
under rule 52(b) * * *.’
FN4. A search of the record has convinced us that the defendant's
entire conversation with his superiors on May 18 was voluntary. We are
not impressed by the defendant's argument that the mere presence, at
one time or another, of Chief Secret Service Inspector Michael Torina,
United States Attorney Edward Hanrahan, and defendant's immediate
superiors compelled him to respond to questioning. It must be assumed
that the defendant, as a Secret Service agent, was well aware of his
constitutional right to remain silent. This knowledge, coupled with
the defendant's undoubted general intelligence, belies any claim to
possible coercion by the presence of these officers. The defendant's
entire pattern of behavior with respect to his interrogators appears
to have been one of attempted exculpation.The voluntary character of
the defendant's statements, of course, would in no way excuse the
failure of the law enforcement officials to grant him an opportunity
to consult with his attorney upon request. The importance of timely
legal guidance to even the most sophisticated layman is unquestioned.
However, the denial of a request for counsel, as a constitutional
violation, must in turn be judged according to the particular
circumstances in the case and by the prejudice resulting therefrom.
Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 491, 84 S.Ct. 1758
(1964).
FN5. The defendant argues that when his trial counsel made certain
inquiries of Government witnesses which might have served as the basis
for a motion to strike his inculpatory statements, the district judge
refused to permit counsel's line of questioning, ‘erroneously stating
that it was improper because ‘no confession was involved.’ He refers
to questions which were directed to the restraint the defendant may
have been under during his interrogation in the Secret Service office.
The defendant's argument that such questions demonstrate an attempt to
register an objection to the inculpatory statements must be rejected.
If anything, the inquiry indicates an oblique attempt to do what
should have been done directly. If the defendant wished to preserve
the alleged error on appeal, he should have moved to suppress prior to
trial, or objected to the statements when they appeared in the
testimony, or at the very least requested that they be struck from the
record with a cautionary instruction to the jury.
[page 459] It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the
district judge ‘seriously erred in failing at that time on its own
motion’ to strike the inculpatory statements which defendant made to
the Secret Service agents. We know of no rule that requires a trial
court to strike evidence such as the evidence in question here when no
objection is made to its reception during the trial. Counsel for the
defendant had the duty to bring the now claimed objectionability of
his evidence to the attention of the trial judge. He cannot remain
silent throughout the trial and then claim error for the first time on
appeal.
III.
The defendant's motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered
evidence has several facets. It is based, however, upon the central
contention that Spagnoli was an essential Government witness who
provided the only substantial corroboration for Frank Jones' testimony
of the latter's conspiracy with the defendant, and that Spagnoli had
committed perjury during the Bolden trial which was known to, and in
part suborned by, the Government prosecutor.
Initially, it must be observed that the defendant assumes a heavy
burden when he attempts to set aside the denial of his motion by the
district court. The district judge made findings in support of his
ruling. He presided at both of the defendant's trials and the
subsequent trial of Spagnoli. He found as a fact that Spagnoli lied at
his own trial and testified truthfully at the trial of the defendant.
He further found that Spagnoli's attempted admission at his own trial
was prompted by the fact that when ‘Spagnoli realized that he was
going to be convicted, he testified falsely in the hopes that he could
avoid a conviction * * * by casting a shadow over the prosecution and
therefore avoid a possible 25 year sentence in the knowledge that even
if indicted and convicted of perjury arising out of the recantation,
the maximum sentence could only be five years in custody of the
Attorney General.’ The district judge made other findings in support
of this conclusion.
Our review is limited to whether the findings of the district judge
reveal a clear abuse of discretion. As stated by the Supreme Court in
United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 111-112, 66 S.Ct. 464, 466, 90
L.Ed. 562 (1945), reversing our decision in United States v. Johnson,
149 F.2d 31 (7th Cir. 1945), ‘while the appellate court might
intervene when the findings of fact are wholly unsupported by evidence
* * *, it should never do so where it does not clearly appear that the
findings are not supported by any evidence.’ The district judge's
findings of fact on the defendant's motion for new trial, then, may
not be ignored.FN6
FN6. The defendant erroneously contends that Mesarosh v. United
States, 352 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1, 1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956), governs this case.
There, upon motion of the Government, presenting evidence that one of
its key witnesses had lied repeatedly in similar proceedings, the
Supreme Court reversed a conviction of conspiracy to violate the Smith
Act. The Court noted, however:It must be remembered that we are not
dealing here with a motion for a new trial initiated by the defense *
* *, presenting untruthful statements by a Government witness
subsequent to the trial as newly discovered evidence affecting his
credibility at the trial. Such an allegation by the defense ordinarily
will not support a motion for a new trial, because new evidence which
is ‘merely cumulative or impeaching’ is not * * *, an adequate basis
for the grant of a new trial. Here we have an entirely different
situation, 352 U.S. at 9-10, 77 S.Ct. at 5.
With this in mind we turn to the specific grounds for defendant's
motion for a new trial. First, it is alleged that Spagnoli testified
falsely in the Bolden trial, at the suggestion of the Government
prosecutor, that he was dependent upon his mother for support, whereas
in fact he made his living by gambling. Spagnoli did attempt to admit
this falsity, but it must be noted that he did not actually testify in
the Bolden trial that [page 460] his mother supported him. He
testified only that his mother supported his two children and that he
was unemployed. Regardless of a possible discrepancy between this
testimony and his later admission, Spagnoli's livelihood was clearly a
collateral matter bearing upon his credibility. His credibility, in
turn, had been adequately put before the jury. We do not believe that
the jury's overall appraisal of this witness would have been
substantially affected by the knowledge that he was being less than
forthright concerning his source of income.
Second, it is alleged that Spagnoli lied at the Bolden trial with
reference to his first contact with Agent Martineau of the Secret
Service. The record amply supports the district judge's finding that
the conflicting evidence with reference to the specific date of that
contact was thoroughly explored at the Bolden trial.FN7
FN7. Defense counsel sought to impeach Spagnoli's statement that he
telephoned Agent Martineau on May 13 by referring to the transcript of
the defendant's first trial, wherein Spagnoli testified that he had
called Martineau on May 12. At that point Spagnoli attempted to
explain the confusion by saying that he had called the FBI on the
12th, and the Secret Service (Agent Martineau) on the 13th. Agent
Martineau testified that he received the call in question on May 13.
We also agree with the district judge's conclusion that, in any event,
the testimony of Spagnoli was merely cumulative. Frank Jones was the
key Government witness. His testimony as to the essential elements of
the crime was fully corroborated by other witnesses and by certain
real evidence. FN8
FN8. Several Secret Service agents corroborated the testimony of both
Spagnoli and Jones. Other witnesses, including Jones' wife, also
supported this testimony. The physical evidence included Jones'
fingerprints, taken from a gin bottle in Spagnoli's apartment, the
typed excerpt from the counterfeit savings bond file, and a fishing
guide with Spagnoli's address on it, taken from the defendant's
automobile.
The defendant next asserts that his conviction must be reversed
because an assistant United States Attorney made a promise to Spagnoli
in exchange for the latter's testimony and thereafter failed to inform
the jury of that fact when Spagnoli denied the existence of any such
‘deal’ during the defendant's trial. The facts concerning this alleged
offer of assistance were also determined by the district judge and are
supported by the record.
The district judge found that the only promise made by the assistant
United States Attorney was a statement that the fact of Spagnoli's
testimony would be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge in
Spagnoli's counterfeiting trial, the same judge who would hear his
testimony in the defendant's trial. The assistant United States
Attorney in question commented upon his ‘offer’ in the following
manner:
At the time I discussed this matter with Mr. Spagnoli initially * * *,
I told Mr. Spagnoli that if he wanted to take a plea of guilty in this
case, that the fact that he had been a witness in the Bolden case
would, of necessity, be brought to the attention of the sentencing
Judge, because his testimony in the Bolden case was being given before
the same Judge who would eventually hear his own case. * * *
During the defendant's trial, the following colloquy occurred between
the witness Spagnoli and defense counsel:
Q. Now, Mr. Spagnoli, you say that you are indicted under case
docketed as 64 CR 300 entitled United States vs. D'Antonio and others.
Now I ask you if the Government or the Secret Service made any
promises of immunity of any type for your testifying here?
A. No, because I didn't do any of those things. That's why. I don't
need nothing. I'm innocent to them charges. I didn't conspire with
nobody. I don't have to have a deal.
[page 461] Q. Nobody promised you any assistance in your indictment.
A. I don't need any assistance. I'm innocent of the charges.
Q. That is not the question, Mr. Spagnoli. I am asking you if someone
promised you something.
The Court: Let his answer stand. You have the answer. Let us just go
on. He is not on trial, ladies and gentlemen, in that case here. That
is a mere charge as far as you folks are concerned.
The Witness: He is insinuating, your Honor, that I might have got a
deal. I don't need no deal. I am innocent of them charges. I didn't do
none of them things.
We do not think that the assistant United States Attorney's statement
to Spagnoli prior to his becoming a witness in the Bolden trial taints
the testimony recited above. Nor do we think that these circumstances
imposed a duty upon the Government attorney to disclose to the court
and jury his earlier comment to Spagnoli. The obvious ‘assistance’
which had been promised cannot be considered an inducement for
Spagnoli's testimony.
The defendant relies principally upon Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264,
79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). In that case, the principal
state witness in a murder trial, who was then serving a 199-year
sentence as an accomplice in the same murder, testified that he had
received no promise of consideration in return for his testimony. In
fact, an assistant State's Attorney had promised to recommend a
reduction in the witness' sentence, and did nothing to correct the
testimony. The Supreme Court held that the knowing permission of such
false testimony was a denial of due process under the fourteenth
amendment.
The statement made to Spagnoli in this case did not amount to such an
affirmative promise of assistance as was condemned in Napue. Pointing
out to Spagnoli the obvious fact that his testimony as a Government
witness would be given before the same judge who would sentence him
upon a plea of guilty and then remaining silent while Spagnoli
vigorously proclaimed his innocence and denied having made a ‘deal’ do
not, we think, constitute either a dangling of reward or a knowing
permission of perjury on the part of Government counsel.
The defendant's final contention is that Spagnoli's conviction of
counterfeiting, a crime for which he was indicted prior to the
indictment of the defendant, is newly discovered evidence which should
have been available for impeachment purposes during defendant's trial
to enable the jury to more accurately determine Spagnoli's
credibility. This contention must also be rejected. Spagnoli's
indictment for counterfeiting was exposed and his credibility was
thoroughly examined at the defendant's trial. His subsequent
conviction was merely cumulative and impeaching. Under these
circumstances the district judge did not abuse his discretion in
denying the motion for new trial. Murphy v. United States, 91
U.S.App.D.C. 118, 198 F.2d 87 (1952); United States v. Mentesana, 203
F.Supp. 63 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 305 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1962), cert.
denied, 375 U.S. 848, 84 S.Ct. 102, 11 L.Ed.2d 75 (1963). Moreover,
Spagnoli's conviction was not evidence that was in existence at the
time of the defendant's trial and therefore did not constitute
evidence upon which a new trial could be based.
The order denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed. The judgment
of conviction is affirmed.
C.A.Ill. 1965.
U. S. v. Bolden
355 F.2d 453
John McAdams
Splendid piece of information.
Was this from Lexis-Nexis?
Now, and interesting question is going to be: how many media outlets
simply accepted the Bolden version of the story without any attempt to
check his claims.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
1. There was sufficient evidence against him for the case to go to trial.
2. He received a fair trial.
3. As a Secret Service agent in the 1960s, Bolden may well have faced
racial discrimination. However, he did not show how this played any role
in his trial and conviction on corruption charges.
4. The appellate court's refusal to overturn his conviction was based on
sound legal principles given in the decision.
5. Bolden has played both the racial card and the Kennedy assassination
card in his book.
John McAdams
Correction: did post a review. I had forgotten.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
You might want to e-mail me at this address.
If you do, I'll credit you under your real name for finding that.
But maybe you want to remain anonymous. Your call.
Again, good work, although my guess is that you did nothing more
complicated than search Lexis-Nexis.
But if that's all you did, isn't it interesting that none of the media
outlets that are taking the Bolden story at face value bothered?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
alexfoyle
> On 26 May 2008 23:24:30 -0400, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again, good work, although my guess is that you did nothing more
> complicated than search Lexis-Nexis.
>
> But if that's all you did, isn't it interesting that none of the media
> outlets that are taking the Bolden story at face value bothered?
>
> .John
Anybody can find the case here: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/355/355.F2d.453.14907.html
I wouldn't be too fast in judging Bolden. I assume both of you haven't
read his book, otherwise you could also cite the court cases that got
Bolden out of prison.
Vince M. Palamara did some useful research on Bolden here:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter17.pdf
Some quotes from Bolden: "During the examination of Joseph Spagnoli by
his attorney Frank Oliver, Spagnoli admitted in open court that he had
committed perjury in “the Bolden trial”.
"Efforts to get a hearing on the perjury matter before Judge Perry by
my attorney Raymond Smith proved unsuccessful and the case went to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1965. During the argument before
the U.S. Court of Appeals the issue of Spagnoli’s perjury was brought
up. Judge Luther Swygert summoned Attorney Richard Sykes into the
courtroom and point-blank asked Sykes if he had solicited perjury in
the Bolden trial. Sykes’ reply was, “Your honor, I re-fuse to answer
that question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.”
Once I have Boldens book I can also cite you the cases above and the
evidence that got him out of prison.
I have been in touch with Bolden and he says that Ed McCarthy showed
him the documents that are mentioned in the article posted by John. I
am in the process of getting in touch with McCarthy so he can provide
the document numbers.
Mary Ferrells website is a real treasure chest. In her personal files
you find information about the alleged two Chicago plots:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=485314
According to her collection of articles NBC in Chicago and the Chicago
Daily News tried to find out more about the NY number plate.
In any case, please be thoughtful before posting something like:
"sounds like a corrupt Secret Service agant playing the race card to
try to vindicate himself." unless you have researched Boldens case
yourself.
Peter Fokes
Correct.
Spagnoli admitted committing perjury at the request of Richard T.
Sikes.
Spagnoli was never prosecuted for this perjury.
>
>Once I have Boldens book I can also cite you the cases above and the
>evidence that got him out of prison.
>
>I have been in touch with Bolden and he says that Ed McCarthy showed
>him the documents that are mentioned in the article posted by John. I
>am in the process of getting in touch with McCarthy so he can provide
>the document numbers.
>
>Mary Ferrells website is a real treasure chest. In her personal files
>you find information about the alleged two Chicago plots:
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=485314
>
>According to her collection of articles NBC in Chicago and the Chicago
>Daily News tried to find out more about the NY number plate.
>
>In any case, please be thoughtful before posting something like:
>"sounds like a corrupt Secret Service agant playing the race card to
>try to vindicate himself." unless you have researched Boldens case
>yourself.
"Sounds like"?
Lol.
What does a "race card" sound like?
Bolden went to work and found a noose hanging from the ceiling above
his desk.
PF
Anthony Marsh
The race card is when a black person claims that the ONLY reason for his
misfortune is because he is being discriminated against because of his race.
> Bolden went to work and found a noose hanging from the ceiling above
> his desk.
>
Of course there was racism. That does not prove that Bolden was right
about everything.
>
> PF
>
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I have his book.
>>>
>>> I have been in touch with Bolden and he says that Ed McCarthy showed
>>> him the documents that are mentioned in the article posted by John. I
>>> am in the process of getting in touch with McCarthy so he can provide
>>> the document numbers.
>>>
>>> Mary Ferrells website is a real treasure chest. In her personal files
>>> you find information about the alleged two Chicago plots:
>>>
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=485314
>>>
>>> According to her collection of articles NBC in Chicago and the Chicago
>>> Daily News tried to find out more about the NY number plate.
>>>
>>> In any case, please be thoughtful before posting something like:
>>> "sounds like a corrupt Secret Service agant playing the race card to
>>> try to vindicate himself." unless you have researched Boldens case
>>> yourself.
>>
>>
>> "Sounds like"?
>>
>> Lol.
>>
>> What does a "race card" sound like?
>>
>
>The race card is when a black person claims that the ONLY reason for his
>misfortune is because he is being discriminated against because of his race.
Tony, don't be so dense.
I was obviously being sarcastic.
You seem to be tone deaf to sarcasm.
My point was simple: "sounds like" is not evidence.
Having adopted a child with a different skin colour than my own, I am
fully and completely aware of the term "race card".
I agree with Alex that the term should not be used lightly.
>
>> Bolden went to work and found a noose hanging from the ceiling above
>> his desk.
>>
>
>Of course there was racism. That does not prove that Bolden was right
>about everything.
AND WHO BLOODY SAID HE WAS?
PF
>
>>
>> PF
>>
alexfoyle
> Too bad Oswald didn't have a driver's license though. Plus there's the
> fact, per Ruth Paine, that he couldn't drive very well either.
>
> So Oswald owned a car he couldn't drive?
>
The car was supposedly registered in his name, that is what is being
claimed.
And since you quote Ruth Paine, according to an article in the Chicago
Daily News of November 26 1963 she also said: "“I understand there are
people in the Chicago area who are talking of helping [Marina], too.”
Anybody know if Ruth Paine really said that and who those people in
the Chicago area allegedly were?
Incidentally on the same day (12.26.1963) Maggie Daly wrote in her
"Daly Diary" published in the Chicago's American: "The word is that
the assassination of President Kennedy was planned at a meeting on
Chicago’s west side in the early part of February … That a dissident
Cuban group financed Lee Harvey Oswald and that he lived on occasional
money from the members and occasional money from his mother."
Both articles can be found in HSCA RIF#180–10087–10137. Vince Palamara
put that information in his chapter on Bolden, thanks.
Stug...@aol.com
If you can find McCarthy, those documents would be very interesting to
see. There are documents available on the Mary Ferrell site that
suggest that the license plate claim was a rumor emanating from a news
organization that was never verified; indeed, someone I know who is
familiar with the Bolden/Vallee situation says that the the FBI even
got firm confirmation that the registration was in the name of Vallee,
not Oswald. Please keep us posted.
-Stu
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
yeuhd
> here:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter17.pdf
Having read the Palamara piece, I make some observations:
* Nowhere do Bolden or Palamara address the two pieces of inculpatory
evidence Bolden himself gave (ostensibly as exculpatory evidence)
during the interrogation before his arrest, and which were used
against him at his trials. One can explain away others' evidence as a
frame-up, but not one's own evidence.
* Bolden and Palamara repeatedly refer to witness Spagnoli's perjured
testimony as if he were the key witness in the trial, and without
discussing the content of that testimony or how that perjured
testimony allegedly affected the trial. As it turned out, the perjured
testimony was not about Bolden, it was about Spagnoli himself. How he
earned his living (gambling), and on what date he first called a
Secret Service agent. As the appellate court's decision said, "[I]t is
alleged that Spagnoli lied at the Bolden trial with reference to his
first contact with Agent Martineau of the Secret Service. The record
amply supports the district judge's finding that the conflicting
evidence with reference to the specific date of that contact was
thoroughly explored at the Bolden trial."
* Bolden wrote, "U.S. District Judge J. Sam Perry instructed the jury,
while that jury was in de-
liberation, 'In my opinion, the evidence shows the defendant to be
guilty of counts 1, 2, and 3 in the indictment.' To give any personal
opinion to a deliberating jury, by anyone, is clearly a violation of
law called jury tampering."
The appellate court showed that the trial judge had legal authority,
by no less than the U.S. Supreme Court, to do so: "A federal judge
may, in his discretion, comment upon the evidence or, in exceptional
cases, express an opinion of the guilt of the accused. United States
v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933); United
States v. Gibas, 300 F.2d 836 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 817,
83 S.Ct. 32, 9 L.Ed.2d 58 (1962)."
And it needs to be emphasized that that occurred at Bolden's first
trial, which was declared a mistrial when the jury could not reach a
decision, not at his second trial, which convicted him. Appellate
court again: "[A judge's] prejudice must be shown by trial conduct; it
alexfoyle
> Alex,
>
> If you can find McCarthy, those documents would be very interesting to
> see. There are documents available on the Mary Ferrell site that
> suggest that the license plate claim was a rumor emanating from a news
> organization that was never verified; indeed, someone I know who is
> familiar with the Bolden/Vallee situation says that the the FBI even
> got firm confirmation that the registration was in the name of Vallee,
> not Oswald. Please keep us posted.
>
> -Stu
>
posted soon.
In the Mary Ferrell Chronologies here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=485314
you can see (in the middle of the page) that something apparently
connected to that number plate was being withheld by the FBI.
Further above you can read NBC tried to get information on the number
plate, "but finds FBI has put a 'freeze' on any information on NY
license."
Why the withholding if it was registered in Vallees name?
Alex
alexfoyle
Until I get the information from Ed McCarthy here are some excerpts
from one of the replies I got from Abraham Bolden:
"I don't know who this McAdams is; however, all that i can say is that
every statement that I make concerning the trial is documented in the
back of my book by case number, date, and document number. If Mr.
McAdams wants to think that I am guilty, that is his opinion. If he
is such a researcher, he should check the notes in the back of the
book and then order the pages of the transcript that he is doubtful of
from the National Archives here in Chicago.
I was the victim of a powerful scheme by those who wanted to bring me
down and discredit me. I realize that it is hard for some people to
understand the climate that prevailed in the early 60's and the plots
that were underway to silence many African Americans, including Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr, who spoke out against injustice and inequities
in our system. That's why I wrote the book...in order that the
American people might see just how fragile our system is and how we
must stand up for the truth no matter what the odds are against us.
It is the people's democracy to maintain or lose and when there is
such an organized conspiracy against one citizen like the masterful
one perpetrated against me, then all citizens are at risk.
Re-copying what the court of Appeals said is a fallacious argument to
sustain my guilt. The Court of Appeals ignored the fact that the
Assistant U.S. Attorney took the 5th amendment against self
incrimination when asked if he suborned perjury in my trials. That
fact alone should raise an eyebrow as to the legitimacy of my
conviction. But we still have those who quote from the Court of
Appeal's decision not understanding that the Court of Appeals always
takes the government's position of the case. And further Spagnoli
admitted that I was framed by him and Frank Jones with the assistance
of the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Attorney's office...that's a
matter of court record.
So we have the Assistant U.S. Attorney taking the 5th and Spagnoli
confessing suborned perjury. Upon that, I rest my case.
As for the Chicago conspiracy, one of the perpetrators was in fact
arrested by the Secret Service and Chicago Police and they found heavy
weapons (rifle) and explosives in his automobile. As for the other
investigations (Eschaverria) the facts of that case were classified
until recently but I knew about the case and talked about it 40 years
ago when no one believed me. We were told by the supervisor to forget
that certain investigations ever existed and many documents were
destroyed in order to conceal the ineptness of the secret service in
the protection of John F. Kennedy."
Since I haven't got my copy of Bolden's book yet maybe Peter can check
in the back for the court cases mentioned by Bolden above so others
can verify this.
Anybody who wants the whole e-mail correspondence with Bolden can e-
mail me. Alex
alexfoyle
yeuhd, I sent Bolden your observations on Palamaras chapter, too, here
is his reply:
"The so called exculpatory evidence against me was fabricated evidence
by the secret service. There was no truth to it at all. During
Spagnoli's admission of perjury, the judge cut him off and said there
would be no more comments about the Bolden Trial and we never had the
opportunity to subpoena Spagnoli as requested.
The Court of Appeals neglected to observe that the judge's opinion had
never been used in any federal criminal trial. The case cited by them
was not a case of the judge telling the jury but were statements made
extra-judica.
This same circuit that upheld that case, upheld the former case.
That's all that I have to say on the matter. Let those who have their
opinion be governed by it."
Before further legal opinions are posted maybe we should now read his
book and/or all the court documents related to his case. Alex
yeuhd
> On 27 Mai, 18:51, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> yeuhd, I sent Bolden your observations on Palamaras chapter, too, here
> is his reply:
>
> "The so called exculpatory evidence against me was fabricated evidence
> by the secret service. There was no truth to it at all.
I said the INculpatory (incriminating) evidence that Bolden gave
during his interrogation before his arrest. Bolden's inculpatory
statements were admitted into evidence at his trial without objection
by Bolden. He did not deny at trial or in his appeal that he made the
statements. I thought it curious that Palamaras' chapter on Bolden did
not address or even mention this evidence.
> The Court of Appeals neglected to observe that the judge's opinion had
> never been used in any federal criminal trial. The case cited by them
> was not a case of the judge telling the jury but were statements made
> extra-judica.
Not true.
U.S. v. Murdock was an income tax case tried in a federal court
(District Court of the United States for the Southern District of
Illinois), appealed as Murdock v. U.S. in a federal court (Circuit
Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit), and reviewed by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The appellant had been tried, convicted, and sentenced for
violation of section 1114(a), Revenue Act of 1926, 26 USCA § 1265, and
section 146(a), Revenue Act of 1928, 26 USCA § 2146, which make it an
offense to wilfully fail to supply information sought by the
Government under the Revenue Acts. The defendant was sentenced to
serve a year in jail and to pay a fine of $5,000.
And the trial judge's opinion in U.S. v. Murdock was given to the
jury, not ex-judica. Here is what the trial judge said:
"So far as the facts are concerned in this case, Gentlemen of the
Jury, I want to instruct you that whatever the Court may say as to the
facts, is only the Court's view. You are at liberty to entirely
disregard it. The Court feels from the evidence in this case, that the
Government has sustained the burden cast upon it by the law and has
proved that this defendant is guilty in manner and form as charged
beyond a reasonable doubt." (U.S. v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, at 393)
All that being said, the legal question is somewhat academic in
Bolden's case. The judge gave his opinion at Bolden's first trial,
which resulted in a hung jury, not at the second trial, which
convicted Bolden.
alexfoyle
> I said the INculpatory (incriminating) evidence that Bolden gave
> during his interrogation before his arrest. Bolden's inculpatory
> statements were admitted into evidence at his trial without objection
> by Bolden. He did not deny at trial or in his appeal that he made the
> statements. I thought it curious that Palamaras' chapter on Bolden did
> not address or even mention this evidence.
Abraham Bolden sent me this regarding your comment:
"That absolutely is not true. On page 899-890 of the transcript U.S. v.
Abraham W. Bolden 64CR324 Federal District Court for The Northern District
of Illinois, I was being cross examined by Attorney Sikes:
By Mr. Sikes: When Mr. Martineau testified concerning the conversation he
had with you on May 18th, 1964 in a room in the office of the United
States Attorney concerning the fact that you volunteered to have a
typewriter in your house examined and he said to you--he said that he had
never mentioned the typewriten nature of the excerpt, he was lying too;
wasn't he?
A. Yes, he was, and I can prove it."
Bolden attached the two pages in question as a Word document. Anybody who
wants this can e-mail me.
Alex
John McAdams
OK, what was his proof?
Why don't you post the text of the document?
Two pages isn't a lot of text.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
Note that Bolden's attorney refers to the "fact" of Bolden's
statement: "the fact that you volunteered to have a typewriter in your
house examined". So yes, as I said, Bolden never denied making that
statement, nor did he object at either of his trials to its admission
into evidence.
Instead, what Bolden is denying is that Martineau "had never mentioned
the typewritten nature of the excerpt". Thus, it was a question of
fact for the jury to decide — whether to believe Bolden or Martineau.
alexfoyle
> OK, what was his proof?
I only have the two pages and the proof is not there. yeuhd was saying
Bolden never objected to this inculpatory evidence, but evidently he did.
Whether he can prove it is another question.
The way this is developing I will get the whole transscript to see for
myself anyway. Maybe you should do that, too.
> Why don't you post the text of the document?
Because it's a scan of the text and it can't be copied into here.
> Two pages isn't a lot of text.
So write me an e-mail and I'll forward it to you.
Alex
John McAdams
That's fair enough, but if you can e-mail me two scan (one of each
page, presumably) you could also post that here.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
Anything you want published, you can forward to me & I'll put it on my
website.
"alexfoyle" <alex...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:2eb1615f-3c7d-4bd2...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
alexfoyle
>
> Note that Bolden's attorney refers to the "fact" of Bolden's
Richard Sikes was not Bolden's attorney, but the prosecutor, the same
man who took the 5th when later asked by a jugde whether he suborned
perjury from the witnesses.
And you must admit that Sikes questioning is rather confusing if what
you are interpreting from the quote is correct. Bolden maintained that
the typewritten nature was known to him before, because Martineau had
told him, but Martineau claimed he never told Bolden (btw that was one
of the two central accusations against Bolden, i.e. that he knew of
the typewritten nature of the document while Martineau claimed that he
never told him that). That is the lie that Bolden is referring to. It
is pretty clear, even John understood the exchange that way, otherwise
he wouldn't be asking for the proof that Martineau lied.
I asked Bolden if he has the whole transcript of the trial in a
digital fromat, but he hasn't. According to him the transripts are
several thousand pages long and cost about 3.000 US$ to copy at the
National Archives in Chicago. Maybe a legal buff can unearth these
transcripts at a lower price.
Alex
ak
> Alex;
>
> Anything you want published, you can forward to me & I'll put it on my
> website.
>
>
> news:2eb1615f-3c7d-4bd2...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 29 Mai, 18:30, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> >> OK, what was his proof?
>
> > I only have the two pages and the proof is not there. yeuhd was saying
> > Bolden never objected to this inculpatory evidence, but evidently he did.
> > Whether he can prove it is another question.
>
> > The way this is developing I will get the whole transscript to see for
> > myself anyway. Maybe you should do that, too.
>
> >> Why don't you post the text of the document?
>
> > Because it's a scan of the text and it can't be copied into here.
>
> >> Two pages isn't a lot of text.
>
> > So write me an e-mail and I'll forward it to you.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bolden had an outstanding record as a State Trooper and then an SS
agent. He was known to be a straight arrow. Thus it is odd that
right at the time of the JFK murder, when he calls the WC to report
about lax security, heavy drinking and the 4 man Cuban hit team in
Chicago, he is charged in this case. I find it hard to believe that
he would trust Jones, a man he twice put in jail, in a corrupt plot.
And the two witnesses against him were both Chicago mobsters, both
connected to Richard Cain, and the Cuban Chicago plot was said to be
financed by mobsters.
Anyway, more important than Bolden, is the existence of the Chicago
plot. When you know that there was a mob financed Cuban exile team,
it certainly makes you look at Jack Ruby and Oswald in a different
light.
alexfoyle
Thanks, Tom. Feel free to post the transript pages of the trial which
I sent you as requested.
John put them up as a PDF at his site: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/bolden.trial.889-890.pdf
If somebody wants to dig in, the whole thing can be found here:
National Archives, 7358 South Pulaski Road, Chicago, IL (60629).
Telephone (773) 948-9001.
Bolden's case # is 64 CR 324.
Alex
jpsh...@my-deja.com
> http://www.hvpress.net/news/138/ARTICLE/4293/2008-05-14.html
Page two of this document says that NY plate 3110 RF was
registered to "THOMAS VALLEE, TWO ONE THREE ONE, BOND LANE,
HICKSVILLE, NEW YORK".
FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 22
Page 50
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62272&relPageId=50
An interesting article about Vallee:
Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 6, Issue 3
Page 14
Current Section: A Rough Guide to Oswald Lookalikes (Part VI), by Mark
Bridger
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=16249&relPageId=18
Some told a Chicago Tribune photographer that Oswald had been
arrested in Chicago on 11/2/63. Checking this out led the FBI to the
information about Vallee's arrest. Is the Tom Powers mentioned the
Richard Helms' biographer?
FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 6
Page 56
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62256&relPageId=56
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On 21 May 2008 15:37:24 -0400, alexfoyle <alex...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Mai, 22:59, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> http://www.hvpress.net/news/138/ARTICLE/4293/2008-05-14.html
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>>This is interesting news, John, and I am surprised that apart from
>>curtjester nobody reacted to this.
>>
>>Is this a hoax, disinformation (some truth in it) or the plain truth.
>>
>>I couldn't find anything on this forum that discussed Bolden, Vallee,
>>Oswald and that registration plate.
>>
>>There is a snippet from Time magazine from April 1970:
>>
>>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944016,00.html
>>
>>There is also a good ABC piece with an interview of Bolden here:
>>
>>http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=5787903
>>
>>Has this been properly researched yet? If true, this story could
>>develop.
>>
>>In any case, I ordered Boldens book to see what it is all about.
>
>I have Bolden's book. Haven't had time to read it yet.
>
>But Vallee's name is not in the book's index.
>
>PF
Vallee is not mentioned.
IT is clear, however, that Bolden was railroaded.
PF
>
>
>>
>>Quote from text: "In research at The National Archives in Washington
>>of The Assassination files of 25 Million documents it turned up that
>>in fact NY plate 311-ORF at the Vallee Traffic stop was registered in
>>the Name of Lee Harvey Oswald." Has this been verified?
>>
>>Glad about any commennts anybody might have on this.
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 26 May 2008 14:22:17 -0400, alexfoyle <alex...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>On 26 Mai, 05:05, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm frankly wondering whether his whole account is a sham.
>>>
>>> The claim that he was somehow railroaded and convicted unjustly
>>> particularly doesn't ring true.
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>>There was a slip-up in my last post, because I thought John had reviewed
>>the Bolden book in the thread with the same name since there were no
>>links, sources or authors given by him.
>>
>>In my internet searches over the weekend I found that the review was
>>actually written by Bruce Watson for the Washington Post and was called
>>"By Duty Bound, and Betrayed". See:
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503344.html
>>
>>So, John, please source your book reviews ... and although you didn't
>>write that review let me know why you think Bolden was not convicted
>>unjustly. "Doesn't ring true" is not good enough.
>>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean, since I never referenced any review.
>
>I got the information about Bolden's apparently bogus identification
>of the "Oswald auto" via e-mail.
>
>And yes, it doesn't "ring true." It sounds like a corrupt Secret
>Service agant playing the race card to try to vindicate himself.
No, he was set up.
Corrupt? He had a perfect record.
Read the book.
>Certainly, nobody knows until they find independent sources describing
>the trial and the evidence against him.
He led a simple life with his wife and children.
Please provide examples of this "corruption"?
The first trial ended in a mistrial, the second trial was clearly a
miscarriage of justice and the appeals court refused to deal with the
issue of perjury.
Quoting an excerpt from the appeals court decision is not enough to
prove Bolden actually committed the crime. It provides a judicial
decision but not necessarily the truth.
>
>So far, nobody here has anything but his unsourced claims.
The excerpts from the trials used in the book are "sourced."
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
PF
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 26 May 2008 22:35:47 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Splendid piece of information.
But provides little context
>
>Was this from Lexis-Nexis?
>
>Now, and interesting question is going to be: how many media outlets
>simply accepted the Bolden version of the story without any attempt to
>check his claims.
One cannot check his claims by simply reading an excerpt from an
appeals court.
That's for sure.
PF
>
>
>
>>On May 26, 2:26 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> Certainly, nobody knows until they find independent sources describing
>>> the trial and the evidence against him.
>>
>>355 F.2d 453
>>
>>United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
>>UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
>>v.
>>Abraham W. BOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
>>No. 14907.
>>Dec. 29, 1965, Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1966, En Banc.
>>
>>Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the
>>Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Joseph Samuel Perry,
>>Judge, of soliciting bribe in return for violating defendant's
>>official duties as Secret Service agent, and defendant appealed. The
>>Court of Appeals, Swygert, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia [among
>>other things], that Secret Service agent charged with soliciting bribe
>>could not first complain on appeal of deprivation of counsel at
>>prearrest interrogation.
>>
>>Affirmed.
>>
>>[page 454] Raymond J. Smith, James F. Ward, Chicago, Ill., for
>>appellant.
>>
>>Edward V. Hanrahan, U.S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, John Powers
>>Crowley, Richard T. Sikes, Asst. U.S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for
>>appellee.
>>
>>
>>Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
>>
>>
>>SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.
>>Defendant Abraham W. Bolden, a former Secret Service agent for the
>>Treasury Department, appeals from a judgment of conviction on all
>>counts of an indictment charging his with seeking a bribe in return
>>for acting in violation of his official duty, 18 U.S.C. § 201,
>>corruptly obstructing the due administration of justice, 18 U.S.C. §
>>1503, and conspiring with Frank Jones to commit the crimes defined in
>>these sections, 18 U.S.C. § 371. FN [footnote] 1 A sentence of six
>>years was imposed. Defendant also appeals from the denial of a motion
>>for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.FN2
>>
>>FN1. The verdict of guilty was returned by a jury after a second
>>trial. A mistrial had been declared in an earlier trial because of the
>>failure of the jury to agree.
>>
>>FN2. The appeals were consolidated by an order of this court.
>>
>>The evidence, as developed at the trial and considered in the light
>>most favorable to the Government, tends to establish the following
>>circumstances.
>>
>>On April 26, 1964, Agent John E. Russell of the Secret Service office
>>in Chicago prepared an original and seven copies of a report relating
>>to the investigation of a counterfeit savings bond case involving,
>>among others, one Joseph Spagnoli. The copies were distributed to
>>agents in the Chicago office, including the defendant Abraham Bolden.
>>On May 8, Agent Conrad Cross received from the defendant the copy of
>>the report which had been designated for the defendant and him. Cross
>>thereafter left his office for a short time; when he returned the
>>report was gone.
>>
>>On May 9, following the return of a grand jury indictment, arrests of
>>Spagnoli and others who had been included in the counterfeiting
>>investigation were made. After his arrest and while in the Secret
>>Service office, Spagnoli [page 455] spoke to Agent Bolden. He asked if
>>Secret Service agents took money. The defendant replied that out of
>>fourteen thousand agents, some did.
>>
>>On the morning of May 11, the defendant went to the home of Frank
>>Jones. Jones was then under indictment for counterfeiting and had
>>twice been arrested by the defendant. Agent Bolden told Jones a number
>>of facts about the Spagnoli case, including the whereabouts of Sandra
>>Hafford. Hafford, an erstwhile friend of Spagnoli, had testified
>>against him before the grand jury, and was being held in protective
>>custody by the Secret Service in a downtown Chicago hotel. The
>>defendant produced several onionskin papers stapled together and a
>>small, typewritten piece of paper containing an excerpt from the
>>summary report of the Spagnoli investigation. He asked Jones to go to
>>Spagnoli's home, give Spagnoli the piece of paper, and tell him that
>>he could have the entire file for $50,000. The defendant said that the
>>money would be split between Jones and him.
>>
>>Jones visited Spagnoli's home the following day and delivered the
>>piece of paper. He told Spagnoli that he had a contact in the Secret
>>Service and that the Spagnoli file was available for $50,000. Jones
>>returned home and called the defendant. Soon thereafter Bolden picked
>>Jones up in his official car. The defendant instructed Jones to inform
>>Spagnoli that the Secret Service had arranged to have Sandra Hafford's
>>hair dyed red that afternoon. The defendant also suggested that
>>Spagnoli be cautioned not to curse when talking to Hafford on the
>>phone because the conversation would be taped.
>>
>>On the morning of May 13, Spagnoli called Maurice G. Martineau, the
>>Secret Service agent in charge, and related Jones' offer to him. The
>>fact of Spagnoli's call was in turn repeated within earshot of the
>>defendant. Later that day the defendant called Jones, told him that
>>Spagnoli had called the ‘boss,’ and instructed him not to talk to
>>Spagnoli.
>>
>>Subsequently, Spagnoli gave Martineau the paper he received from Jones
>>and identified Jones as the person who had approached him. Jones was
>>arrested on May 18. In the meantime, Agent Russell retrieved all
>>copies of the Spagnoli summary report with the exception of the one
>>designated for Agent Cross and the defendant.
>>
>>The defendant left for Washington, D.C. on May 17 to attend a Secret
>>Service training school. In the afternoon of the following day, in the
>>company of three agents, he was returned to Chicago under pretext and
>>taken to the United States Attorney's office. There Agent Martineau
>>began to explain the situation. At one point the defendant interrupted
>>him to observe that the Secret Service was free to check his
>>typewriter. Martineau had not mentioned the typewritten nature of the
>>excerpt from the Spagnoli file. Later, in response to a question by
>>Agent Jordan, the defendant said he didn't know that the Secret
>>Service was going to dye Hafford's hair. Then, within a few minutes,
>>he volunteered that he didn't know they were going to dye her hair
>>‘red.’
>>
>>The defendant was formally placed under arrest late in the evening of
>>May 18. A few days later he told a Secret Service informant, Richard
>>Walter, that he would give $500 to the man who would kill Jones, the
>>‘stool pigeon.’
>>
>>The defendant's motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered
>>evidence relates to certain events surrounding the counterfeiting
>>trial of Government witness Spagnoli in January, 1965, some five
>>months after the defendant's trial and sentencing.
>>
>>At his own trial, Spagnoli testified that he had committed perjury in
>>certain respects as a Government witness in the defendant's trial. He
>>testified that his livelihood was gambling and that he had falsely
>>testified during the defendant's trial that his mother supported him.
>>He stated that this perjury was suborned by Government counsel in
>>order to make him look better in the eyes of the jury. Spagnoli also
>>testified that he had lied [page 456] during the defendant's trial in
>>reference to the date on which his call to Agent Martineau was placed,
>>and possibly with reference to other dates. Spagnoli was thereafter
>>found guilty and received a fifteen year sentence.
>>
>>The defendant's motion for new trial also included the affidavit of
>>his trial counsel. The affidavit stated that counsel had a
>>conversation with Spagnoli following the latter's conviction in which
>>Spagnoli complained that an assistant United States Attorney had
>>‘backed down from a deal’ with him concerning his testimony against
>>the defendant. During the defendant's trial, Spagnoli had testified
>>that he had received no promise of leniency from the Government in
>>exchange for his testimony.
>>
>>The district judge, who presided at the trials of both Spagnoli and
>>the defendant, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law with
>>respect to the defendant's newly discovered evidence and denied the
>>motion for a new trial.
>>
>>I.
>>
>>The defendant's first contention is that he was deprived of a fair
>>trial by the prejudiced attitude of the trial judge, by certain
>>prejudicial rulings, and by the misconduct of the prosecuting
>>attorney. More specifically, the defendant points to a number of
>>circumstances which, by reason of the district judge's allegedly
>>preconceived opinion of the defendant's guilt, resulted in the
>>unconscious oppression of defense counsel's best efforts, and which
>>also purportedly demonstrate the excessive zeal of Government counsel.
>>We have examined each of the defendant's charges in detail, but will
>>discuss only a few of the more serious allegations.
>>
>>After the jury had reached a deadlock in the defendant's first trial,
>>the jury was returned to the courtroom and the so-called ‘Allen
>>charge'FN3 was given by the trial judge. The judge added that in his
>>opinion the evidence would sustain a verdict of guilty on all three
>>counts of the indictment, but clearly informed the jury that his
>>opinion could be entirely disregarded. The jury remained deadlocked
>>and a mistrial was declared.
>>
>>FN3. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528
>>(1892).
>>
>>Prior to the second trial, defense counsel moved for a substitution of
>>judges on the ground of prejudice. The motion was denied. The
>>defendant says that the motion should have been granted, that since
>>the judge had expressed an opinion of guilt, an impartial trial before
>>the same judge was impossible. The defendant, significantly, cites no
>>authority for his proposition. Nor do we find any merit in it.
>>
>>A federal judge may, in his discretion, comment upon the evidence or,
>>in exceptional cases, express an opinion of the guilt of the accused.
>>United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381
>>(1933); United States v. Gibas, 300 F.2d 836 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,
>>371 U.S. 817, 83 S.Ct. 32, 9 L.Ed.2d 58 (1962). We do not see how the
>>exercise of that discretion in one trial, without more, could
>>necessarily result in prejudice against an accused in a second trial.
>>An opinion as to what the evidence has demonstrated cannot be equated
>>with personal bias. Trial judges are invariably called upon to conduct
>>impartial trials despite whatever opinion they may have or which they
>>may formulate during the course of the trial concerning the guilt or
>>innocence of an accused. Such impartiality is precisely what is
>>expected of them, and an experienced trial judge must be assumed
>>capable of performing his essential function. In short, prejudice must
>>be shown by trial conduct; it may not be presumed or inferred from the
>>subjective views of the judge.
>>
>>The defendant next contends that the record substantiates his view of
>>the existence of preconceived judicial prejudice. He states that his
>>trial counsel frequently failed to object to improper evidentiary
>>procedures because of a timidity occasioned by the ‘criticism,
>>belittling, [page 457] condemnation and admonitions' of the trial
>>judge. As an illustration, the defendant refers to a warning issued by
>>the judge to defense counsel in connection with the cross-examination
>>of Government witness Frank Jones. The court's admonition was
>>prompted, inter alia, by an attempt on the part of defense counsel to
>>impeach the witness from memory, without referring to the transcript
>>of the defendant's first trial. The court interrupted, stating:
>>‘Counsel is admonished not to follow that procedure any more. When you
>>wish to ask an impeaching question, go back to the record and ask him
>>correctly.’ The jury was then excused, the warning was repeated, and
>>the judge suggested the possibility of stronger measures if the
>>offending practice were continued. We find no error. The improper
>>method of questioning by defense counsel justified the reprimand.
>>Moore v. United States, 132 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318
>>U.S. 784, 63 S.Ct. 854, 87 L.Ed. 1151 (1943).
>>
>>The trial court's censure of defense counsel for the latter's
>>attempted impeachment of another witness through the showing of mere
>>arrest was also justified. Further, defense counsel's persistence in
>>this regard does not reveal the ‘timidity’ to which the defendant has
>>referred. We do not find that defense counsel ‘trimmed his sails to
>>such a judicial wind as prevailed in the courtroom,’ United States v.
>>Ah Kee Eng, 241 F.2d 157, 161, 62 A.L.R.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1957).
>>
>>Finally, the defendant refers to a number of remarks by the assistant
>>United States Attorney which, he says, were highly improper and
>>inflammatory. He notes that the prosecutor called the jury's attention
>>to the fact that Sandra Hafford was in the protective custody of the
>>Secret Service. He contends that from this statement the jury may have
>>drawn an erroneous conclusion about the defendant's intentions toward
>>her. The jury, however, was well apprised of Hafford's Secret Service
>>custody prior to the prosecutor's comment. In view of her testimony
>>concerning her association with Spagnoli, we do not see how the jury
>>could have drawn the conclusion suggested by the defendant. The other
>>comments of the prosecutor assailed by the defendant were either
>>ambiguous or only slightly importune at best. The defendant did not
>>object to any of these remarks and we do not believe that prejudicial
>>error could have resulted therefrom.
>>
>>II.
>>
>>The defendant's next allegation of error relates to the admission into
>>evidence, without objection, of his inculpatory remarks to Agents
>>Martineau and Jordan shortly after his return from Washington, D.C. in
>>Secret Service custody. The defendant contends that these statements
>>were elicited after a request for the assistance of counsel had been
>>denied, at a time when he was being personally accused of a crime, and
>>that therefore the constitutional principle enunciated in Escobedo v.
>>State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964),
>>requires a reversal of his conviction. He further alleges, citing Rule
>>52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that this error
>>resulted in such a substantial constitutional deprivation as to excuse
>>his failure to object to the admissibility of the statements.
>>
>>The record shows, and the Government does not dispute, that the
>>defendant was returned from Washington to Chicago on May 18 under
>>pretext. He was told by his superiors that he was needed for certain
>>undercover work in connection with a counterfeiting case. Actually, he
>>was being returned to answer the charge that he had attempted to sell
>>a Secret Service file to Spagnoli.
>>
>>The defendant testified, without contradiction, that he was taken to
>>the Chicago Secret Service office for interrogation at approximately
>>5:15 p.m. and was not formally placed under arrest until shortly
>>before midnight. More importantly, the defendant testified, again
>>without contradiction, that early in the course of his questioning by
>>Agent Martineau, when it became evident that he [page 458] was being
>>accused in the Spagnoli matter, he requested the services of an
>>attorney. He further testified that his request was not granted.
>>
>>The record contains no other reference bearing upon defendant's
>>request for an attorney. No attempt was made by the Government to
>>contradict the defendant's testimony. In this posture, we must accept
>>as fact: (1) that the defendant requested the aid of counsel, (2) that
>>his request fell on deaf ears, and (3) that certain inculpatory
>>statements were thereafter made.
>>
>>The inculpatory statements themselves have already been mentioned.
>>Both were volunteered by the defendant and were ostensibly intended to
>>be exculpatory; however, both tended to show guilty knowledge on his
>>part. The first statement indicated that he knew, without having been
>>told, that the file excerpt given to Spagnoli was typewritten. The
>>second, in response to a question from Agent Jordan, indicated that
>>the defendant knew more about the dyeing of Sandra Hafford's hair than
>>he had represented.
>>
>>As previously noted, the incriminating statements were admitted into
>>evidence without objection. No motion to suppress was ever filed.
>>During both trials, defense counsel brought out other remarks of an
>>exculpatory nature attributable to the defendant's period of
>>questioning by his superiors. FN4 Full opportunity was provided,
>>particularly after the defendant was able to assess the damaging
>>character of his statements when a mistrial was declared in his first
>>trial, to attempt the exclusion of these statements from the jury's
>>consideration.FN5 For these reasons we hold that the defendant is
>>precluded from raising the constitutional question for the first time
>>on this appeal. As we said recently in United States v. Childress, 347
>>F.2d 448, 451 (7th Cir. 1965), ‘we cannot say that defendant now has a
>>right to have us pass upon the admissibility of the * * * testimony
>>under rule 52(b) * * *.’
>>
>>FN4. A search of the record has convinced us that the defendant's
>>entire conversation with his superiors on May 18 was voluntary. We are
>>not impressed by the defendant's argument that the mere presence, at
>>one time or another, of Chief Secret Service Inspector Michael Torina,
>>United States Attorney Edward Hanrahan, and defendant's immediate
>>superiors compelled him to respond to questioning. It must be assumed
>>that the defendant, as a Secret Service agent, was well aware of his
>>constitutional right to remain silent. This knowledge, coupled with
>>the defendant's undoubted general intelligence, belies any claim to
>>possible coercion by the presence of these officers. The defendant's
>>entire pattern of behavior with respect to his interrogators appears
>>to have been one of attempted exculpation.The voluntary character of
>>the defendant's statements, of course, would in no way excuse the
>>failure of the law enforcement officials to grant him an opportunity
>>to consult with his attorney upon request. The importance of timely
>>legal guidance to even the most sophisticated layman is unquestioned.
>>However, the denial of a request for counsel, as a constitutional
>>violation, must in turn be judged according to the particular
>>circumstances in the case and by the prejudice resulting therefrom.
>>Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 491, 84 S.Ct. 1758
>>(1964).
>>
>>FN5. The defendant argues that when his trial counsel made certain
>>inquiries of Government witnesses which might have served as the basis
>>for a motion to strike his inculpatory statements, the district judge
>>refused to permit counsel's line of questioning, ‘erroneously stating
>>that it was improper because ‘no confession was involved.’ He refers
>>to questions which were directed to the restraint the defendant may
>>have been under during his interrogation in the Secret Service office.
>>The defendant's argument that such questions demonstrate an attempt to
>>register an objection to the inculpatory statements must be rejected.
>>If anything, the inquiry indicates an oblique attempt to do what
>>should have been done directly. If the defendant wished to preserve
>>the alleged error on appeal, he should have moved to suppress prior to
>>trial, or objected to the statements when they appeared in the
>>testimony, or at the very least requested that they be struck from the
>>record with a cautionary instruction to the jury.
>>
>>[page 459] It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the
>>district judge ‘seriously erred in failing at that time on its own
>>motion’ to strike the inculpatory statements which defendant made to
>>the Secret Service agents. We know of no rule that requires a trial
>>court to strike evidence such as the evidence in question here when no
>>objection is made to its reception during the trial. Counsel for the
>>defendant had the duty to bring the now claimed objectionability of
>>his evidence to the attention of the trial judge. He cannot remain
>>silent throughout the trial and then claim error for the first time on
>>appeal.
>>
>>III.
>>
>>The defendant's motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered
>>evidence has several facets. It is based, however, upon the central
>>contention that Spagnoli was an essential Government witness who
>>provided the only substantial corroboration for Frank Jones' testimony
>>of the latter's conspiracy with the defendant, and that Spagnoli had
>>committed perjury during the Bolden trial which was known to, and in
>>part suborned by, the Government prosecutor.
>>
>>Initially, it must be observed that the defendant assumes a heavy
>>burden when he attempts to set aside the denial of his motion by the
>>district court. The district judge made findings in support of his
>>ruling. He presided at both of the defendant's trials and the
>>subsequent trial of Spagnoli. He found as a fact that Spagnoli lied at
>>his own trial and testified truthfully at the trial of the defendant.
>>He further found that Spagnoli's attempted admission at his own trial
>>was prompted by the fact that when ‘Spagnoli realized that he was
>>going to be convicted, he testified falsely in the hopes that he could
>>avoid a conviction * * * by casting a shadow over the prosecution and
>>therefore avoid a possible 25 year sentence in the knowledge that even
>>if indicted and convicted of perjury arising out of the recantation,
>>the maximum sentence could only be five years in custody of the
>>Attorney General.’ The district judge made other findings in support
>>of this conclusion.
>>
>>Our review is limited to whether the findings of the district judge
>>reveal a clear abuse of discretion. As stated by the Supreme Court in
>>United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 111-112, 66 S.Ct. 464, 466, 90
>>L.Ed. 562 (1945), reversing our decision in United States v. Johnson,
>>149 F.2d 31 (7th Cir. 1945), ‘while the appellate court might
>>intervene when the findings of fact are wholly unsupported by evidence
>>* * *, it should never do so where it does not clearly appear that the
>>findings are not supported by any evidence.’ The district judge's
>>findings of fact on the defendant's motion for new trial, then, may
>>not be ignored.FN6
>>
>>FN6. The defendant erroneously contends that Mesarosh v. United
>>States, 352 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1, 1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956), governs this case.
>>There, upon motion of the Government, presenting evidence that one of
>>its key witnesses had lied repeatedly in similar proceedings, the
>>Supreme Court reversed a conviction of conspiracy to violate the Smith
>>Act. The Court noted, however:It must be remembered that we are not
>>dealing here with a motion for a new trial initiated by the defense *
>>* *, presenting untruthful statements by a Government witness
>>subsequent to the trial as newly discovered evidence affecting his
>>credibility at the trial. Such an allegation by the defense ordinarily
>>will not support a motion for a new trial, because new evidence which
>>is ‘merely cumulative or impeaching’ is not * * *, an adequate basis
>>for the grant of a new trial. Here we have an entirely different
>>situation, 352 U.S. at 9-10, 77 S.Ct. at 5.
>>
>>With this in mind we turn to the specific grounds for defendant's
>>motion for a new trial. First, it is alleged that Spagnoli testified
>>falsely in the Bolden trial, at the suggestion of the Government
>>prosecutor, that he was dependent upon his mother for support, whereas
>>in fact he made his living by gambling. Spagnoli did attempt to admit
>>this falsity, but it must be noted that he did not actually testify in
>>the Bolden trial that [page 460] his mother supported him. He
>>testified only that his mother supported his two children and that he
>>was unemployed. Regardless of a possible discrepancy between this
>>testimony and his later admission, Spagnoli's livelihood was clearly a
>>collateral matter bearing upon his credibility. His credibility, in
>>turn, had been adequately put before the jury. We do not believe that
>>the jury's overall appraisal of this witness would have been
>>substantially affected by the knowledge that he was being less than
>>forthright concerning his source of income.
>>
>>Second, it is alleged that Spagnoli lied at the Bolden trial with
>>reference to his first contact with Agent Martineau of the Secret
>>Service. The record amply supports the district judge's finding that
>>the conflicting evidence with reference to the specific date of that
>>contact was thoroughly explored at the Bolden trial.FN7
>>
>>FN7. Defense counsel sought to impeach Spagnoli's statement that he
>>telephoned Agent Martineau on May 13 by referring to the transcript of
>>the defendant's first trial, wherein Spagnoli testified that he had
>>called Martineau on May 12. At that point Spagnoli attempted to
>>explain the confusion by saying that he had called the FBI on the
>>12th, and the Secret Service (Agent Martineau) on the 13th. Agent
>>Martineau testified that he received the call in question on May 13.
>>
>>We also agree with the district judge's conclusion that, in any event,
>>the testimony of Spagnoli was merely cumulative. Frank Jones was the
>>key Government witness. His testimony as to the essential elements of
>>the crime was fully corroborated by other witnesses and by certain
>>real evidence. FN8
>>
>>FN8. Several Secret Service agents corroborated the testimony of both
>>Spagnoli and Jones. Other witnesses, including Jones' wife, also
>>supported this testimony. The physical evidence included Jones'
>>fingerprints, taken from a gin bottle in Spagnoli's apartment, the
>>typed excerpt from the counterfeit savings bond file, and a fishing
>>guide with Spagnoli's address on it, taken from the defendant's
>>automobile.
>>
>>The defendant next asserts that his conviction must be reversed
>>because an assistant United States Attorney made a promise to Spagnoli
>>in exchange for the latter's testimony and thereafter failed to inform
>>the jury of that fact when Spagnoli denied the existence of any such
>>‘deal’ during the defendant's trial. The facts concerning this alleged
>>offer of assistance were also determined by the district judge and are
>>supported by the record.
>>
>>The district judge found that the only promise made by the assistant
>>United States Attorney was a statement that the fact of Spagnoli's
>>testimony would be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge in
>>Spagnoli's counterfeiting trial, the same judge who would hear his
>>testimony in the defendant's trial. The assistant United States
>>Attorney in question commented upon his ‘offer’ in the following
>>manner:
>>
>>At the time I discussed this matter with Mr. Spagnoli initially * * *,
>>I told Mr. Spagnoli that if he wanted to take a plea of guilty in this
>>case, that the fact that he had been a witness in the Bolden case
>>would, of necessity, be brought to the attention of the sentencing
>>Judge, because his testimony in the Bolden case was being given before
>>the same Judge who would eventually hear his own case. * * *
>>
>>During the defendant's trial, the following colloquy occurred between
>>the witness Spagnoli and defense counsel:
>>
>>Q. Now, Mr. Spagnoli, you say that you are indicted under case
>>docketed as 64 CR 300 entitled United States vs. D'Antonio and others.
>>Now I ask you if the Government or the Secret Service made any
>>promises of immunity of any type for your testifying here?
>>
>>A. No, because I didn't do any of those things. That's why. I don't
>>need nothing. I'm innocent to them charges. I didn't conspire with
>>nobody. I don't have to have a deal.
>>
>>[page 461] Q. Nobody promised you any assistance in your indictment.
>>
>>A. I don't need any assistance. I'm innocent of the charges.
>>
>>Q. That is not the question, Mr. Spagnoli. I am asking you if someone
>>promised you something.
>>
>>The Court: Let his answer stand. You have the answer. Let us just go
>>on. He is not on trial, ladies and gentlemen, in that case here. That
>>is a mere charge as far as you folks are concerned.
>>
>>The Witness: He is insinuating, your Honor, that I might have got a
>>deal. I don't need no deal. I am innocent of them charges. I didn't do
>>none of them things.
>>
>>We do not think that the assistant United States Attorney's statement
>>to Spagnoli prior to his becoming a witness in the Bolden trial taints
>>the testimony recited above. Nor do we think that these circumstances
>>imposed a duty upon the Government attorney to disclose to the court
>>and jury his earlier comment to Spagnoli. The obvious ‘assistance’
>>which had been promised cannot be considered an inducement for
>>Spagnoli's testimony.
>>
>>The defendant relies principally upon Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264,
>>79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). In that case, the principal
>>state witness in a murder trial, who was then serving a 199-year
>>sentence as an accomplice in the same murder, testified that he had
>>received no promise of consideration in return for his testimony. In
>>fact, an assistant State's Attorney had promised to recommend a
>>reduction in the witness' sentence, and did nothing to correct the
>>testimony. The Supreme Court held that the knowing permission of such
>>false testimony was a denial of due process under the fourteenth
>>amendment.
>>
>>The statement made to Spagnoli in this case did not amount to such an
>>affirmative promise of assistance as was condemned in Napue. Pointing
>>out to Spagnoli the obvious fact that his testimony as a Government
>>witness would be given before the same judge who would sentence him
>>upon a plea of guilty and then remaining silent while Spagnoli
>>vigorously proclaimed his innocence and denied having made a ‘deal’ do
>>not, we think, constitute either a dangling of reward or a knowing
>>permission of perjury on the part of Government counsel.
>>
>>The defendant's final contention is that Spagnoli's conviction of
>>counterfeiting, a crime for which he was indicted prior to the
>>indictment of the defendant, is newly discovered evidence which should
>>have been available for impeachment purposes during defendant's trial
>>to enable the jury to more accurately determine Spagnoli's
>>credibility. This contention must also be rejected. Spagnoli's
>>indictment for counterfeiting was exposed and his credibility was
>>thoroughly examined at the defendant's trial. His subsequent
>>conviction was merely cumulative and impeaching. Under these
>>circumstances the district judge did not abuse his discretion in
>>denying the motion for new trial. Murphy v. United States, 91
>>U.S.App.D.C. 118, 198 F.2d 87 (1952); United States v. Mentesana, 203
>>F.Supp. 63 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 305 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1962), cert.
>>denied, 375 U.S. 848, 84 S.Ct. 102, 11 L.Ed.2d 75 (1963). Moreover,
>>Spagnoli's conviction was not evidence that was in existence at the
>>time of the defendant's trial and therefore did not constitute
>>evidence upon which a new trial could be based.
>>
>>The order denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed. The judgment
>>of conviction is affirmed.
>>
>>C.A.Ill. 1965.
>>U. S. v. Bolden
>>355 F.2d 453
>>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
>My thoughts on the Abraham Bolden case:
Did you read his book?
>
>1. There was sufficient evidence against him for the case to go to trial.
>2. He received a fair trial.
Nonsense.
>3. As a Secret Service agent in the 1960s, Bolden may well have faced
>racial discrimination. However, he did not show how this played any role
>in his trial and conviction on corruption charges.
Was he allowed to do so in court?
Yes, there was racial discrimination in the Sixties. Duh.
The jury that found him guilty was all white. Many blacks were
dismissed during jury selection. A few for false reasons.
>
>4. The appellate court's refusal to overturn his conviction was based on
>sound legal principles given in the decision.
The appeals court danced around a number of issues.
If you believe there is no politics is the judicial system, I'd like
to offer you some oceanfront property for sale in Ohio.
Have you read his book?
>
>5. Bolden has played both the racial card and the Kennedy assassination
>card in his book.
What does playing the racial card mean???
If a black faces discrimination AND speaks up about it, is that to be
labelled "playing the racial card"? How ridiculous.
Duh. He was personally involved in some of the investigative issues
pertaining to the Kennedy assassination.
Have you read his book?
PF
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 26 May 2008 23:24:30 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>My thoughts on the Abraham Bolden case:
>>
>>1. There was sufficient evidence against him for the case to go to trial.
>>
>>2. He received a fair trial.
>>
>>3. As a Secret Service agent in the 1960s, Bolden may well have faced
>>racial discrimination. However, he did not show how this played any role
>>in his trial and conviction on corruption charges.
>>
>>4. The appellate court's refusal to overturn his conviction was based on
>>sound legal principles given in the decision.
>>
>>5. Bolden has played both the racial card and the Kennedy assassination
>>card in his book.
>
>You might want to e-mail me at this address.
>
>If you do, I'll credit you under your real name for finding that.
Bolden provides references to trial transcripts in his book.
No big secret.
Some of the trial transcripts are unavailable.
Judge Perry was one of a kind.
>
>But maybe you want to remain anonymous. Your call.
>
>Again, good work, although my guess is that you did nothing more
>complicated than search Lexis-Nexis.
Yup. And it sheds very little light on what went on in Judge Perry's
courtroom.
>
>But if that's all you did, isn't it interesting that none of the media
>outlets that are taking the Bolden story at face value bothered?
The appeals court reasoning is included in his BOOK.
Have you read it?
Isn't it interesting that a few of you are willing to accept an
excerpt from an appeals courts decision as the be all and end all when
it comes to fathoming the truth about the trial of Bolden?
Not one negative mark against him until this trumped up charge.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:38:31 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 26 May 2008 22:35:47 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Splendid piece of information.
>
>But provides little context
>>
>>Was this from Lexis-Nexis?
>>
>>Now, and interesting question is going to be: how many media outlets
>>simply accepted the Bolden version of the story without any attempt to
>>check his claims.
>
>One cannot check his claims by simply reading an excerpt from an
>appeals court.
>
>That's for sure.
>
You in fact can tell a lot from appeals court decision.
Better still would be reading the transcript, checking out newspaper
coverage of the trial, etc.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
>On May 27, 7:56 am, alexfoyle <alexfo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Vince M. Palamara did some useful research on Bolden
>> here:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter17.pdf
>
>Having read the Palamara piece, I make some observations:
>
>* Nowhere do Bolden or Palamara address the two pieces of inculpatory
>evidence
What two pieces, please?
Bolden himself gave (ostensibly as exculpatory evidence)
>during the interrogation before his arrest, and which were used
>against him at his trials. One can explain away others' evidence as a
>frame-up, but not one's own evidence.
>
>* Bolden and Palamara repeatedly refer to witness Spagnoli's perjured
>testimony as if he were the key witness in the trial, and without
>discussing the content of that testimony or how that perjured
>testimony allegedly affected the trial.
As it turned out, the perjured
>testimony was not about Bolden, it was about Spagnoli himself. How he
>earned his living (gambling), and on what date he first called a
>Secret Service agent. As the appellate court's decision said, "[I]t is
>alleged that Spagnoli lied at the Bolden trial with reference to his
>first contact with Agent Martineau of the Secret Service. The record
>amply supports the district judge's finding that the conflicting
>evidence with reference to the specific date of that contact was
>thoroughly explored at the Bolden trial."
Why not provide both sides?
<quote on>
Your Honor, if you will recall the proceeding [said Bolden's
attorney], it was Your Honor who STOPPED Spagnoli from going into
detail about the perjured testimony. I believe the record will show
that this court ruled that no further inquiry could be made as to the
EXTENT of the perjury while Mr. Spagnoli was testifying at his own
trial ....
<quote off>
And what penalty was Spagnoli given for his perjury? None.
Spagnoli admitted he lied about this date.
Exactly how was it thoroughly explored?
Speaking of dates and times ..
<quote on>
At no point in his testimony did Joseph Spagnoli give a specific time
or date for his meeting with Sikes. Yet the following statement
appears in Perry's findings of fact:
That this court expressly finds that on the date upon which Joseph
Spagnoli stated that he met Assistant United States Attorney Sikes
... Attorney Sikes was on trial before the court in another case in
Freeport, Illinois .....
In one sentence, Judge Perry furnished an unsworn alibi for Sikes, and
also acknowledged that a witness before him in federal criminal trial
had knowingly committed perjury, a crime for which neither Judge Perry
nor anyone else made him answer."
<quote off>
Judge Perry said Spagnoli's perjury was "a plot by the witness
Spagnoli to discredit the United States of America in the
administration of justice."
A plot? lol
>
>* Bolden wrote, "U.S. District Judge J. Sam Perry instructed the jury,
>while that jury was in de-
>liberation, 'In my opinion, the evidence shows the defendant to be
>guilty of counts 1, 2, and 3 in the indictment.' To give any personal
>opinion to a deliberating jury, by anyone, is clearly a violation of
>law called jury tampering."
Par for the course, eh?
Judges give their opinion of the defendant's guilt before a verdict is
proferred every day, eh?
>The appellate court showed that the trial judge had legal authority,
>by no less than the U.S. Supreme Court, to do so: "A federal judge
>may, in his discretion, comment upon the evidence or, in exceptional
>cases, express an opinion of the guilt of the accused. United States
>v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933); United
>States v. Gibas, 300 F.2d 836 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 817,
>83 S.Ct. 32, 9 L.Ed.2d 58 (1962)."
And what was "exceptional" about this case?
>
>And it needs to be emphasized that that occurred at Bolden's first
>trial, which was declared a mistrial
Yup. A mistrial. There was one black juror ... a mistake the judge and
prosecutors would not allow to happen in the second trial!
when the jury could not reach a
>decision, not at his second trial, which convicted him. Appellate
>court again: "[A judge's] prejudice must be shown by trial conduct; it
>may not be presumed or inferred from the subjective views of the
>judge."
PF
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:25:23 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:38:31 -0500, John McAdams
>><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 May 2008 22:35:47 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Splendid piece of information.
>>
>>But provides little context
>>>
>>>Was this from Lexis-Nexis?
>>>
>>>Now, and interesting question is going to be: how many media outlets
>>>simply accepted the Bolden version of the story without any attempt to
>>>check his claims.
>>
>>One cannot check his claims by simply reading an excerpt from an
>>appeals court.
>>
>>That's for sure.
>>
>
>You in fact can tell a lot from appeals court decision.
>
>Better still would be reading the transcript, checking out newspaper
>coverage of the trial, etc.
Yup. And reading Bolden's book.
The guy was a highly praised SS agent without a mark on his record.
Wife and couple of small kids. Unpretentious guy.
Bolden provides plenty of excerpts from the trial and references in
footnotes.
Have you read the book?
alexfoyle
> Vallee is not mentioned.
>
> IT is clear, however, that Bolden was railroaded.
>
> PF
>
Peter, I finally got my copy of the book yesterday and I am on pages
54-58 where all the different plots and discrepancies are described.
He doesn't mention Vallee, that was apparently due to concerns of the
legal department at the publishers, because Vallee had never been
charged with any crime.
But Bolden does mention in those pages:
1.) The hunt for John Hurt or Heard
2.) The apparent loss of one of the commission books of one the SS
agents in Dallas during their drinking party the night of the 21st.
Bolden speculates here, also mentioning the 'agent' on the GK who
allegedly flashed a leather-bound (Treasury/SS) commission book to a
Dallas PD officer.
3.) The call from the Chicago FBI office to the SS before JFKs visit
on 11/2/63 warning of two hispanics in a motel with rifles and
telescopic sights.
4.) The threats against JFK just a few days before the assassination
by one Homer S. Echevarria.
Points 3.) and 4.) where the two plots that Martineau, Bolden's
superior and SAIC in Chicago, supposedly covered up and later at the
HSCA denied they ever happened.
Will try to finish the book on the weekend and then post another
impression.
Ed McCarthy, author of the article at Hudson Vallesy Press, got back
to me and says he is working on a documentary or feature film with
Bolden.
At the moment he doesn't want to share his documents yet because he is
still in the middle of research, but says that Sherman Skolnick
pointed him the direction as to where to look at the National
Archives.
The article by Mark Bridger over at Mary Ferrell that jpshin... posted
further up is indeed a good read, albeit with unnecessary
conspiratorial speculation at times.
More later. Alex
John McAdams
>On 14 Jun., 05:04, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>
>> Vallee is not mentioned.
>>
>> IT is clear, however, that Bolden was railroaded.
>>
>> PF
>>
>
>Peter, I finally got my copy of the book yesterday and I am on pages
>54-58 where all the different plots and discrepancies are described.
>
>He doesn't mention Vallee, that was apparently due to concerns of the
>legal department at the publishers, because Vallee had never been
>charged with any crime.
>
>But Bolden does mention in those pages:
>
>1.) The hunt for John Hurt or Heard
>
>2.) The apparent loss of one of the commission books of one the SS
>agents in Dallas during their drinking party the night of the 21st.
>Bolden speculates here, also mentioning the 'agent' on the GK who
>allegedly flashed a leather-bound (Treasury/SS) commission book to a
>Dallas PD officer.
>
This the the Joe Marshall Smith account, and it's far from clear that
it was an SS ID that was flashed at him -- although he believed it
was.
>3.) The call from the Chicago FBI office to the SS before JFKs visit
>on 11/2/63 warning of two hispanics in a motel with rifles and
>telescopic sights.
>
>4.) The threats against JFK just a few days before the assassination
>by one Homer S. Echevarria.
>
>Points 3.) and 4.) where the two plots that Martineau, Bolden's
>superior and SAIC in Chicago, supposedly covered up and later at the
>HSCA denied they ever happened.
>
Uh, oh!
Of course, and I'm sure you understand this, the more wild things he
says about the JFK assassination, the less credible him claim to have
been persecuted and unfairly prosecuted.
>Will try to finish the book on the weekend and then post another
>impression.
>
>Ed McCarthy, author of the article at Hudson Vallesy Press, got back
>to me and says he is working on a documentary or feature film with
>Bolden.
>
>At the moment he doesn't want to share his documents yet because he is
>still in the middle of research,
Uh, oh!
>but says that Sherman Skolnick
Uh, oh!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:58:44 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>One cannot check his claims by simply reading an excerpt from an
>>>appeals court.
>>>
>>>That's for sure.
>>>
>>
>>You in fact can tell a lot from appeals court decision.
>>
>>Better still would be reading the transcript, checking out newspaper
>>coverage of the trial, etc.
>
>
>Yup. And reading Bolden's book.
>
>The guy was a highly praised SS agent without a mark on his record.
>
He says.
>Wife and couple of small kids. Unpretentious guy.
>
>
>Bolden provides plenty of excerpts from the trial and references in
>footnotes.
>
>Have you read the book?
>
No, have you?
I do know that when the HSCA took up Bolden's claims, he didn't fare
well.
I do trust that you know better than to accept self-serving claims in
an autobiographical book at face value without checking them out.
That applies to autobiographies of members of any presidential
administration, and it *certainly* applies to any book by a JFK
assassination figure.
I'm wondering whether Bolden has stumbled onto the fact that playing
the race card *in addition* to playing the conspiracy card is a
formula for getting accepted by people who would otherwise be
critical.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 27 May 2008 12:51:07 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you know that the black juror voted to acquit? Or are you simply
assuming that?
I note that essentially everything you have posted is from Bolden's
own book.
>
> when the jury could not reach a
>>decision, not at his second trial, which convicted him. Appellate
>>court again: "[A judge's] prejudice must be shown by trial conduct; it
>>may not be presumed or inferred from the subjective views of the
>>judge."
>
The judge didn't express any opinion before the jury that convicted,
did he?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
> What does playing the racial card mean???
Race card:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card
"Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase referring to an allegation
raised against a person who has brought the issue of race or racism into a
debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to
card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage."
> If a black faces discrimination AND speaks up about it, is that to be
> labelled "playing the racial card"? How ridiculous.
But you're begging the question. Did Bolden ever provide evidence at trial
that the prosecution's witnesses harbored racial prejudice against him?
Under the federal rules of evidence, he was free to do so. The bias or
hostility of the witness can be proved either by cross- examination of
that witness, or by introducing extrinsic evidence (for example, the
testimony of other witnesses, including the defendant).
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 23:40:22 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 26 May 2008 23:24:30 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My thoughts on the Abraham Bolden case:
>>>
>>>1. There was sufficient evidence against him for the case to go to trial.
>>>
>>>2. He received a fair trial.
>>>
>>>3. As a Secret Service agent in the 1960s, Bolden may well have faced
>>>racial discrimination. However, he did not show how this played any role
>>>in his trial and conviction on corruption charges.
>>>
>>>4. The appellate court's refusal to overturn his conviction was based on
>>>sound legal principles given in the decision.
>>>
>>>5. Bolden has played both the racial card and the Kennedy assassination
>>>card in his book.
>>
>>You might want to e-mail me at this address.
>>
>>If you do, I'll credit you under your real name for finding that.
>
>Bolden provides references to trial transcripts in his book.
>
>No big secret.
>
The problem is what he might *not* have provided.
>Some of the trial transcripts are unavailable.
>
>Judge Perry was one of a kind.
>
>>
>>But maybe you want to remain anonymous. Your call.
>>
>>Again, good work, although my guess is that you did nothing more
>>complicated than search Lexis-Nexis.
>
>
>Yup. And it sheds very little light on what went on in Judge Perry's
>courtroom.
>
>>
>>But if that's all you did, isn't it interesting that none of the media
>>outlets that are taking the Bolden story at face value bothered?
>
>The appeals court reasoning is included in his BOOK.
>
>Have you read it?
>
>Isn't it interesting that a few of you are willing to accept an
>excerpt from an appeals courts decision as the be all and end all when
>it comes to fathoming the truth about the trial of Bolden?
>
>Not one negative mark against him until this trumped up charge.
>
>
You simply have reacted to Bolden the way certain people here have
reacted to Judyth.
You somehow can't imagine that he's presenting a very distorted
picture of what happened.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 26 May 2008 23:24:30 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>My thoughts on the Abraham Bolden case:
>
>Did you read his book?
>
>>
>>1. There was sufficient evidence against him for the case to go to trial.
>
>>2. He received a fair trial.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>
>>3. As a Secret Service agent in the 1960s, Bolden may well have faced
>>racial discrimination. However, he did not show how this played any role
>>in his trial and conviction on corruption charges.
>
>Was he allowed to do so in court?
>
>Yes, there was racial discrimination in the Sixties. Duh.
But against Bolden? You don't have any information on that beyond
Bolden's book.
>The jury that found him guilty was all white. Many blacks were
>dismissed during jury selection. A few for false reasons.
>
>
And your basis for saying "false reasons" is?
I'm sure you are aware that, if a black is on trial, competent defense
counsel will try to *include* blacks -- at least blacks whom it seems
will let the guy off.
The prosecution gets to play the same game.
>>
>>4. The appellate court's refusal to overturn his conviction was based on
>>sound legal principles given in the decision.
>
>The appeals court danced around a number of issues.
>
According to whom?
>If you believe there is no politics is the judicial system, I'd like
>to offer you some oceanfront property for sale in Ohio.
>
>Have you read his book?
>
Have your read anything *else?*
>
>>
>>5. Bolden has played both the racial card and the Kennedy assassination
>>card in his book.
>
>
>What does playing the racial card mean???
>
>If a black faces discrimination AND speaks up about it, is that to be
>labelled "playing the racial card"? How ridiculous.
>
But if he *wasn't* faced with racial discrimination, and makes the
claim that he was, he is most certainly playing the race card.
Unfortunately, it works with a lot of people, who can't fathom the
politically incorrect notion that bogus claims may be made by blacks,
or on behalf of blacks.
>Duh. He was personally involved in some of the investigative issues
>pertaining to the Kennedy assassination.
>
>Have you read his book?
>
Have you read what the HSCA said about him? Those folks found it
lacked credibility.
That should be the tipoff that you need to read his book a bit
critically.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 13:26:25 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 26 May 2008 14:22:17 -0400, alexfoyle <alex...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Mai, 05:05, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm frankly wondering whether his whole account is a sham.
>>>>
>>>> The claim that he was somehow railroaded and convicted unjustly
>>>> particularly doesn't ring true.
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>
>>>There was a slip-up in my last post, because I thought John had reviewed
>>>the Bolden book in the thread with the same name since there were no
>>>links, sources or authors given by him.
>>>
>>>In my internet searches over the weekend I found that the review was
>>>actually written by Bruce Watson for the Washington Post and was called
>>>"By Duty Bound, and Betrayed". See:
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503344.html
>>>
>>>So, John, please source your book reviews ... and although you didn't
>>>write that review let me know why you think Bolden was not convicted
>>>unjustly. "Doesn't ring true" is not good enough.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean, since I never referenced any review.
>>
>>I got the information about Bolden's apparently bogus identification
>>of the "Oswald auto" via e-mail.
>>
>>And yes, it doesn't "ring true." It sounds like a corrupt Secret
>>Service agant playing the race card to try to vindicate himself.
>
>No, he was set up.
>
You know this how?
Oh, my! It sounds like I am talking to Martin about the "Judyth"
issue!
>Corrupt? He had a perfect record.
>
Until he was convicted of a felony.
>Read the book.
>
Look for independent sources.
>
>>Certainly, nobody knows until they find independent sources describing
>>the trial and the evidence against him.
>
>He led a simple life with his wife and children.
>
>Please provide examples of this "corruption"?
>
His conviction.
>The first trial ended in a mistrial, the second trial was clearly a
>miscarriage of justice and the appeals court refused to deal with the
>issue of perjury.
>
And you know this how?
>Quoting an excerpt from the appeals court decision is not enough to
>prove Bolden actually committed the crime. It provides a judicial
>decision but not necessarily the truth.
>
It certainly provides *part* of the truth.
>>
>>So far, nobody here has anything but his unsourced claims.
>
>
>The excerpts from the trials used in the book are "sourced."
>
But they are selected by him, and we have to trust him to provide the
correct context.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On 26 Mai, 20:26, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>Until I get the information from Ed McCarthy here are some excerpts
>from one of the replies I got from Abraham Bolden:
>
>"I don't know who this McAdams is; however, all that i can say is that
>every statement that I make concerning the trial is documented in the
>back of my book by case number, date, and document number. If Mr.
>McAdams wants to think that I am guilty, that is his opinion. If he
>is such a researcher, he should check the notes in the back of the
>book and then order the pages of the transcript that he is doubtful of
>from the National Archives here in Chicago.
>
I'd be delighted to have access to the transcript. But how does one
contact the "National Archives here in Chicago?"
>I was the victim of a powerful scheme by those who wanted to bring me
>down and discredit me. I realize that it is hard for some people to
>understand the climate that prevailed in the early 60's and the plots
>that were underway to silence many African Americans, including Dr.
>Martin Luther King, Jr, who spoke out against injustice and inequities
>in our system.
Sounds like he is playing the race card.
Bolden, I understand, was rather the special pet of JFK himself as the
first black in the Secret Service.
>That's why I wrote the book...in order that the
>American people might see just how fragile our system is and how we
>must stand up for the truth no matter what the odds are against us.
>It is the people's democracy to maintain or lose and when there is
>such an organized conspiracy against one citizen like the masterful
>one perpetrated against me, then all citizens are at risk.
>
>Re-copying what the court of Appeals said is a fallacious argument to
>sustain my guilt. The Court of Appeals ignored the fact that the
>Assistant U.S. Attorney took the 5th amendment against self
>incrimination when asked if he suborned perjury in my trials. That
>fact alone should raise an eyebrow as to the legitimacy of my
>conviction.
It certainly might, if it is both material and true.
>But we still have those who quote from the Court of
>Appeal's decision not understanding that the Court of Appeals always
>takes the government's position of the case. And further Spagnoli
>admitted that I was framed by him and Frank Jones with the assistance
>of the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Attorney's office...that's a
>matter of court record.
>
I thought Spagnoli was some sort of sleazy character?
Now his word is gospel?
Bolden is positing quite a large conspiracy here.
>So we have the Assistant U.S. Attorney taking the 5th and Spagnoli
>confessing suborned perjury. Upon that, I rest my case.
>
>As for the Chicago conspiracy, one of the perpetrators was in fact
>arrested by the Secret Service and Chicago Police and they found heavy
>weapons (rifle) and explosives in his automobile. As for the other
>investigations (Eschaverria) the facts of that case were classified
>until recently but I knew about the case and talked about it 40 years
>ago when no one believed me.
The HSCA certainly didn't believe him.
>We were told by the supervisor to forget
>that certain investigations ever existed and many documents were
>destroyed in order to conceal the ineptness of the secret service in
>the protection of John F. Kennedy."
>
The only ineptness I know about was in Dallas, when the SS reacted
slowly as the shooting started.
>Since I haven't got my copy of Bolden's book yet maybe Peter can check
>in the back for the court cases mentioned by Bolden above so others
>can verify this.
>
>Anybody who wants the whole e-mail correspondence with Bolden can e-
>mail me. Alex
Kudos to you for getting his response.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
> >Having read the Palamara piece, I make some observations:
>
> >* Nowhere do Bolden or Palamara address the two pieces of inculpatory
> >evidence
>
> What two pieces, please?
From the appellate court:
The defendant [Bolden] left for Washington, D.C. on May 17 to attend a
yeuhd
Did Bolden ever raise an objection to the racial composition of the jury
at either of his trials? Did he raise that objection in his appeal?
American Law Review (1 A.L.R.2d 1291):
It is recognized that an intentional, planned, and deliberate exclusion
of, or discrimination against, members of a particular political or
economic group, religious faith, race, or sex, by officers in charge of
the selection and summoning of jurors, is in contravention of the
constitutional right to jury trial and of the "due process" and "equal
protection of the law" clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal
Constitution, at least as against an accused on trial or litigant
belonging to the class or race discriminated against. Any such exclusion,
distinction, or discrimination is ground for a challenge to, or motion to
quash, the array or panel on the part of such accused or litigant.
John McAdams
Was that the law at the time of the trial, or soon thereafter?
Of course, only "intentional exclusion" counts. If a jury simply
shakes out with no minorities, that's not a constitutional issue.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:ihb854d3kcnahge7s...@4ax.com...
alexfoyle
> Uh, oh! x 3 ....
>
> .John
I am now on page 163 and you should really read the book, John. If you
don't believe Bolden as you so vocally profess (and refuse to read his
book, because you say it’s just a self serving biography) then get the
transcripts which can be found here as I pointed out before:
National Archives, 7358 South Pulaski Road, Chicago, IL (60629)
Telephone (773) 948-9001
Bolden's case # is 64 CR 324
He was obviously set up. As somebody else already said: Why would
Bolden conspire with a proven counterfeiter whom he had already
arrested twice and who was awaiting his third trial which might have
given him the life sentence? Why would Bolden try to sell this guy a
rather useless file on another counterfeiting case for $ 50.000? It
makes no sense at all. Nobody would do that.
Now I agree with you that we can argue about the reasons why Bolden
was set up by his colleagues, especially his superior Martineau.
Bolden was a very successful agent (i.e. he arrested a lot of
counterfeiters etc.) and he was black. On top of that he was at some
time on JFKs detail and the president apparently liked him and the
idea that he was the first African American protecting a president.
Moreover Bolden complained several times about the drinking and
womanizing of his fellow agents while they were on the job to his
superiors. All this clearly didn’t make him a darling in the eyes of
his colleagues.
Bolden says that when he was in Washington the day before his arrest
(in May of 1964) he tried to contact Lee Rankin at the WC to arrange a
meeting with him because he wanted to tell him about his observations
on the job. Bolden was told by his colleagues many times that they
wouldn’t let him besmirch the Secret Service with his stories about
drinking, women and lax security. So when he apparently tried to
meddle with the Dallas investigation he must have crossed a line and
he in turn was besmirched by his colleagues before he could go ahead.
The rest is in the book and in the trial transcripts.
Regarding the claims of Ed McCarthy’s article I totally agree with
your Uh, oh!. Before he provides the documents for his claims I don’t
believe a word of it either, i.e. that Vallee’s car and number plate
3110 RF were registered in Oswald’s name and that the same white Ford
Falcon was seen in Dallas on 11/22/63. If he ever provides any new
documents I will post them.
Now, for the alleged Cuban Chicago plot and the story about Homer S.
Echevarria, I think these are not wild things he is saying, but he is
recounting two incidents before Dallas happened that caught his eye.
Again, you should really read his book on this, as he never goes into
any speculations or designing of CTs. The only time where he
speculates is the story about the SS ID’s. But the fact that these
ID’s were changed around the time that Bolden says they were can
definitely be crosschecked.
You didn’t mention point 1.) in your reply. John Hurt and the alleged
Raleigh call by Oswald. Again Bolden doesn’t say “wild things about
the JFK assassination” here, but rather tells the story of how SAIC
Forrest Sorrels of Dallas called him at about 10.00 P.M. two nights
after the assassination and asked him to get every available agent to
try and track down somebody with the name of John Hurt or a
phonetically similar name. Bolden passed this on to Martineau and they
did search as requested by Sorrells. That is all Bolden says here. It
struck him strange that he couldn’t find any reference to this John
Hurt anywhere in the reports and books. But if I remember correctly
this alleged Raleigh call by Oswald has been researched quite
extensively. In any case, Bolden doesn’t diminish his credibility by
recounting these 4 incidents.
BTW, there is one obvious mistake in Bolden’s book and in McCarthy’s
article that was pointed out to me by Robin Ramsay (of Lobster
magazine) and an acquaintance of his who is familiar with the Chicago
plots. It wasn’t the Army-Navy game that JFK was to watch on his
eventually cancelled trip to Chicago on 11/2/63 but the Army-Air Force
game. Not that this has anything to do with the veracity of the rest
of the information given, but it is a research slip-up.
Alex
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 14 Jun 2008 12:58:46 -0400, alexfoyle <alex...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>On 14 Jun., 05:04, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>
>>> Vallee is not mentioned.
>>>
>>> IT is clear, however, that Bolden was railroaded.
>>>
>>> PF
>>>
>>
>>Peter, I finally got my copy of the book yesterday and I am on pages
>>54-58 where all the different plots and discrepancies are described.
>>
>>He doesn't mention Vallee, that was apparently due to concerns of the
>>legal department at the publishers, because Vallee had never been
>>charged with any crime.
>>
>>But Bolden does mention in those pages:
>>
>>1.) The hunt for John Hurt or Heard
>>2.) The apparent loss of one of the commission books of one the SS
>>agents in Dallas during their drinking party the night of the 21st.
>>Bolden speculates here, also mentioning the 'agent' on the GK who
>>allegedly flashed a leather-bound (Treasury/SS) commission book to a
>>Dallas PD officer.
>>
>
>This the the Joe Marshall Smith account, and it's far from clear that
>it was an SS ID that was flashed at him -- although he believed it
>was.
Bolden's book is 95% about his own trials and tribulations.
He is critical of the SS. And so was the WC report.
He never claims there was a conspiracy in Dallas.
Read the book.
>
>
>>3.) The call from the Chicago FBI office to the SS before JFKs visit
>>on 11/2/63 warning of two hispanics in a motel with rifles and
>>telescopic sights.
>>
>>4.) The threats against JFK just a few days before the assassination
>>by one Homer S. Echevarria.
>>
>>Points 3.) and 4.) where the two plots that Martineau, Bolden's
>>superior and SAIC in Chicago, supposedly covered up and later at the
>>HSCA denied they ever happened.
>>
>
>Uh, oh!
>
>Of course, and I'm sure you understand this, the more wild things he
>says about the JFK assassination, the less credible him claim to have
>been persecuted and unfairly prosecuted.
What wild things?
There were no threats against JFK before the assassination?
>
>>Will try to finish the book on the weekend and then post another
>>impression.
>>
>>Ed McCarthy, author of the article at Hudson Vallesy Press, got back
>>to me and says he is working on a documentary or feature film with
>>Bolden.
>>
>>At the moment he doesn't want to share his documents yet because he is
>>still in the middle of research,
>
>Uh, oh!
>
>>but says that Sherman Skolnick
>
>Uh, oh!
Do not judge Mr. Bolden by your opinion of Mr. Skolnick.
If I recall correctly, Skolnick is not mentioned in his book.
He does include comments from supporters who told him that certain
individuals (some working for Garrision) were trying to use him for
their own ends.
Read his book. There is very little mention of the assassination.
Frankly if I had been his book editor, I would have suggested a
different book title.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:27:20 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:58:44 -0500, John McAdams
>><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>One cannot check his claims by simply reading an excerpt from an
>>>>appeals court.
>>>>
>>>>That's for sure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You in fact can tell a lot from appeals court decision.
>>>
>>>Better still would be reading the transcript, checking out newspaper
>>>coverage of the trial, etc.
>>
>>
>>Yup. And reading Bolden's book.
>>
>>The guy was a highly praised SS agent without a mark on his record.
>>
>
>He says.
And he presents his evidence to back him up.
What is your evidence besides this controversial case?
>
>
>>Wife and couple of small kids. Unpretentious guy.
>>
>>
>>Bolden provides plenty of excerpts from the trial and references in
>>footnotes.
>>
>>Have you read the book?
>>
>
>No, have you?
Yes.
>
>I do know that when the HSCA took up Bolden's claims, he didn't fare
>well.
What did they say?
>
>I do trust that you know better than to accept self-serving claims in
>an autobiographical book at face value without checking them out.
I do trust you know better than to accept criticism of Bolden without
checking out his own defense. How can one judge his claims if you
don;t know what they are?
>
>That applies to autobiographies of members of any presidential
>administration, and it *certainly* applies to any book by a JFK
>assassination figure.
Bolden rarely mentions the assassination.
He discusses his life, his service in the SS, his trial, his
imprisonment, and his career following his release.
He never says there was a conspiracy in Dallas. He is critical of the
SS. So was the WC and the HSCA.
>
>I'm wondering whether Bolden has stumbled onto the fact that playing
>the race card *in addition* to playing the conspiracy card is a
>formula for getting accepted by people who would otherwise be
>critical.
In the early sixties, racial discrimination was as common as sunrise
in the U.S. Abraham Bolden was a victim of discrimination. But Bolden
also praises many people who were not racist. The book is not one long
rant about the racial incidents that he experienced. I wonder why he
"was" the first black SS agent? Ever ask yourself that question?
In addition, Bolden does not argue that there was a conspiracy in
Dallas. His comments on the assassination make up a small part of the
book.
Frankly, you could remove the sparse comments about the assassination
itself, leave in his criticism of the SS and leave the rest of the
book intact, and it would still be a moving account of this horrible
injustice.
Peter Fokes
Sigh.
Why don't you read the book?
Yes, that juror did vote to acquit.
>
>I note that essentially everything you have posted is from Bolden's
>own book.
>
Excerpts of the trial transcript could be in any book and read exactly
the SAME way.
>>
>> when the jury could not reach a
>>>decision, not at his second trial, which convicted him. Appellate
>>>court again: "[A judge's] prejudice must be shown by trial conduct; it
>>>may not be presumed or inferred from the subjective views of the
>>>judge."
>>
>
>The judge didn't express any opinion before the jury that convicted,
>did he?
The same judge ....
The same judge that made the comment "ruled" that his own comments
were ok!
The same judge presided over both trials!
Peter Fokes
>On Jun 13, 11:32 pm, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>> What does playing the racial card mean???
>
>Race card:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card
>
>"Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase referring to an allegation
>raised against a person who has brought the issue of race or racism into a
>debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to
>card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage."
Ok.
So we can rule this out.
He did not bring the issue of racism into the debate to "obfuscate"
anything. IT was a an issue!
>
>> If a black faces discrimination AND speaks up about it, is that to be
>> labelled "playing the racial card"? How ridiculous.
>
>But you're begging the question. Did Bolden ever provide evidence at trial
>that the prosecution's witnesses harbored racial prejudice against him?
Selection of the jury at the second trial is evidence that racism was
playing a role.
I'm not sure if Judge Perry would have allowed such evidence into the
trial. This was the early Sixties. Read the book.
>Under the federal rules of evidence, he was free to do so.
Ya, but your scope as a lawyer can be limited by a judge NO MATTER
what the federal rules of evidence.
The bias or
>hostility of the witness can be proved either by cross- examination of
>that witness, or by introducing extrinsic evidence (for example, the
>testimony of other witnesses, including the defendant).
Judge Perry consistently refused to allow Bolden's attorneys to
question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Hell, they committed perjury and NEVER received punishment.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:40:12 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 May 2008 23:40:22 -0500, John McAdams
>><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 May 2008 23:24:30 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>My thoughts on the Abraham Bolden case:
>>>>
>>>>1. There was sufficient evidence against him for the case to go to trial.
>>>>
>>>>2. He received a fair trial.
>>>>
>>>>3. As a Secret Service agent in the 1960s, Bolden may well have faced
>>>>racial discrimination. However, he did not show how this played any role
>>>>in his trial and conviction on corruption charges.
>>>>
>>>>4. The appellate court's refusal to overturn his conviction was based on
>>>>sound legal principles given in the decision.
>>>>
>>>>5. Bolden has played both the racial card and the Kennedy assassination
>>>>card in his book.
>>>
>>>You might want to e-mail me at this address.
>>>
>>>If you do, I'll credit you under your real name for finding that.
>>
>>Bolden provides references to trial transcripts in his book.
>>
>>No big secret.
>>
>
>The problem is what he might *not* have provided.
For example?
>
>>Some of the trial transcripts are unavailable.
>>
>>Judge Perry was one of a kind.
>>
>>>
>>>But maybe you want to remain anonymous. Your call.
>>>
>>>Again, good work, although my guess is that you did nothing more
>>>complicated than search Lexis-Nexis.
>>
>>
>>Yup. And it sheds very little light on what went on in Judge Perry's
>>courtroom.
>>
>>>
>>>But if that's all you did, isn't it interesting that none of the media
>>>outlets that are taking the Bolden story at face value bothered?
>>
>>The appeals court reasoning is included in his BOOK.
>>
>>Have you read it?
>>
>>Isn't it interesting that a few of you are willing to accept an
>>excerpt from an appeals courts decision as the be all and end all when
>>it comes to fathoming the truth about the trial of Bolden?
>>
>>Not one negative mark against him until this trumped up charge.
>>
>>
>
>You simply have reacted to Bolden the way certain people here have
>reacted to Judyth.
I will not dignify this remark with a response.
>
>You somehow can't imagine that he's presenting a very distorted
>picture of what happened.
Stop questioning my impartiality.
I am quite willing to listen to any valid criticisms of Bolden's own
words or the events in his trials.
But you have presented NONE.
You have made assumptions about what is in the book without READING
IT, and you have made a judgement based on an excerpt or two of the
appeals court ruling posted on this newsgroup.
In fact, you are the one who somehow can't imagine that there may be
some truth to Bolden's picture of what happened.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:32:58 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>wrote:
>
>>On 26 May 2008 23:24:30 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My thoughts on the Abraham Bolden case:
>>
>>Did you read his book?
>>
>>>
>>>1. There was sufficient evidence against him for the case to go to trial.
>>
>>>2. He received a fair trial.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>>
>>>3. As a Secret Service agent in the 1960s, Bolden may well have faced
>>>racial discrimination. However, he did not show how this played any role
>>>in his trial and conviction on corruption charges.
>>
>>Was he allowed to do so in court?
>>
>>Yes, there was racial discrimination in the Sixties. Duh.
>
>But against Bolden? You don't have any information on that beyond
>Bolden's book.
The selection of an all white second jury is a FACT.
>
>
>>The jury that found him guilty was all white. Many blacks were
>>dismissed during jury selection. A few for false reasons.
>>
>>
>
>And your basis for saying "false reasons" is?
False accusations against potential black jurors that were PROVEN to
be false.
>
>I'm sure you are aware that, if a black is on trial, competent defense
>counsel will try to *include* blacks -- at least blacks whom it seems
>will let the guy off.
Yes, he tried. The judge had a right to reject any juror.
>The prosecution gets to play the same game.
>
The prosecution did not approve "one" potential black juror in the
second trial. In the first trial, the one "black" juror refused to
find Bolden guilty.
>>>
>>>4. The appellate court's refusal to overturn his conviction was based on
>>>sound legal principles given in the decision.
>>
>>The appeals court danced around a number of issues.
>>
>
>According to whom?
Bolden's attorneys.
>
>
>>If you believe there is no politics is the judicial system, I'd like
>>to offer you some oceanfront property for sale in Ohio.
>>
>>Have you read his book?
>>
>
>Have your read anything *else?*
What does this mean?
I'm reading an excellent book entitled Pictures
at a Revolution. The author discusses the experiences of black actors
in the early Sixties, and how many theaters refused to show films
simply because blacks were shown in some role that white folks would
not tolerate.
I've read Caro's books on LBJ, and his efforts to speed up racial
integration.
I've read plenty of books on the subject of politics and the issue of
race in the early Sixties. The early efforts of Martin Luther King.
I've read about the Ku Klux Klan, the lynching, the deaths of 4 black
girls in a terrorist bombing at a Baptist Church in 1963 .... and on
and on...
But did you really ask because you wanted an answer or because you
wanted to make an insinuation?
>>>5. Bolden has played both the racial card and the Kennedy assassination
>>>card in his book.
>>
>>
>>What does playing the racial card mean???
>>
>>If a black faces discrimination AND speaks up about it, is that to be
>>labelled "playing the racial card"? How ridiculous.
>>
>
>But if he *wasn't* faced with racial discrimination, and makes the
>claim that he was, he is most certainly playing the race card.
Look. The main event in Bolden's life was this accusation.
The jury in the second trial AFTER a mistrial was all white.
>Unfortunately, it works with a lot of people, who can't fathom the
>politically incorrect notion that bogus claims may be made by blacks,
>or on behalf of blacks.
I suppose some people cannot fathom such a thing.
But I am part of a racially mixed family.
I can fathom all sorts of bogus claims by blacks against blacks,
whites against blacks, or any colour skin against any colour skin.
That fact has nothing to do with my opinion on the Bolden trial.
>>Duh. He was personally involved in some of the investigative issues
>>pertaining to the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>Have you read his book?
>>
>
>Have you read what the HSCA said about him? Those folks found it
>lacked credibility.
No. What did they say?
>
>That should be the tipoff that you need to read his book a bit
>critically.
IS this the same HSCA who determined there was a conspiracy in the
assassination of JFK?
Lol
alexfoyle
>
> Do you know that the black juror voted to acquit? Or are you simply
> assuming that?
>
that day said on the ABC evening news (of 11th July of 1964):
"They have nothing on that agent, as far as I could see. The whole
thing seems like a made-up case to me. I sat through the whole trial,
and his race had nothing to do with how I voted. I went by the
evidence as it was presented by the government, and they did not prove
their case beyond a reasonable doubt. He (Bolden) did as he was told
to do with the report, and nobody showed me that he ever had any
report to sell. I'm not going to take the word of two confessed
criminals over the word of that agent."
> The judge didn't express any opinion before the jury that convicted,
> did he?
Oh yes, he did. The jury came back several times because Mrs.
Hightower and at times also a woman of Hispanic descent wouldn't find
Bolden guilty. That's why Judge Perry then cited the jurors and read
to them the so-called Allen charge which is done when a jury is
deadlocked. He can do that if both sides agree to this. Bolden's
attorney objected, but was overruled by Perry. After Perry read the
Allen charge he (now we take it from Bolden's book on page 161): "rose
from his seat. He stood behind his bench and raised his arms as if to
make some kind of benediction. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury", he
said, scowling. "I will now exercise a prerogative that I have as a
judge that I seldom exercise. I will express to you and comment upon
the evidence. In my opinion, the evidence sustains a verdict of guilty
on counts one, two and three of the indictment.""
Mrs. Hightower still wouldn't find Bolden guilty and that was why that
first trial was then declared a mistrial.
If you don't believe all this, because it is taken from Bolden's book
then go get the trial transcripts and prove otherwise since all Bolden
says in his book is taken from those same transcripts.
Alex
alexfoyle
>
> Did Bolden ever raise an objection to the racial composition of the jury
> at either of his trials? Did he raise that objection in his appeal?
He tried at the second trial but is own attorney, George Howard,
advised against it. Howard had been Bolden's fraternity brother at
Lincoln University and Bolden had placed his trust in him although he
obviously lacked experience in some areas. During the second trial
Howard was really worn out by Judge Perry and wasn't as good a defense
as in the first trial. With regards to not objecting to the racial
composition of the jury he told a protesting Bolden later:
"The color of the jury doesn't make any difference, Abe. I've seen
black jurors convict black defendants and white juries find them not
guilty. I have faith in the American judicial system, and I believe
that given all of the facts of this case, any jury is going to find
you not guilty." (The Echo from Dealey Plaza, Abraham Bolden, page
175).
I am not sure if he raised that objection in his appeal, will check.
yeuhd
> >American Law Review (1 A.L.R.2d 1291):
>
> >It is recognized that an intentional, planned, and deliberate exclusion
> >of, or discrimination against, members of a particular political or
> >economic group, religious faith, race, or sex, by officers in charge of
> >the selection and summoning of jurors, is in contravention of the
> >constitutional right to jury trial and of the "due process" and "equal
> >protection of the law" clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal
> >Constitution, at least as against an accused on trial or litigant
> >belonging to the class or race discriminated against. Any such exclusion,
> >distinction, or discrimination is ground for a challenge to, or motion to
> >quash, the array or panel on the part of such accused or litigant.
>
> Was that the law at the time of the trial, or soon thereafter?
Neal v. State of Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 [U.S. Supreme Court]
U.S.Del.,1880
While a colored citizen, party to a trial involving his life, liberty
or property cannot claim as a matter of right that his race shall have
representation on the jury and while a mixed jury in a particular case
is not within the meaning of the constitution absolutely necessary to
the equal protection of the law, it is a right to which the colored
citizen is entitled that there shall be no exclusion of his race and
no discrimination against them because of their color.
yeuhd
Were any of those colleagues witnesses for the prosecution at Bolden's
trial?
If so, did Bolden ever present evidence of this at either of his
trials (e.g., through the testimony of other witnesses, including
himself, or by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses about this)?
If these colleagues were not witnesses for the prosecution, how is it
relevant?
yeuhd
> >I do know that when the HSCA took up Bolden's claims, he didn't fare
> >well.
>
> What did they say?
Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of
Representatives, p. 231-232:
In addition, the committee obtained the testimony of a former Secret
Service agent, Abraham Bolden, who had been assigned to the Chicago
office in 1963. He alleged that shortly before November 2, the FBI
sent a teletype message to the Chicago Secret Service office stating
that an attempt to assassinate the President would be made on November
2 by a four-man team using high-powered rifles, and that at least one
member of the team had a Spanish-sounding name.(61) Bolden claimed
that while he did not personally participate in surveillance of the
subjects, he learned about a surveillance of the four by monitoring
Secret Service radio channels in his automobile and by observing one
of the subjects being detained in his Chicago office.(62)
According to Bolden's account, the Secret Service succeeded in
locating and surveillance two of the threat subjects who,(63) when
they discovered they were being watched, were arrested and detained on
the evening of November 1 in the Chicago Secret Service office.(64)
The committee was unable to document the existence of the alleged
assassination team. Specifically, no agent who had been assigned to
Chicago confirmed any aspect of Bolden's version.(65) One agent did
state there had been a threat in Chicago during that period, but he
was unable to recall details.(66) Bolden did not link Vallee to the
supposed four-man assassination team, although he claimed to remember
Vallee's name in connection with a 1963 Chicago case. (67) He did not
recognize Vallee's photograph when shown it by the committee. (68)
The questionable authenticity of the Bolden account notwithstanding,
the committee believed the Secret Service failed to make appropriate
use of the information supplied it by the Chicago threat in early
November 1963.
yeuhd
> > The judge didn't express any opinion before the jury that convicted,
> > did he?
>
> Oh yes, he did. The jury came back several times because Mrs.
> Hightower and at times also a woman of Hispanic descent wouldn't find
> Bolden guilty. That's why Judge Perry then cited the jurors and read
> to them the so-called Allen charge which is done when a jury is
> deadlocked. He can do that if both sides agree to this. Bolden's
> attorney objected, but was overruled by Perry. After Perry read the
> Allen charge he (now we take it from Bolden's book on page 161): "rose
> from his seat. He stood behind his bench and raised his arms as if to
> make some kind of benediction. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury", he
> said, scowling. "I will now exercise a prerogative that I have as a
> judge that I seldom exercise. I will express to you and comment upon
> the evidence. In my opinion, the evidence sustains a verdict of guilty
> on counts one, two and three of the indictment.""
>
> Mrs. Hightower still wouldn't find Bolden guilty and that was why that
> first trial was then declared a mistrial.
Yes, that was the first trial that resulted in a hung jury, *not* the
second trial that convicted Bolden. Mrs. Hightower was a juror at the
*first* trial. How could you make such a basic error with your "Oh
yes, he did" above? John McAdams was correct.
yeuhd
> On 14 Jun 2008 16:45:40 -0400, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 13, 11:32 pm, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
> >> What does playing the racial card mean???
>
> >Race card:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card
>
> >"Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase referring to an allegation
> >raised against a person who has brought the issue of race or racism into a
> >debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to
> >card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage."
>
> Ok.
>
> So we can rule this out.
>
> He did not bring the issue of racism into the debate to "obfuscate"
> anything. IT was a an issue!
Was it? Did Bolden ever mention race during either of his trials, or
in his appeal?
> >> If a black faces discrimination AND speaks up about it, is that to be
> >> labelled "playing the racial card"? How ridiculous.
>
> >But you're begging the question. Did Bolden ever provide evidence at trial
> >that the prosecution's witnesses harbored racial prejudice against him?
>
> Selection of the jury at the second trial is evidence that racism was
> playing a role.
Did Bolden object to the jury selection process at the time? Yes, he
might have been overruled by the judge, but the defendant
unquestionably had the right to object. The right to have a jury
selection process untainted by racial prejudice was established by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the 1880s, with a long history of case law since
then in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. The first step is for the
defendant to object to the process during jury selection. If the judge
overrules the objection, that is grounds for an appeal to a higher
court. So far, I have seen no evidence that Bolden objected to the
jury selection process at either of his trials, or made such a claim
in his appeal.
> I'm not sure if Judge Perry would have allowed such evidence into the
> trial. This was the early Sixties. Read the book.
>
> >Under the federal rules of evidence, he was free to do so.
>
> Ya, but your scope as a lawyer can be limited by a judge NO MATTER
> what the federal rules of evidence.
I'm not talking about what *could* have happened, I'm asking what
defendant Bolden and Judge Perry actually *did*.
> > The bias or
> >hostility of the witness can be proved either by cross- examination of
> >that witness, or by introducing extrinsic evidence (for example, the
> >testimony of other witnesses, including the defendant).
>
> Judge Perry consistently refused to allow Bolden's attorneys to
> question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Does the trial record show that Bolden was prevented from cross
examining the witnesses on *this* issue, the possible racial bias of
the witness? Please quote the passage.
alexfoyle
> Yes, that was the first trial that resulted in a hung jury, *not* the
> second trial that convicted Bolden. Mrs. Hightower was a juror at the
> *first* trial. How could you make such a basic error with your "Oh
> yes, he did" above? John McAdams was correct.
Because John was referring to the first trial, read the thread. There
was nothing for John to be correct about in the first place.
He claimed that Peter just assumed the juror who wouldn't find Bolden
guilty was black. Indeed she was black.
There were no black jurors at the second trial.
And Judge Perry didn't declare Bolden guilty in front of the jury
again at the second trial, no. Bad enough that he was even allowed to
sit at the second trial.
But some speculate that he also influenced the jury of the second
trial when he locked everybody out of the courtroom in the afternoon
after the jury's deliberations with only the governments attorneys,
the SS agents, the jury and himself left in the courtroom. Officially
he had closed the courtroom for the day, the jury hadn't reached a
verdict yet and the deliberations should continue in the morning. But
when Bolden drove home that evening he heard on the radio that the
jury had indeed reached a verdict, that it was sealed and that it
would be read the next day at 9.00 in the morning. And thus Bolden was
convicted of a crime he did not commit.
alexfoyle
>
> Were any of those colleagues witnesses for the prosecution at Bolden's
> trial?
> If so, did Bolden ever present evidence of this at either of his
> trials (e.g., through the testimony of other witnesses, including
> himself, or by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses about this)?
> If these colleagues were not witnesses for the prosecution, how is it
> relevant?
The tensions between Bolden and the SS really crystallized in his
relationship with his superior SAIC Martineau, who was also an important
witness against him. Read Boldens book regarding Martineaus testimony
(pages 114-166) or the transcripts of U.S. v. Bolden, pages 688-707.
Then there was agent Conrad Cross who also testified against Bolden at the
first trial. Cross was black like Bolden, but nevertheless told an
incriminating lie about Bolden to the Court according to Bolden.
Finally there was fellow agent John Russell who testified in both trials
but not incriminating Bolden.
yeuhd
> On 15 Jun., 22:16, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, that was the first trial that resulted in a hung jury, *not* the
> > second trial that convicted Bolden. Mrs. Hightower was a juror at the
> > *first* trial. How could you make such a basic error with your "Oh
> > yes, he did" above? John McAdams was correct.
>
> Because John was referring to the first trial, read the thread. There
> was nothing for John to be correct about in the first place.
No, John was not. Read the thread. Here is what John wrote: "The judge
didn't express any opinion before the jury that convicted, did he?" And
this was your reply: "Oh yes, he did." Then you proceeded to talk about
the *first* trial, even though John had referred to the jury that
convicted, i.e., the *second* trial.
alexfoyle
>
> No, John was not. Read the thread. Here is what John wrote: "The judge
> didn't express any opinion before the jury that convicted, did he?" And
> this was your reply: "Oh yes, he did." Then you proceeded to talk about
> the *first* trial, even though John had referred to the jury that
> convicted, i.e., the *second* trial.
OK, you are right, I read Johns sentence the wrong way, I apologize
(twice).
Nonetheless in that case John made it sound like Judge Perry refrained
from finding him guilty in front of the jury a second time as if that
would make Bolden's eventual conviction more lawful.
As I said in my other reply, I think it is scandal that Perry was even
allowed to sit on the second trial after what he did at the first one.
Perry even denied the defense's motion that he himself should be
substituted due to the comments he made at the first trial. See U.S.
v. Bolden, motion for substitute judge, pages 5-6, July 31, 1964.
And then there is the story of Perry locking everybody out of the
courtroom with only him, the jury, the state prosecutors and the SS
agents left inside at the end of the second trial, as pointed out in
an earlier thread.
yeuhd
When I wrote "those colleagues" I was referring to your statement,
"Bolden was told by his colleagues many times that they wouldn’t let
him besmirch the Secret Service with his stories about drinking, women
and lax security." Which colleagues told him that many times? This
would be evidence of bias or hostility against the defendant if any of
those particular colleagues testified for the prosecution.
Did Bolden make any attempt to introduce evidence, at either of his
trials, of the prosecution witnesses' bias or hostility? (And I'm not
asking what he or the judge *might* have done — no hypotheticals,
please — I'm asking what Bolden actually did.)
alexfoyle
>
> The tensions between Bolden and the SS really crystallized in his
> relationship with his superior SAIC Martineau, who was also an important
> witness against him. Read Boldens book regarding Martineaus testimony
> (pages 114-166) or the transcripts of U.S. v. Bolden, pages 688-707.
>
(not all the way to 166, a typo).
alexfoyle
> It certainly might, if it is both material and true.
It is true. Check U.S. Court of Appeals (Case 14907), October, 1965,
7th circuit.
Judge Hastings had to ask Sikes twice, because Sikes wanted to make
some statement instead ("Your Honor, I want to say ..."). Hastings
interrupted Sikes and said: "Either you did or you did not. This
question needs to be answered now so that this court can make a fair
ruling concerning this issue on appeal. I ask the question again: did
you solicit perjured testimony by Joseph Spagnioli in any of the
Bolden trials before the court of District Judge J. Sam Perry?"
Sikes said: "Your honor, I refuse to answer that question on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me."
> I thought Spagnoli was some sort of sleazy character?
> Now his word is gospel?
Why gospel? He said he gave perjured evidence as demanded by Sikes.
Check U.S. v. D'Antonio et al., 64 CR 300, pages 6269-6286.
Are you implying that Spagnioli now conspired with Bolden to get
Sikes? That's easily refuted by Sikes taking the 5th. Please read
Bolden's book and/or the transcripts.
> The only ineptness I know about was in Dallas, when the SS reacted
> slowly as the shooting started.
Bolden never said anything about ineptness in Dallas, he talked about
the general ineptness of the SS. One example: When Bolden was
complaining to U.E. Baughman, the then chief of the U.S. SS, about his
many unpleasant observations on the job he recounted how "at one
point, when the president went to the State Department auditorium for
a news conference, another agent handed me an AR-15 automatic weapon.
When I told him that I didn't know how to operate the weapon, the
agent just smiled and said, "Fake it."" (Bolden's book, page 42)
And, as you know the HSCA also thought that the SS was "deficient in
the performance of its duties". See here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0129a.htm
Although the HSCA found the authenticity of Bolden's accounts of the
Chicago plots "questionable", they did believe that "the SS failed to
make appropriate use of the information supllied it by the Chicago
threat in early November 1963".
(see: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0131b.htm)
> Kudos to you for getting his response.
> .John
A pleasure, Alex
yeuhd
> As I said in my other reply, I think it is scandal that Perry was even
> allowed to sit on the second trial after what he did at the first one.
> Perry even denied the defense's motion that he himself should be
> substituted due to the comments he made at the first trial. See U.S.
> v. Bolden, motion for substitute judge, pages 5-6, July 31, 1964.
It may seem that way to a layperson. But as the appellate court
pointed out:
A federal judge may, in his discretion, comment upon the evidence or,
in exceptional cases, express an opinion of the guilt of the accused.
United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381
(1933); United States v. Gibas, 300 F.2d 836 (7th Cir.), cert.
denied,
371 U.S. 817, 83 S.Ct. 32, 9 L.Ed.2d 58 (1962).
As you can see from the legal citations above, no less than the U.S.
Supreme Court has confirmed this prerogative.
> And then there is the story of Perry locking everybody out of the
> courtroom with only him, the jury, the state prosecutors and the SS
> agents left inside at the end of the second trial, as pointed out in
> an earlier thread.
I find this claim extraordinary. Does the record bear this out? If
Bolden was not informed of this court hearing beforehand, and no
transcript was kept of it (was any?), that alone would be grounds for
Bolden to move for a mistrial. Did Bolden move for a mistrial at his
sentencing? Did Bolden mention this event in his appellate brief?
Peter Fokes
>On 15 Jun., 22:16, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that was the first trial that resulted in a hung jury, *not* the
>> second trial that convicted Bolden. Mrs. Hightower was a juror at the
>> *first* trial. How could you make such a basic error with your "Oh
>> yes, he did" above? John McAdams was correct.
>
>Because John was referring to the first trial, read the thread. There
>was nothing for John to be correct about in the first place.
>
>He claimed that Peter just assumed the juror who wouldn't find Bolden
>guilty was black. Indeed she was black.
>
>There were no black jurors at the second trial.
With the help of Judge Perry.
>
>And Judge Perry didn't declare Bolden guilty in front of the jury
>again at the second trial, no. Bad enough that he was even allowed to
>sit at the second trial.
>
>But some speculate that he also influenced the jury of the second
>trial when he locked everybody out of the courtroom in the afternoon
>after the jury's deliberations with only the governments attorneys,
>the SS agents, the jury and himself left in the courtroom.
Officially
>he had closed the courtroom for the day, the jury hadn't reached a
>verdict yet and the deliberations should continue in the morning. But
>when Bolden drove home that evening he heard on the radio that the
>jury had indeed reached a verdict, that it was sealed and that it
>would be read the next day at 9.00 in the morning. And thus Bolden was
>convicted of a crime he did not commit.
Too bad these critics refuse to read Bolden's book.
They would find answers to many of their questions.
Borrow it from a library.
I don't get it.
John tells me to be more "critical" of the book.
He is telling how to read a book that he refuses to read!
lol
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
The judge did express "an" opinion BEFORE the jury that convicted
Bolden.
He expressed that opinion by simply sitting as judge in the second
trial.
His comment to the jurors in the first trial was reported.
The same judge ruled that his own comments to the first jury were ok
preceding the second trial.
Then he proceeded to preside over the second trial.
He DID NOT tell the second jury to specifically "IGNORE" any comments
that they might have heard or read about his own comments on Bolden's
guilt to the first jury. And if you say he did, provide the evidence.
The judge's comment about Bolden's guilt were a matter of public
knowledge BEFORE the second jury began deliberations under the SAME
judge.
It is likely each prospective juror was NOT asked if he or she knew
about the judge's comments about Bolden's guilt BEFORE being selected
for the second trial BECAUSE if they were, it could have prejudiced
their opinion before the trial began.
Thus no due diligence was taken to ENSURE that none of the jurors had
heard the judge's comments about Bolden's guilt to the first jury.
Thus we cannot answer John's question about what the second jury knew
about the judge's prior comments about Bolden's guilt. But if some of
them did know about those comments, it would be the same as having the
judge state that opinion BEFORE the jury that convicted Bolden.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
alexfoyle
> As you can see from the legal citations above, no less than the U.S.
> Supreme Court has confirmed this prerogative.
Yes, you have stated this several times now (not that it makes the
judge and his decision to do so look any better, though), but I
referred to the scandal that Perry was allowed to sit again on
Bolden’s retrial.
How many times in U.S. judicial history has a judge expressed his
opinion of guilt so expressly to the jury and then this same judge was
allowed to sit on the retrial of the same case?
> I find this claim extraordinary. Does the record bear this out? If
> Bolden was not informed of this court hearing beforehand, and no
> transcript was kept of it (was any?), that alone would be grounds for
> Bolden to move for a mistrial. Did Bolden move for a mistrial at his
> sentencing? Did Bolden mention this event in his appellate brief?
From Bolden’s book (pages 184-185): "Around noon on August 11 (1964),
after denying our motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, the
judge charged the jury and sent them off to deliberate. I had expected
a quick verdict, given everything the judge had done to ensure my
conviction, but by the end of the afternoon, the jury still hadn't
finished. (...) Finally, at about 5.30 P.M., the judge called the
opposing attorneys into the courtroom, where the attorneys assembled
in front of his bench. "It's been a long day, and it is getting late.
I'm tired, and I'm going to close the courtroom for tonight and go
home and get some sleep. We will meet back here tomorrow morning at
9.00 A.M. and the jury will continue its deliberations at that time.
If there are no objections, the jury will seal its verdict until the
attorneys can be gathered and the verdict can be read in open court.
I'm going to close the courtroom now, and I will advise the jury of my
decision." Perry then instructed the prosecutor Arthur Dunne to see
that the courtroom was emptied."
Left in the courtroom were the jury, the prosecutors and the judge.
The SS agents were also led out of the courtroom, but were allowed to
stay in the building, while Bolden and his lawyer had to leave the
building which was locked behind them. Bolden complained to his lawyer
Howard, but to no avail.
Regarding the court record on this, Bolden says (page 293): "No
transcript of the judge's remarks can be found; however, a copy of the
judge's notes prepared for the clerk of the court are in the judge's
handwriting and confirm that on August 11, 1964, "jury instructed,
alternate juror discharged & Marshals sworn. Jury to consider of its
verdict. By agreement jury to sign, seal, & separate & polling of jury
waived." No transcript of any of the judge's instructions or
conversations with the deliberating jury can be found in the official
records and transcripts of the August trial. Mysteriously, there are
no transcripts of any communications between the judge and the jury
between the closing-argument phase of the trial on August 11 and the
opening of the sealed verdict on August 12, 1964."
Finally, Bolden's lawyer told a complaining Bolden when they were
locked out of the court building that Perry "can run his courtroom any
way he wants to ..." (page 186). As pointed out before George Howard,
Bolden’s attorney, apparently didn't do his best job on the retrial.
And, btw, this was the last time I copy lengthy parts out of Bolden’s
book. You can read it, too, and get a feeling of the dynamics at both
trials and make up your own mind about the case.
For me it is completely clear, that Bolden was set up and that the two
trials in front of Perry were a sham. Worse yet, the Court of Appeals
decision on Bolden was a gross miscarriage of justice in my eyes. See
Bolden’s book pages 215-222 or U.S. v. A.W. Bolden, case 14907, 355 F.
2d 453 (7th Cir. 1965).
yeuhd
No, there are neutral ways to ask. During the jury selection process,
prospective jurors could be asked, by Bolden's counsel, if they had
read or heard anything about Judge Perry's "opinion of the evidence"
in the first trial. But the issue is a non-starter, because Judge
Perry had the legal prerogative to give his opinion of the evidence in
either of the trials.
alexfoyle
> Did Bolden make any attempt to introduce evidence, at either of his
> trials, of the prosecution witnesses' bias or hostility? (And I'm not
> asking what he or the judge *might* have done — no hypotheticals,
> please — I'm asking what Bolden actually did.)
No he did not. Blame his lawyer, I guess.
His tensions were mainly with Martineau and he was the one who warned
him repeatedly. As you say, I am a layperson, but I assume that Bolden
would have to prove the bias or hostility of Martineau to the court.
How would he do that? It would be his word against Martineau’s. And we
know that Judge Perry believed the prosecution and the SS, not Bolden.
The other agent was Conrad Cross. Two weeks before Bolden went to
Washington and during the Spring of 1964 he told Cross several times
that he would tell the WC about the lax security of the SS and his
other observations. Cross didn't like that and must have told
Martineau about it, because Bolden was taken back to Chicago on false
premises the same day he tried to contact Rankin in Washington, so it
appears as though Martineau anticipated Bolden's move in Washington
due to the warning of Cross. Both Martineau and Cross lied in court to
incriminate Bolden, according to Bolden.
yeuhd
> > As you can see from the legal citations above, no less than the U.S.
> > Supreme Court has confirmed this prerogative.
>
> Yes, you have stated this several times now (not that it makes the
> judge and his decision to do so look any better, though), but I
> referred to the scandal that Perry was allowed to sit again on
> Bolden’s retrial.
Since a federal judge is not only allowed to have an opinion on the
evidence, but can at his discretion express that opinion to the jury,
how is it a "scandal" that Judge Perry was allowed to sit again on the
retrial. The implication there is that he somehow committed an
indiscretion that made him unfit. Legally, he did no such thing.
> How many times in U.S. judicial history has a judge expressed his
> opinion of guilt so expressly to the jury and then this same judge was
> allowed to sit on the retrial of the same case?
Again, that implies that it is an illegal indiscretion. It's not.
> Finally, Bolden's lawyer told a complaining Bolden when they were
> locked out of the court building that Perry "can run his courtroom any
> way he wants to ..." (page 186). As pointed out before George Howard,
> Bolden’s attorney, apparently didn't do his best job on the retrial.
Did Bolden raise this issue in his appellate brief?
Again and again, Bolden complains today about legal issues that he
never raised at either of his trials, or in his appellate brief.
alexfoyle
> Again, that implies that it is an illegal indiscretion. It's not.
I didn't necessarily try to imply that, I asked you a question. Does
that happen often?
So you say it is perfectly legal for a judge who told the jury that
the defendant is guilty to sit on the retrial of the same case
although the defense had asked for a substitute judge (which the same
judge denied)?
I don't think that that happened or happens often in U.S. legal
practice and moreover shouldn't be desired nor defended by anybody
placing his trust in the U.S. judicial system. Although that is legal,
as you say, it still stinks.
> Again and again, Bolden complains today about legal issues that he
> never raised at either of his trials, or in his appellate brief.
I did point out several instances in this thread to you on how Bolden
tried and did complain at his trials and to his lawyers. Blame the
lawyers, as I said, but not Bolden, he didn’t have a choice nor a
chance given the circumstances at the time.
If you and John want to continue to believe that he received a fair
trial and was rightfully convicted after all that has been presented
here then that is your opinion and fine, although you both still seem
to refuse to read his book and therefore might have a one-sided view
of the story. And before John or you accuse me of only reading and
quoting from Bolden’s book, like when John criticized Peter for just
that, let me say that I have now read well over 300 A4 pages on
everything that could be found about Bolden on the net, through other
researchers and in the archives, plus his book. The man was set up and
put in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Thus my opinion is clear, too, and I will open up another thread if Ed
McCarthy ever provides the documents he alluded to in his article at
Hudson Valley Press, which started this thread.
Bolden himself had surgery recently and might be mailing me some more
comments on what was said as soon as he is better. But I think that
everything regarding Bolden’s case and his trials has been said,
really.
Peter Fokes
John assumes I have not read anything else on Bolden because I do not
share his opinion of Bolden!
In fact, John does not know.
>Thus my opinion is clear, too, and I will open up another thread if Ed
>McCarthy ever provides the documents he alluded to in his article at
>Hudson Valley Press, which started this thread.
>
>Bolden himself had surgery recently and might be mailing me some more
>comments on what was said as soon as he is better. But I think that
>everything regarding Bolden’s case and his trials has been said,
>really.
Thanks for your time and effort.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
yeuhd
> I didn't necessarily try to imply that, I asked you a question. Does
> that happen often?
I have no idea.
> So you say it is perfectly legal for a judge who told the jury that
> the defendant is guilty to sit on the retrial of the same case
> although the defense had asked for a substitute judge (which the same
> judge denied)?
The appellate court that heard Bolden's appeal put it best:
An opinion as to what the evidence has demonstrated cannot be equated with
personal bias. Trial judges are invariably called upon to conduct
impartial trials despite whatever opinion they may have or which they may
formulate during the course of the trial concerning the guilt or innocence
of an accused. Such impartiality is precisely what is expected of them,
and an experienced trial judge must be assumed capable of performing his
essential function. In short, prejudice must be shown by trial conduct; it
may not be presumed or inferred from the subjective views of the judge.