What led to suspicion of Oswald?
diamonddavemon
I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
as the assassin. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
David
bigdog
About a half hour after the shooting, supervisor Roy Truly noticed
that Oswald was not among the employees being interogated by the
police and soon determined that Oswald was not on the premises. Truly
notified the police of this fact. This was probably shortly after
Oswald had killed Tippit. Oswald's absence is what made him a suspect
initially. When reports of the Tippit shooting came in, there was some
suspiscion that the two murders might be related although no one could
be certain at the time. Oswald was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit
murder initially but when it was learned he was also the missing TSBD
employee, they began to connect the dots. When police traced the
purchase of the assassination rifle to A. Hiddell, which was the name
on the phoney Selective Service card Oswald was carrying when
arrested, that pretty much clinched it for them. More incriminating
evidence kept piling up as time passed and it all pointed to Oswald.
davidemerling
The first thing that caused the DPD to suspect Oswald of the
assassination of the president was when he was captured for the
shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit. Shortly afterwards, it was determined
that Oswald was the only Depository employee missing. That only
served to solidify that suspicion. Then they discovered the rifle on
the 6th floor and quickly traced it to him. At that point in time it
was not clear as to whether there were OTHER shooters or whether there
was a conspiracy of some sort. But one thing was pretty clear - Oswald
was involved and the likelihood of him being one of the shooters was
extremely high.
Prints were discovered on the rifle and on the boxes surrounding the
sniper's nest. This was all discovered on November 22nd, the day of
the shooting.
Oswald's alibi did not hold up.
They discovered a photograph of him with both murder weapons. Oswald
denied owning a rifle - a clear lie indicating consciousness of guilt.
Oswald lied about carrying a package to work that morning.
Had Oswald lived, he would have been convicted easily.
Some people think that most of the popular conspiratorial points would
have come up in a trial - creating reasonable doubt. That is doubtful.
The problem is that many of these wild ideas are without any
foundation. Legally, you cannot suggest something to the jury that has
no evidentiary basis. The defense is not free to suggest alternative
possibilities without laying a foundation for those alternatives.
They can argue against the prosecution's evidence. They can assert
their client's innocence. But they cannot, for instance, suggest that
the mafia was responsible for the assassination without FIRST having
some reasonable basis for suggesting such a thing. The judge would
have to determine whether the defense should be allowed to suggest
that alternative. The same thing with suggesting that CIA was
involved. On what basis is such claim made?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 24, 11:24 pm, diamonddavemon<diamonddave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
>> so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
>> documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
>> any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
>> as the assassin. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> David
>
> The first thing that caused the DPD to suspect Oswald of the
> assassination of the president was when he was captured for the
> shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit. Shortly afterwards, it was determined
Juvenile nonsense. No one ever said a word about the President. Oswald was
sitting in the homicide office being questioned about the Tippit murder
and they weren't even sure who he really was. They had absolutely no hint
that that he was involved in the President's assassination. Then someone
walked in to inform them that they were looking for a guy named Lee Oswald
who was missing from the TSBD and was a suspect in the President's
assassination. That's when someone noticed that they already had a Lee
Oswald in custody.
> that Oswald was the only Depository employee missing. That only
> served to solidify that suspicion. Then they discovered the rifle on
You WC defenders keep repeating this nonsense as if it is proof. Oswald
was NOT the only TSBD employee missing. You've been corrected about this
hundreds of time, so why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Propaganda.
> the 6th floor and quickly traced it to him. At that point in time it
> was not clear as to whether there were OTHER shooters or whether there
> was a conspiracy of some sort. But one thing was pretty clear - Oswald
> was involved and the likelihood of him being one of the shooters was
> extremely high.
>
And the police were still looking for a black man who helped Oswald.
> Prints were discovered on the rifle and on the boxes surrounding the
> sniper's nest. This was all discovered on November 22nd, the day of
> the shooting.
>
Meaningless. Of course Oswald's prints were on that rifle. It was his
rifle. Of course Oswald's prints were on the boxes. He worked in that
building. You didn't even specify it was Oswald's prints. You just said
prints. A lot of other prints were found also, so you would have to claim
that all those other people were equally guilty. You may as well note that
the Sun was shining that day as proof of Oswald's guilt.
> Oswald's alibi did not hold up.
>
Which alibi?
> They discovered a photograph of him with both murder weapons. Oswald
> denied owning a rifle - a clear lie indicating consciousness of guilt.
> Oswald lied about carrying a package to work that morning.
>
We don't know if Oswald denied owning a rifle. You base your opinions of
DPD lies. So their obvious lies indicate consciousness of guilt?
> Had Oswald lived, he would have been convicted easily.
>
Anyone would be easily convicted by Wade who had 25 death penalty
convictions out of 26 cases and a history of convicting innocent men.
> Some people think that most of the popular conspiratorial points would
> have come up in a trial - creating reasonable doubt. That is doubtful.
Did you ever read any history in school? Nope? Did you ever hear of the
Drefyus case? Oswald would have been the Dryfus case of the 20th Century.
Mark Lane would have been the Emile Zola on appeal. His conviction would
have been overturned based on prosecutorial misconduct and manufacturing
of evidence, and suborning perjury. Just before his retrial Oswald would
have been gunned down by some nightclub owner with ties to the Mafia.
> The problem is that many of these wild ideas are without any
> foundation. Legally, you cannot suggest something to the jury that has
> no evidentiary basis. The defense is not free to suggest alternative
> possibilities without laying a foundation for those alternatives.
>
> They can argue against the prosecution's evidence. They can assert
> their client's innocence. But they cannot, for instance, suggest that
> the mafia was responsible for the assassination without FIRST having
> some reasonable basis for suggesting such a thing. The judge would
> have to determine whether the defense should be allowed to suggest
> that alternative. The same thing with suggesting that CIA was
> involved. On what basis is such claim made?
>
So your idea is that the CIA can not even be mentioned unless you have a
notarized confession from the CIA?
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 25, 12:24 am, diamonddavemon<diamonddave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
>> so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
>> documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
>> any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
>> as the assassin. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> David
>
> About a half hour after the shooting, supervisor Roy Truly noticed
> that Oswald was not among the employees being interogated by the
> police and soon determined that Oswald was not on the premises. Truly
> notified the police of this fact. This was probably shortly after
> Oswald had killed Tippit. Oswald's absence is what made him a suspect
> initially. When reports of the Tippit shooting came in, there was some
> suspiscion that the two murders might be related although no one could
Yeah sure, in your mind. I supposed someone also linked a bank robbery
in Canada to the Kennedy assassination or someone robbing a gas station
in Fort Worth.
> be certain at the time. Oswald was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit
> murder initially but when it was learned he was also the missing TSBD
> employee, they began to connect the dots. When police traced the
Oswald was sitting in the damn Homicide office when someone came in to
tell them that they were looking for a guy named Lee Oswald in
connection with the Kennedy assassination.
> purchase of the assassination rifle to A. Hiddell, which was the name
> on the phoney Selective Service card Oswald was carrying when
Yes, but they didn't go looking for that name. They searched for the
serial number and that popped up the name Hidell.
The Dutchman
> On 12/25/2009 11:43 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > About a half hour after the shooting, supervisor Roy Truly noticed
> > that Oswald was not among the employees being interogated by the
> > police and soon determined that Oswald was not on the premises. Truly
> > notified the police of this fact. This was probably shortly after
> > Oswald had killed Tippit. Oswald's absence is what made him a suspect
> > initially. When reports of the Tippit shooting came in, there was some
> > suspiscion that the two murders might be related although no one could
>
> Yeah sure, in your mind. I supposed someone also linked a bank robbery
> in Canada to the Kennedy assassination or someone robbing a gas station
> in Fort Worth.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
"A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to
make it appear weaker than it actually is..."
yeuhd
> On 12/25/2009 11:44 AM, davidemerling wrote:
> > that Oswald was the only Depository employee missing. That only
> > served to solidify that suspicion. Then they discovered the rifle on
>
> You WC defenders keep repeating this nonsense as if it is proof. Oswald
> was NOT the only TSBD employee missing. You've been corrected about this
> hundreds of time, so why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Propaganda.
Lee Oswald and Charles Givens were the only TSBD employees who were
missing from work after the assassination. There were other people who
worked in the TSBD building (employees of various publishers) who were
missing, but they did not work for the TSBD, and thus were not the
concern of TSBD supervisor Roy Truly. Truly had seen Givens outside
walking away from the building shortly before the assassination, but
he had seen Oswald *inside* the building shortly after the
assassination, so Truly thought it was odd that he didn't see Oswald
around now a few minutes later. He hesitated a while, consulted with
other TSBD personnel, then told the police of Oswald's absence.
From the WC testimony of Roy Truly, discussing his return to the first
floor of the building after he accompanied Officer Baker in a search
for the sniper on the roof and upper floors:
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes — it could have been moments or
minutes at a time like that — I noticed some of my boys were over in
the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several
officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other
employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was
not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other
warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell — I asked Bill Shelley if he had
seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and
he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here
missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had
another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there
or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said,
"Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
. . . .
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was
missing.
. . . .
Mr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that [Charles] Givens was not
there afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn't there at the time of the shooting because
I had seen him walk across the street — up the street.
. . . .
Mr. BALL. Now, what did you tell Chief Lumpkin when you came down from
the roof of the building?
Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin
that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean
anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other
warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could
get — quickly get his address in Irving and his general description,
so I could be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston
Street, east on Elm.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the
employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with
them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short
time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
From the WC testimony of Dallas police Captain J.W. Fritz, who is
discussing finding the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD:
Mr. BALL. While you were there Mr. Truly came up to you?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; where the rifle was found. That was about the
time we finished. Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees
had left the building, and I asked his name and he gave me his name,
Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked his address and he gave me the Irving
address.
Mr. BALL. This was after the rifle was found?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; after the rifle was found.
. . . .
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay at the Texas School Book Depository
after you found the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. After he [Roy Truly] told me about this man almost, I left
immediately after he told me that.
Mr. BALL. You left almost immediately after he told you that?
Mr. FRITZ. Almost after he told me that man, I felt it important to
hold that man.
Mr. BALL. Did you give descriptions to Sims and Boyd?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I told them to drive me to city hall and see if
the man had a criminal record and we picked up two other officers and
my intentions were to go to the house at Irving. When I got to the
city hall, I asked, because, I will tell you why I asked because while
we were in the building we heard that our officer had been killed,
someone came in and told me, I asked when I got to my office who shot
the officer, and they told me his name was Oswald, and I said, "His
full name?" And they told me and I said, "That is the suspect we are
looking for in the President's killing."
Meanwhile, there was already suspicion before Tippit's killer was
caught that he may be the same person who had been seen shooting at
the President from the TSBD.
From the Dallas police radio transmissions, Channel 2, 1:28 p.m.
DISPATCHER: Stand by. Notify 1 that officer involved in this shooting,
Officer J.D. Tippit, we believe, was pronounced DOA at Methodist. 1:28
p.m.
Deputy Chief of Police N.T. FISHER: Is there any indication that it
has any connection with this other shooting?
DISPATCHER: Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it
is possible.
Anthony Marsh
I fear you have your rhetorical techniques confused. I was using
ridicule and reductio ad absurdum.
bigdog
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 25, 12:24 am, diamonddavemon<diamonddave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
> >> so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
> >> documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
> >> any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
> >> as the assassin. Any suggestions?
>
> >> Thanks!
> >> David
>
> > About a half hour after the shooting, supervisor Roy Truly noticed
> > that Oswald was not among the employees being interogated by the
> > police and soon determined that Oswald was not on the premises. Truly
> > notified the police of this fact. This was probably shortly after
> > Oswald had killed Tippit. Oswald's absence is what made him a suspect
> > initially. When reports of the Tippit shooting came in, there was some
> > suspiscion that the two murders might be related although no one could
>
> Yeah sure, in your mind. I supposed someone also linked a bank robbery
> in Canada to the Kennedy assassination or someone robbing a gas station
> in Fort Worth.
>
were related. Dallas was a much smaller city in 1963 and the killing
of a cop was a rare occurence. To have it happen just 45 minutes after
the assassination and just a short distance away would make any
logical person wonder if there was a connection. Sure it could have
been a coincidence and no one was assuming the same man did both
crimes, but when they followed the evidence, it became obvious very
quickly that was the case.
> > be certain at the time. Oswald was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit
> > murder initially but when it was learned he was also the missing TSBD
> > employee, they began to connect the dots. When police traced the
>
> Oswald was sitting in the damn Homicide office when someone came in to
> tell them that they were looking for a guy named Lee Oswald in
> connection with the Kennedy assassination.
>
> > purchase of the assassination rifle to A. Hiddell, which was the name
> > on the phoney Selective Service card Oswald was carrying when
>
> Yes, but they didn't go looking for that name. They searched for the
> serial number and that popped up the name Hidell.
>
What difference does it make what name they were looking for? They
found the records of the purchase and those records gave them the name
of A. Hiddell, an alias Oswald created. It didn't take Sherlock Holmes
to figure out what that meant.
>
>
> > arrested, that pretty much clinched it for them. More incriminating
> > evidence kept piling up as time passed and it all pointed to Oswald.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
j leyden
The person who cast suspicion on Oswald was... Oswald. He had no
alibi for the time of the shooting, he fled the TSBD immediately
afterward leaving his rifle behind, went to his rooming house and got
his hand gun, shot a police officer who stopped him in the street,
fled again to a near-by movie theater and was observed sneaking in
without paying, pulled his gun when police arrived and resisted
arrest, etc. Reminds me of the opening line in Streets of Laredo:
"Train robbers ain't smart which is a lucky thing for the railroads."
The same can be said for assassins -- well, at least for Oswald..
JGL
The Dutchman
You fear something...
Anthony Marsh
So you claim, but you provide no statistics to back up your claim.
> the assassination and just a short distance away would make any
> logical person wonder if there was a connection. Sure it could have
Of course there COULD be a connection. The connection might be that the
cop was looking for the assassin and stopped a suspicious person who
turned out to be a criminal who did not want to get caught.
> been a coincidence and no one was assuming the same man did both
> crimes, but when they followed the evidence, it became obvious very
> quickly that was the case.
>
The only link was the cops went into the Homicide bureau to tell them
that THEIR suspect was named Lee Oswald.
>>> be certain at the time. Oswald was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit
>>> murder initially but when it was learned he was also the missing TSBD
>>> employee, they began to connect the dots. When police traced the
>>
>> Oswald was sitting in the damn Homicide office when someone came in to
>> tell them that they were looking for a guy named Lee Oswald in
>> connection with the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>> purchase of the assassination rifle to A. Hiddell, which was the name
>>> on the phoney Selective Service card Oswald was carrying when
>>
>> Yes, but they didn't go looking for that name. They searched for the
>> serial number and that popped up the name Hidell.
>>
> What difference does it make what name they were looking for? They
> found the records of the purchase and those records gave them the name
> of A. Hiddell, an alias Oswald created. It didn't take Sherlock Holmes
> to figure out what that meant.
Well, it did take an Inspector Holmes to put it together.
The beat cops coudn't figure it out.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 25, 12:24 am, diamonddavemon<diamonddave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
>> so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
>> documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
>> any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
>> as the assassin. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> David
>
> The person who cast suspicion on Oswald was... Oswald. He had no
> alibi for the time of the shooting, he fled the TSBD immediately
More WC propaganda.
Oswald had an alibi.
Oswald did not flee the TSBD immediately.
> afterward leaving his rifle behind, went to his rooming house and got
> his hand gun, shot a police officer who stopped him in the street,
The shooting of a cop can not be used to connect him to the Kennedy
assassination.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 25, 5:56 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/25/2009 11:44 AM, davidemerling wrote:
>>> that Oswald was the only Depository employee missing. That only
>>> served to solidify that suspicion. Then they discovered the rifle on
>>
>> You WC defenders keep repeating this nonsense as if it is proof. Oswald
>> was NOT the only TSBD employee missing. You've been corrected about this
>> hundreds of time, so why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Propaganda.
>
> Lee Oswald and Charles Givens were the only TSBD employees who were
> missing from work after the assassination. There were other people who
> worked in the TSBD building (employees of various publishers) who were
> missing, but they did not work for the TSBD, and thus were not the
> concern of TSBD supervisor Roy Truly. Truly had seen Givens outside
So what? That means they can't be assassins?
> walking away from the building shortly before the assassination, but
> he had seen Oswald *inside* the building shortly after the
> assassination, so Truly thought it was odd that he didn't see Oswald
> around now a few minutes later. He hesitated a while, consulted with
> other TSBD personnel, then told the police of Oswald's absence.
>
That's not how he phrased it. He just reported Oswald missing from his
impromptu rollcall.
> From the WC testimony of Roy Truly, discussing his return to the first
> floor of the building after he accompanied Officer Baker in a search
> for the sniper on the roof and upper floors:
>
> Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes ? it could have been moments or
> minutes at a time like that ? I noticed some of my boys were over in
> the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several
> officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
> There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other
> employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was
> not among these boys.
Yeah, what, like 15 out of 100 employees?
> So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other
> warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
> First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell ? I asked Bill Shelley if he had
> seen him, he looked around and said no.
> Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
> Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and
> he said no.
> So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here
> missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had
> another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there
> or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said,
> "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
> . . . .
> Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
> Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was
> missing.
> . . . .
> Mr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that [Charles] Givens was not
> there afterwards?
> Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn't there at the time of the shooting because
> I had seen him walk across the street ? up the street.
> . . . .
> Mr. BALL. Now, what did you tell Chief Lumpkin when you came down from
> the roof of the building?
> Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin
> that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean
> anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other
> warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could
> get ? quickly get his address in Irving and his general description,
> so I could be more accurate than I would be.
> Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
> Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
> one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
> front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
ONE or TWO more. There's your answer right there. Oswald was not the
only one missing. So I'll give you Givens, even though he only says
"possibly." So name the other person missing.
> Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
> Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston
> Street, east on Elm.
> Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
> Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the
> employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with
> them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short
> time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
>
> From the WC testimony of Dallas police Captain J.W. Fritz, who is
> discussing finding the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD:
>
> Mr. BALL. While you were there Mr. Truly came up to you?
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; where the rifle was found. That was about the
> time we finished. Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees
> had left the building, and I asked his name and he gave me his name,
> Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked his address and he gave me the Irving
> address.
And why didn't Fritz already have his address if Oswald was such a
dangerous terrorist? Because the FBI had refused to share its information
with the local police.
bigdog
there be to show that people were excercising common sense? The DPD
was not made of of CTs like you.
> > the assassination and just a short distance away would make any
> > logical person wonder if there was a connection. Sure it could have
>
> Of course there COULD be a connection. The connection might be that the
> cop was looking for the assassin and stopped a suspicious person who
> turned out to be a criminal who did not want to get caught.
>
Do you have a point to make or do you just like to make noise?
> > been a coincidence and no one was assuming the same man did both
> > crimes, but when they followed the evidence, it became obvious very
> > quickly that was the case.
>
> The only link was the cops went into the Homicide bureau to tell them
> that THEIR suspect was named Lee Oswald.
>
No, the link was that same guy owned both murder weapons.
>
>
>
>
> >>> be certain at the time. Oswald was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit
> >>> murder initially but when it was learned he was also the missing TSBD
> >>> employee, they began to connect the dots. When police traced the
>
> >> Oswald was sitting in the damn Homicide office when someone came in to
> >> tell them that they were looking for a guy named Lee Oswald in
> >> connection with the Kennedy assassination.
>
> >>> purchase of the assassination rifle to A. Hiddell, which was the name
> >>> on the phoney Selective Service card Oswald was carrying when
>
> >> Yes, but they didn't go looking for that name. They searched for the
> >> serial number and that popped up the name Hidell.
>
> > What difference does it make what name they were looking for? They
> > found the records of the purchase and those records gave them the name
> > of A. Hiddell, an alias Oswald created. It didn't take Sherlock Holmes
> > to figure out what that meant.
>
> Well, it did take an Inspector Holmes to put it together.
> The beat cops coudn't figure it out.
>
Do you have any idea how entertaining you are?
bigdog
> On 12/26/2009 1:01 PM, j leyden wrote:
>
> > On Dec 25, 12:24 am, diamonddavemon<diamonddave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
> >> so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
> >> documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
> >> any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
> >> as the assassin. Any suggestions?
>
> >> Thanks!
> >> David
>
> > The person who cast suspicion on Oswald was... Oswald. He had no
> > alibi for the time of the shooting, he fled the TSBD immediately
>
> More WC propaganda.
> Oswald had an alibi.
Which was?
> Oswald did not flee the TSBD immediately.
>
If you don't consider within 3 minutes immediately.
> > afterward leaving his rifle behind, went to his rooming house and got
> > his hand gun, shot a police officer who stopped him in the street,
>
> The shooting of a cop can not be used to connect him to the Kennedy
> assassination.
>
Right. He shot the cop because he was having a bad day. No reason to think
it had anything to do with the fact he just shot the President of the
United States.
yeuhd
> > From the WC testimony of Roy Truly, discussing his return to the first
> > floor of the building after he accompanied Officer Baker in a search
> > for the sniper on the roof and upper floors:
>
> > Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes ? it could have been moments or
> > minutes at a time like that ? I noticed some of my boys were over in
> > the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several
> > officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
> > There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other
> > employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was
> > not among these boys.
>
> Yeah, what, like 15 out of 100 employees?
Report by Secret Service Agent Arthur W. Blake, Dec. 7, 1963:
"Employment in the shipping and order filling section, supervised by
Mr. Truly, varies seasonally. The normal number of employees is 13 or
14, but in January each year he hires about four extra personnel for
six weeks to two months. Then, again in June, he hired about ten to
fifteen extra persons for the summer months which is the busiest time
for the company. In late August and September most of these extra
employees are dropped. However, about three to five of the extra
employees are kept during October, and then during the months of
November and December, employment drops to the normal of about
thirteen or fourteen.
"Mr. Truly also advised that the office of his firm usually employs
about seventeen persons, and that they sometimes hire an extra one or
two persons during the summer months."
About 73 persons were working in the TSBD building at Elm & Houston on
Nov. 22, 1963. 32 were employees of the TSBD:
1. Jack C. Cason, President of the TSBD
2. O. V. Campbell, Vice-President of the TSBD
3. Roy S. Truly, Superintendent of Operations of the TSBD
4. William H. Shelley, supervisor
5. Eddie Piper
6. Charles D. Givens
7. Billy Lovelady
8. Daniel Arce
9. Jack Dougherty
10. Frankie Kaiser
11. Carl E. Jones
12. Roy E. Lewis
13. Buell Wesley Frazier
14. Harold Norman
15. Bonnie Ray Williams
16. James E. Jarman
17. Troy E. West
18. Jeraldean Reid (Mrs. R. A. Reid)
19. Joe R. Molina
20. Otis N. Williams
21. Carolyn Arnold
22. Pauline Sanders
23. Betty Jean Dragoo
24. Bonnie Richey
25. Sarah Stanton
26. Geneva L. Hine
27. Judy Johnson
28. Martha Reed
29. Stella Jacob
30. Sharon Simmons
31. Jeannie Holt
32. Virgie Rackley
If you claim that there were actually two missing (besides Oswald),
you name that second person. That's your claim, not mine.
tomnln
"diamonddavemon" <diamond...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb1918be-0c26-4ab4...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
Evidence of flight may be admissible to show a consciousness of guilt.
Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895
Tex.Crim.App.,2007
Evidence of flight evinces a consciousness of guilt.
Burks v. State, 227 S.W.3d 138
Tex.App.Houston.1.Dist.,2006
Evidence of defendant's flight on seeing officer wearing jacket marked
“POLICE” step out of unmarked van was admissible in robbery trial to
show defendant's consciousness of guilt and circumstances surrounding
his arrest; while defendant emphasized the delay of nine days between
the robbery offense and his arrest in contending that the evidence of
flight constituted inadmissible extraneous offense evidence, such
delay did not adversely affect admissibility, given that defendant
knew, when he saw the officer get out of the van, that the officer was
there to arrest him.
Adams v. State, 180 S.W.3d 386
Tex.App.Corpus.Christi,2005
Evidence of flight is admissible as a circumstance from which a jury
may draw an inference of guilt.
Sosa v. State, 177 S.W.3d 227
Tex.App.Houston.1.Dist.,2005
While flight alone will not support a guilty verdict, evidence of
flight from a crime scene is a circumstance from which an inference of
guilt may be drawn.
Ross v. State, 154 S.W.3d 804
Tex.App.Houston.14.Dist.,2004
A defendant's conduct after the commission of a crime that indicates a
consciousness of guilt is admissible to prove that he committed the
offense; this conduct includes making false statements to cover up the
crime.
Hume v. State, 2002 WL 1988238
Tex.App.Austin,2002
Evidence of defendant's attempt to deceive police upon arrest, his
attempt to flee from police, and his assault of officer who attempted
to arrest him, was admissible in prosecution for indecency with a
child, as evidence indicated defendant's consciousness of guilt and
constituted circumstances from which an inference of guilt for the
acts with which he was charged could be properly drawn. Rules of
Evid., Rule 401.
Wincott v. State, 59 S.W.3d 691
Tex.App.Austin,2001
Conduct on the part of a person accused of a crime subsequent to its
commission may indicate a consciousness of guilt for that crime.
Hyde v. State, 846 S.W.2d 503
Tex.App.Corpus.Christi,1993
Any conduct on part of person accused of a crime subsequent to its
commission, which indicates “consciousness of guilt,” may be received
in evidence as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the
act with which he is charged.
Whittington v. Estelle, 704 F.2d 1418
C.A.5.Tex.,1983
Under Texas law evidence of flight is admissible even though it may
show the commission of other crimes, and in proving flight, it is
proper to show circumstances surrounding the defendant's arrest,
including his resistance.
U.S. v. Khamis, 674 F.2d 390
C.A.5.Tex.,1982
Testimony that, when arrested, defendant, a Jordanian national, was
carrying an alien registration card bearing his picture but a false
name was properly admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
Moorman v. U.S., 389 F.2d 27
C.A.5.Tex.,1968
Evidence of subsequent acts of defendant may show criminal intent.
Lassiter v. State, 120 S.W.2d 262
Tex.Crim.App.,1938
In robbery prosecution, testimony concerning defendant's resistance
when officers attempted to arrest him, and his act in shooting an
officer, was admissible.
Thompson v. State, 234 S.W. 401
Tex.Crim.App.,1921
What alleged robbers did during their flight from the scene of the
robbery, testimony as to such flight, and what defendants did during
the flight in an effort to prevent arrest and to aid them in escaping,
was admissible.
davidemerling
> > The first thing that caused the DPD to suspect Oswald of the
> > assassination of the president was when he was captured for the
> > shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit. Shortly afterwards, it was determined
>
> Juvenile nonsense. No one ever said a word about the President. Oswald was
> sitting in the homicide office being questioned about the Tippit murder
> and they weren't even sure who he really was. They had absolutely no hint
> that that he was involved in the President's assassination. Then someone
> walked in to inform them that they were looking for a guy named Lee Oswald
> who was missing from the TSBD and was a suspect in the President's
> assassination. That's when someone noticed that they already had a Lee
> Oswald in custody.
I think we're all aware of the account you describe. But if you're
claiming that NOBODY had a suspicion that Oswald might have been connected
to the Dealey Plaza shooting - you are incorrect. True - they had no
provable link at that time - but the suspicion did exist. The original
question was about the origin of suspicion that Oswald was involved, not
the PROOF that he was involved.
> > that Oswald was the only Depository employee missing. That only
> > served to solidify that suspicion. Then they discovered the rifle on
>
> You WC defenders keep repeating this nonsense as if it is proof. Oswald
> was NOT the only TSBD employee missing. You've been corrected about this
> hundreds of time, so why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Propaganda.
Well, I'm speaking in generalities. Essentially, it's an accurate
statement and I think you know that. EVENTUALLY, all the TSBD employees
were accounted for - except Oswald. I think you'd have to agree with that.
Are you talking about Charles Givens?
> > the 6th floor and quickly traced it to him. At that point in time it
> > was not clear as to whether there were OTHER shooters or whether there
> > was a conspiracy of some sort. But one thing was pretty clear - Oswald
> > was involved and the likelihood of him being one of the shooters was
> > extremely high.
>
> And the police were still looking for a black man who helped Oswald.
There was a lot of misinformation in the immediate aftermath. Hell,
all you have to do is watch the news accounts to realize that.
> > Prints were discovered on the rifle and on the boxes surrounding the
> > sniper's nest. This was all discovered on November 22nd, the day of
> > the shooting.
>
> Meaningless. Of course Oswald's prints were on that rifle. It was his
> rifle.
Exactly! And there are those who will not concede that point, you
realize.
> Of course Oswald's prints were on the boxes. He worked in that
> building.
But had his prints NOT been on the box - that would have been significant.
Also, the LOCATION of his prints were not consistent with carrying the
box. It was more consistent with his hand touching the box. Also, the
prints were located on the box in an area exposed to the sniper's
position.
> You didn't even specify it was Oswald's prints. You just said
> prints. A lot of other prints were found also, so you would have to claim
> that all those other people were equally guilty. You may as well note that
> the Sun was shining that day as proof of Oswald's guilt.
But Oswald's prints WERE on the box. Does that, in itself, PROVE that he
was the president's assassin? Of course not! But if his prints were NOT on
that box, you would be screaming it from the highest hill, wouldn't you?
> > Oswald's alibi did not hold up.
>
> Which alibi?
Are you suggesting that Oswald had more than one alibi? Don't you
think that is rather incriminating?
> > They discovered a photograph of him with both murder weapons. Oswald
> > denied owning a rifle - a clear lie indicating consciousness of guilt.
> > Oswald lied about carrying a package to work that morning.
>
> We don't know if Oswald denied owning a rifle. You base your opinions of
> DPD lies. So their obvious lies indicate consciousness of guilt?
Oh, well, if you're going to go down the path where you refuse to accept
that Oswald said any of the things he is claimed to have said ... then I
guess we have nothing to talk about in this area. Everybody who attended
the interrogations are liars, then.
> > Had Oswald lived, he would have been convicted easily.
>
> Anyone would be easily convicted by Wade who had 25 death penalty
> convictions out of 26 cases and a history of convicting innocent men.
My point wasn't that Wade was an outstanding attorney, however. The
evidence against Oswald was enormous.
> > Some people think that most of the popular conspiratorial points would
> > have come up in a trial - creating reasonable doubt. That is doubtful.
>
> Did you ever read any history in school? Nope? Did you ever hear of the
> Drefyus case? Oswald would have been the Dryfus case of the 20th Century.
> Mark Lane would have been the Emile Zola on appeal. His conviction would
> have been overturned based on prosecutorial misconduct and manufacturing
> of evidence, and suborning perjury. Just before his retrial Oswald would
> have been gunned down by some nightclub owner with ties to the Mafia.
>
> > The problem is that many of these wild ideas are without any
> > foundation. Legally, you cannot suggest something to the jury that has
> > no evidentiary basis. The defense is not free to suggest alternative
> > possibilities without laying a foundation for those alternatives.
>
> > They can argue against the prosecution's evidence. They can assert
> > their client's innocence. But they cannot, for instance, suggest that
> > the mafia was responsible for the assassination without FIRST having
> > some reasonable basis for suggesting such a thing. The judge would
> > have to determine whether the defense should be allowed to suggest
> > that alternative. The same thing with suggesting that CIA was
> > involved. On what basis is such claim made?
>
> So your idea is that the CIA can not even be mentioned unless you have a
> notarized confession from the CIA?
Don't be silly, Tony. There has to be SOMETHING to work with, however. The
legal standard is not all that high - but the defense cannot simply pull
stuff out of their ass and derail the trial with unsubstantiated
allegations. They have to establish SOME foundation. They have to
demonstrate a REASON why they are going to make the argument that their
client didn't kill the president, rather, it was the CIA! ... uh ... well,
if not them, uh, then maybe the MAFIA! ... or, if you don't like that one,
how 'bout Lyndon Johnson was behind it all. That's the way the legal
process works. I'm not saying you have to like it - but it does dispel the
notion, often made by CTers, that these things would necessarily have come
up in a trial and create reasonable doubt. I doubt if any of these wild
conspiracy theories would have ever seen the light of day in a courtroom.
Can you imagine a defense attorney trying to lay a foundation for David
Lifton's theory? Not in a million years! Not one word would ever be
uttered in that courtroom about the president's body being stolen and
altered.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
yeuhd
> On 12/26/2009 9:59 AM, yeuhd wrote:
> > From the WC testimony of Dallas police Captain J.W. Fritz, who is
> > discussing finding the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD:
>
> > Mr. BALL. While you were there Mr. Truly came up to you?
> > Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; where the rifle was found. That was about the
> > time we finished. Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees
> > had left the building, and I asked his name and he gave me his name,
> > Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked his address and he gave me the Irving
> > address.
>
> And why didn't Fritz already have his address if Oswald was such a
> dangerous terrorist? Because the FBI had refused to share its information
> with the local police.
"Such a dangerous terrorist"? Who said anything about Oswald being a
"dangerous terrorist"?
Anthony Marsh
Typical misleading WC defender propaganda. Why don't you tell everyone how
many people usually worked at the TSBD who were not even there that day or
were out to lunch?
I see you numbered them 1-32. Which number was Oswald?
It's not MY claim. It's what Truly said. So I asked you to tell us who
those were since you were so keen on quoting him for some reason. Guess
your real reason then was to exonerate Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 26, 9:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/26/2009 1:01 PM, j leyden wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 25, 12:24 am, diamonddavemon<diamonddave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>
>>>> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
>>>> so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
>>>> documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
>>>> any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
>>>> as the assassin. Any suggestions?
>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> David
>>
>>> The person who cast suspicion on Oswald was... Oswald. He had no
>>> alibi for the time of the shooting, he fled the TSBD immediately
>>
>> More WC propaganda.
>> Oswald had an alibi.
>
> Which was?
>
Go ahead, pretend to be naive. He said he was having lunch in the Domino
Room.
I had an alibi when there was an assassination at the end of my street.
I was asleep in my bed. But if certain people wanted to frame me my
alibi would disappear very quickly.
And I had six degrees of separation to both sides of the dispute.
>> Oswald did not flee the TSBD immediately.
>>
>
> If you don't consider within 3 minutes immediately.
>
And of course you gloss over the other people who left the TSBD
"immediately."
>>> afterward leaving his rifle behind, went to his rooming house and got
>>> his hand gun, shot a police officer who stopped him in the street,
>>
>> The shooting of a cop can not be used to connect him to the Kennedy
>> assassination.
>>
>
> Right. He shot the cop because he was having a bad day. No reason to think
> it had anything to do with the fact he just shot the President of the
> United States.
>
I know you don't get out much, but maybe you can watch some of those cops
on TV reality shows where ordinary people who were not committing a crime
at the time are stopped by a cop and panic and shoot him. Just because
someone shoots a cop does not mean he just committed a crime. Plus you are
forgetting how paranoid Oswald was about law enforcement following him
around and harassing him.
Maybe you should listen to the tape from the Russian embassy where he
pulled out his revolver and said he needed it to protect himself from the
FBI.
Anthony Marsh
My point is to point out alternatives that the limited thinking of the
WC defenders did not think of.
>>> been a coincidence and no one was assuming the same man did both
>>> crimes, but when they followed the evidence, it became obvious very
>>> quickly that was the case.
>>
>> The only link was the cops went into the Homicide bureau to tell them
>> that THEIR suspect was named Lee Oswald.
>>
> No, the link was that same guy owned both murder weapons.
That was not what connected Oswald with both crimes. They had not done
any ballistics tests by then.
j leyden
Dream on, Tony! Oh, BTW, what was his alibi for the time of the
shooting. And please don't tell me he was having lunch with the
"colored boys." We've been over that before.
JGL
> > JGL- Hide quoted text -
yeuhd
How would those employees be relevant to Truly's suspicions?
> or
> were out to lunch?
No TSBD employees were missing except Oswald and Givens. Note once again
we are talking about a specific group: employees of the Texas School Book
Depository (a company). Not all the people who worked in the TSBD building
were employees of the TSBD, as you know.
> I see you numbered them 1-32. Which number was Oswald?
And that is relevant how?
> >>> Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
> >>> one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
> >>> front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
>
> >> ONE or TWO more. There's your answer right there. Oswald was not the
> >> only one missing. So I'll give you Givens, even though he only says
> >> "possibly." So name the other person missing.
>
> > If you claim that there were actually two missing (besides Oswald),
> > you name that second person. That's your claim, not mine.
>
> It's not MY claim. It's what Truly said. So I asked you to tell us who
> those were since you were so keen on quoting him for some reason. Guess
> your real reason then was to exonerate Oswald.
Truly said "one OR two more", not "two more".
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, we really have to explain the rhetorical techniques to you in
excruiating detail?
Do you or do you not know what the Watch List was? How many people do you
think were on that list in 1963 and how many of those lived in Dallas?
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 25, 5:56 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> The first thing that caused the DPD to suspect Oswald of the
>>> assassination of the president was when he was captured for the
>>> shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit. Shortly afterwards, it was determined
>>
>> Juvenile nonsense. No one ever said a word about the President. Oswald was
>> sitting in the homicide office being questioned about the Tippit murder
>> and they weren't even sure who he really was. They had absolutely no hint
>> that that he was involved in the President's assassination. Then someone
>> walked in to inform them that they were looking for a guy named Lee Oswald
>> who was missing from the TSBD and was a suspect in the President's
>> assassination. That's when someone noticed that they already had a Lee
>> Oswald in custody.
>
> I think we're all aware of the account you describe. But if you're
> claiming that NOBODY had a suspicion that Oswald might have been connected
> to the Dealey Plaza shooting - you are incorrect. True - they had no
> provable link at that time - but the suspicion did exist. The original
> question was about the origin of suspicion that Oswald was involved, not
> the PROOF that he was involved.
>
Just Fritz finding out that they already had Oswald was not proof of
guilt in either case.
>>> that Oswald was the only Depository employee missing. That only
>>> served to solidify that suspicion. Then they discovered the rifle on
>>
>> You WC defenders keep repeating this nonsense as if it is proof. Oswald
>> was NOT the only TSBD employee missing. You've been corrected about this
>> hundreds of time, so why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Propaganda.
>
> Well, I'm speaking in generalities. Essentially, it's an accurate
> statement and I think you know that. EVENTUALLY, all the TSBD employees
> were accounted for - except Oswald. I think you'd have to agree with that.
> Are you talking about Charles Givens?
>
Accounted for? Well, that's a little bit better. Then why did the DPD
put out an APB for Givens? The original call for Oswald was only for
questioning. They had not linked him to the rifle yet.
>>> the 6th floor and quickly traced it to him. At that point in time it
>>> was not clear as to whether there were OTHER shooters or whether there
>>> was a conspiracy of some sort. But one thing was pretty clear - Oswald
>>> was involved and the likelihood of him being one of the shooters was
>>> extremely high.
>>
>> And the police were still looking for a black man who helped Oswald.
>
> There was a lot of misinformation in the immediate aftermath. Hell,
> all you have to do is watch the news accounts to realize that.
>
Yes, but you can't even watch that news coverage and admit that what I
am saying is correct.
>>> Prints were discovered on the rifle and on the boxes surrounding the
>>> sniper's nest. This was all discovered on November 22nd, the day of
>>> the shooting.
>>
>> Meaningless. Of course Oswald's prints were on that rifle. It was his
>> rifle.
>
> Exactly! And there are those who will not concede that point, you
> realize.
>
Yeah, and I was screaming at them long before you.
>> Of course Oswald's prints were on the boxes. He worked in that
>> building.
>
> But had his prints NOT been on the box - that would have been significant.
> Also, the LOCATION of his prints were not consistent with carrying the
> box. It was more consistent with his hand touching the box. Also, the
> prints were located on the box in an area exposed to the sniper's
> position.
>
You don't know that. He doesn't need to be carrying them to just move
them around. The DPD police moved the boxes around several times so we
really don't know what the original configuration was. It appears to me
that some boxes in front of the window were moved after the shooting.
>> You didn't even specify it was Oswald's prints. You just said
>> prints. A lot of other prints were found also, so you would have to claim
>> that all those other people were equally guilty. You may as well note that
>> the Sun was shining that day as proof of Oswald's guilt.
>
> But Oswald's prints WERE on the box. Does that, in itself, PROVE that he
> was the president's assassin? Of course not! But if his prints were NOT on
> that box, you would be screaming it from the highest hill, wouldn't you?
>
Not I.
>>> Oswald's alibi did not hold up.
>>
>> Which alibi?
>
> Are you suggesting that Oswald had more than one alibi? Don't you
> think that is rather incriminating?
>
I am using mock shock to pretend that you really are that naive to not
know what Oswald's alibi was.
>>> They discovered a photograph of him with both murder weapons. Oswald
>>> denied owning a rifle - a clear lie indicating consciousness of guilt.
>>> Oswald lied about carrying a package to work that morning.
>>
>> We don't know if Oswald denied owning a rifle. You base your opinions of
>> DPD lies. So their obvious lies indicate consciousness of guilt?
>
> Oh, well, if you're going to go down the path where you refuse to accept
> that Oswald said any of the things he is claimed to have said ... then I
Yes, that's correct.
> guess we have nothing to talk about in this area. Everybody who attended
> the interrogations are liars, then.
>
In order to get into the interrogations they had to certify that they
were liars.
>>> Had Oswald lived, he would have been convicted easily.
>>
>> Anyone would be easily convicted by Wade who had 25 death penalty
>> convictions out of 26 cases and a history of convicting innocent men.
>
> My point wasn't that Wade was an outstanding attorney, however. The
> evidence against Oswald was enormous.
>
My point wasn't that Wade was an outstanding attorney either. Just that
it would be very easy to convict anyone in Dallas.
>>> Some people think that most of the popular conspiratorial points would
>>> have come up in a trial - creating reasonable doubt. That is doubtful.
>>
>> Did you ever read any history in school? Nope? Did you ever hear of the
>> Drefyus case? Oswald would have been the Dryfus case of the 20th Century.
>> Mark Lane would have been the Emile Zola on appeal. His conviction would
>> have been overturned based on prosecutorial misconduct and manufacturing
>> of evidence, and suborning perjury. Just before his retrial Oswald would
>> have been gunned down by some nightclub owner with ties to the Mafia.
>>
>>> The problem is that many of these wild ideas are without any
>>> foundation. Legally, you cannot suggest something to the jury that has
>>> no evidentiary basis. The defense is not free to suggest alternative
>>> possibilities without laying a foundation for those alternatives.
>>
>>> They can argue against the prosecution's evidence. They can assert
>>> their client's innocence. But they cannot, for instance, suggest that
>>> the mafia was responsible for the assassination without FIRST having
>>> some reasonable basis for suggesting such a thing. The judge would
>>> have to determine whether the defense should be allowed to suggest
>>> that alternative. The same thing with suggesting that CIA was
>>> involved. On what basis is such claim made?
>>
>> So your idea is that the CIA can not even be mentioned unless you have a
>> notarized confession from the CIA?
>
> Don't be silly, Tony. There has to be SOMETHING to work with, however. The
> legal standard is not all that high - but the defense cannot simply pull
They can certainly try. How do you think Garrison got so far with his
case trying to link the CIA to the assassination through Clay Shaw. He
didn't charge that Clay Shaw pulled a trigger.
> stuff out of their ass and derail the trial with unsubstantiated
> allegations. They have to establish SOME foundation. They have to
The Judge, not you, decides if the foundation is adequate.
> demonstrate a REASON why they are going to make the argument that their
> client didn't kill the president, rather, it was the CIA! ... uh ... well,
> if not them, uh, then maybe the MAFIA! ... or, if you don't like that one,
> how 'bout Lyndon Johnson was behind it all. That's the way the legal
Depends on the theory of the case. It might be that Oswald was part of a
CIA conspiracy, just acting on orders but not realizing what he was doing.
> process works. I'm not saying you have to like it - but it does dispel the
> notion, often made by CTers, that these things would necessarily have come
> up in a trial and create reasonable doubt. I doubt if any of these wild
> conspiracy theories would have ever seen the light of day in a courtroom.
>
Maybe not in Dallas. More likely in the appeal.
> Can you imagine a defense attorney trying to lay a foundation for David
> Lifton's theory? Not in a million years! Not one word would ever be
> uttered in that courtroom about the president's body being stolen and
> altered.
>
I can imagine Mark Lane arguing that it was a CIA conspiracy.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
> Tex.App.Amarillo,2009
> Evidence of flight may be admissible to show a consciousness of guilt.
>
> Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895
> Tex.Crim.App.,2007
> Evidence of flight evinces a consciousness of guilt.
>
Flight from what? From the TSBD? There is no precedent that someone
leaving work is flight. Several other people left work or did not return
or could not return.
> Burks v. State, 227 S.W.3d 138
> Tex.App.Houston.1.Dist.,2006
> Evidence of defendant's flight on seeing officer wearing jacket marked
> ?POLICE? step out of unmarked van was admissible in robbery trial to
> commission, which indicates ?consciousness of guilt,? may be received
All irrelevant. They deal with flight from arrest or apprehension, not
leaving work. Show me any court case where leaving work is a consciousness
of guilt.
Anthony Marsh
It's not about Truly's suspicions. It is about your statement that
Oswald was the only one missing.
>> or
>> were out to lunch?
>
> No TSBD employees were missing except Oswald and Givens. Note once again
Truly said maybe two or three. So who was the third?
> we are talking about a specific group: employees of the Texas School Book
> Depository (a company). Not all the people who worked in the TSBD building
> were employees of the TSBD, as you know.
>
So, did the police determine if anyone else was missing? No. This came
from Truly volunteering the information that Oswald was missing.
But obviously Oswald had not been a suspect in his mind when he vouched
for Oswald when Baker detained him.
>> I see you numbered them 1-32. Which number was Oswald?
>
> And that is relevant how?
>
It's relevant because you forgot to list Oswald. You said about 73 and
then only listed 32 of them.
>>>>> Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
>>>>> one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
>>>>> front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
>>
>>>> ONE or TWO more. There's your answer right there. Oswald was not the
>>>> only one missing. So I'll give you Givens, even though he only says
>>>> "possibly." So name the other person missing.
>>
>>> If you claim that there were actually two missing (besides Oswald),
>>> you name that second person. That's your claim, not mine.
>>
>> It's not MY claim. It's what Truly said. So I asked you to tell us who
>> those were since you were so keen on quoting him for some reason. Guess
>> your real reason then was to exonerate Oswald.
>
> Truly said "one OR two more", not "two more".
>
One or two more plus Oswald equals three. So again, tell me who that
third person was.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 26, 9:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Dream on, Tony! Oh, BTW, what was his alibi for the time of the
> shooting. And please don't tell me he was having lunch with the
> "colored boys." We've been over that before.
>
Why don't you just keep asking me every day the same question which I have
answered thousands of times just to prove that you can't pay attention?
yeuhd
> On 12/27/2009 9:22 PM, yeuhd wrote:
> > No TSBD employees were missing except Oswald and Givens. Note once again
>
> Truly said maybe two or three. So who was the third?
No, Truly said "one OR two more" besides Oswald. Not "two more".
> > we are talking about a specific group: employees of the Texas School Book
> > Depository (a company). Not all the people who worked in the TSBD building
> > were employees of the TSBD, as you know.
>
> So, did the police determine if anyone else was missing? No. This came
> from Truly volunteering the information that Oswald was missing.
> But obviously Oswald had not been a suspect in his mind when he vouched
> for Oswald when Baker detained him.
>
> >> I see you numbered them 1-32. Which number was Oswald?
>
> > And that is relevant how?
>
> It's relevant because you forgot to list Oswald. You said about 73 and
> then only listed 32 of them.
No, I did not "forget" to list Oswald. I thought it was obvious to
everyone here that Oswald worked at the TSBD that day and did not need
to be mentioned. Apparently it wasn't obvious enough to you.
Furthermore, I said about 73 people worked in the TSBD building, that
32 of those people worked for the TSBD, and listed those 32. The
context of this discussion was supervisor Roy Truly's notice of which
of his workers were present and which were missing. The others of the
73 were not Truly's employees, which is why I did not list them. You
were the one who incorrectly said "100 employees".
So, once again: in the context of supervisor Roy Truly noticing which
of his employees was missing after the assassination, 100 employees is
incorrect, 73 employees is incorrect, 32 (plus Oswald) is the correct
total number of his employees that day. Only two of Truly's employees
were AWOL circa 12:45 p.m.: Lee Oswald and Charles Givens.
bigdog
> On 12/27/2009 1:13 AM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/26/2009 1:01 PM, j leyden wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 25, 12:24 am, diamonddavemon<diamonddave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
>
> >>>> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
> >>>> so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
> >>>> documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
> >>>> any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
> >>>> as the assassin. Any suggestions?
>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>> David
>
> >>> The person who cast suspicion on Oswald was... Oswald. He had no
> >>> alibi for the time of the shooting, he fled the TSBD immediately
>
> >> More WC propaganda.
> >> Oswald had an alibi.
>
> > Which was?
>
> Go ahead, pretend to be naive. He said he was having lunch in the Domino
> Room.
And he would have no reason to lie, would he?
> I had an alibi when there was an assassination at the end of my street.
> I was asleep in my bed. But if certain people wanted to frame me my
> alibi would disappear very quickly.
> And I had six degrees of separation to both sides of the dispute.
>
If that murder had been committed with your gun, had your prints on
it, and 45 minutes later you shot a cop, I don't think anyone would
have believeed your alibi either.
> >> Oswald did not flee the TSBD immediately.
>
> > If you don't consider within 3 minutes immediately.
>
> And of course you gloss over the other people who left the TSBD
> "immediately."
>
Oh, are we changing our argument now?
> >>> afterward leaving his rifle behind, went to his rooming house and got
> >>> his hand gun, shot a police officer who stopped him in the street,
>
> >> The shooting of a cop can not be used to connect him to the Kennedy
> >> assassination.
>
> > Right. He shot the cop because he was having a bad day. No reason to think
> > it had anything to do with the fact he just shot the President of the
> > United States.
>
> I know you don't get out much, but maybe you can watch some of those cops
> on TV reality shows where ordinary people who were not committing a crime
> at the time are stopped by a cop and panic and shoot him. Just because
> someone shoots a cop does not mean he just committed a crime. Plus you are
> forgetting how paranoid Oswald was about law enforcement following him
> around and harassing him.
>
Of those otherwise innoocent people who you claim got stopped by a cop
and shot him in panic, how many of them owned the weapon that had
killed someone else 45 minutes earlier and was found with their prints
on it? Commision of one crime does not itself incriminate a person in
another crime, but if there is other evidence that connects the
suspect to the first crime, the commision of the second can be
considered as evidence of guilt of the first.
> Maybe you should listen to the tape from the Russian embassy where he
> pulled out his revolver and said he needed it to protect himself from the
> FBI.- Hide quoted text -
>
Further evidence of his instability and violent nature.
bigdog
> >>> been a coincidence and no one was assuming the same man did both
> >>> crimes, but when they followed the evidence, it became obvious very
> >>> quickly that was the case.
>
> >> The only link was the cops went into the Homicide bureau to tell them
> >> that THEIR suspect was named Lee Oswald.
>
> > No, the link was that same guy owned both murder weapons.
>
> That was not what connected Oswald with both crimes. They had not done
> any ballistics tests by then.
>
That was one of many things that connected Oswald to both crimes. It
was not the first, but one of the best.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would shooting a cop constitute flight from arrest or apprehension?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You totally miss the point. Again. Anyone leaving work without permission
would make them a person of interest if not a suspect. That is true
whether Oswald was the only one who left or one of several who left. His
leaving would rightly arouse suspiscion. When later it is learned that he
shot a cop, that would move him to the head of the class of potential
suspects.
Peter Fokes
<diamond...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
> I'm looking for books or other resources that detail how suspicion fell
>so quickly on Oswald following the assassination. I've seen some
>documentaries and read a few books (it's been a while) and can't recall
>any of them explaining in detail how suspicion fell so quickly on Oswald
>as the assassin. Any suggestions?
From James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald:
<quote on>
As soon as I walked into Gordon Shanklin's smoke-filled office, I saw
the copy of the newspaper lying on his desk. I grabbed it. Staring
back at me in bold, black print was the front-page headline: "FBI KNEW
OSWALD CAPABLE OF ACT, REPORTS INDICATE."
"Oh God," I groaned.
I quickly scanned the first few paragraphs while Shanklin sat quietly
behind his desk puffing away. The story read, "A source close to the
Warren Commission told the Dallas News Thursday that the Commission
has testimony from Dallas police that an FBI agent told them moments
after the arrest and identification of Lee Harvey Oswald on November
22, that 'we knew he was capable of assassinating the president, but
we didn't dream he would do it...' In a memorandum to supervisors on
Nov. 22, Lt. Jack Revill, head of the Dallas police criminal
intelligence squad, reported that FBI special agent James (Joe) Hosty
had acknowledged awareness of Oswald in the basement of the City Hall
at 2:05 PM, Nov. 22. His remark was made as five officers brought
Oswald in from Oak Cliff, Revill reported.
<quote off>
Hosty had received a file on Oswald at 11 am on Nov 22. It was sitting
on his desk.
>Thanks!
>David
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
And so all of this was investigated and cleared up by the Warren
Commission? Can you point us to the volume where this is explained by
the Warren Commission?
Anthony Marsh
That is not true. Several other people left immediately and many could
not get back in after the police sealed the building. Truly said two or
three were missing. Why weren't the other two or three on his tongue
when he spoke to the cops?
> whether Oswald was the only one who left or one of several who left. His
> leaving would rightly arouse suspiscion. When later it is learned that he
> shot a cop, that would move him to the head of the class of potential
> suspects.
>
Shooting a cop miles away may have nothing to do with the Kennedy
assassination.
Anthony Marsh
It depends on the circumstances. It could be a cold-blooded
assassination or an accident during a fight.
Anthony Marsh
You mean only the evidence that you are aware of?
You mean only the evidence that you are willing to admit?
You mean the evidence which has been destroyed or tampered with or
misrepresented?
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 27, 11:09 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/27/2009 9:22 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
>>> No TSBD employees were missing except Oswald and Givens. Note once again
>>
>> Truly said maybe two or three. So who was the third?
>
> No, Truly said "one OR two more" besides Oswald. Not "two more".
>
Do we really need to teach you remedial math here? Oswald is one.
So one or two MORE equals two or three. SO who was the third?
>>> we are talking about a specific group: employees of the Texas School Book
>>> Depository (a company). Not all the people who worked in the TSBD building
>>> were employees of the TSBD, as you know.
>>
>> So, did the police determine if anyone else was missing? No. This came
>> from Truly volunteering the information that Oswald was missing.
>> But obviously Oswald had not been a suspect in his mind when he vouched
>> for Oswald when Baker detained him.
>>
>>>> I see you numbered them 1-32. Which number was Oswald?
>>
>>> And that is relevant how?
>>
>> It's relevant because you forgot to list Oswald. You said about 73 and
>> then only listed 32 of them.
>
> No, I did not "forget" to list Oswald. I thought it was obvious to
> everyone here that Oswald worked at the TSBD that day and did not need
> to be mentioned. Apparently it wasn't obvious enough to you.
>
I just love to point out when you are sloppy about the evidence.
> Furthermore, I said about 73 people worked in the TSBD building, that
> 32 of those people worked for the TSBD, and listed those 32. The
> context of this discussion was supervisor Roy Truly's notice of which
> of his workers were present and which were missing. The others of the
> 73 were not Truly's employees, which is why I did not list them. You
> were the one who incorrectly said "100 employees".
>
No, I asked you if it was only 1 out of 100.
So now you've revised it to 3 out of 33. And of course you assume that
ONLY a TSBD employee could be a killer, not one of the other company
employees.
> So, once again: in the context of supervisor Roy Truly noticing which
> of his employees was missing after the assassination, 100 employees is
> incorrect, 73 employees is incorrect, 32 (plus Oswald) is the correct
> total number of his employees that day. Only two of Truly's employees
> were AWOL circa 12:45 p.m.: Lee Oswald and Charles Givens.
>
>
Or THREE.
Did Truly give them Givens' name? Who was the third employee missing.
j leyden
> Why don't you just keep asking me every day the same question which I have
> answered thousands of times just to prove that you can't pay attention?
Translation of MarshSpeak: "I don't got no answer."
JGL
yeuhd
> Several other people left immediately and many could
> not get back in after the police sealed the building. Truly said two or
> three were missing. Why weren't the other two or three on his tongue
> when he spoke to the cops?
As it were, only two of Roy Truly's employees were AWOL circa 12:45
p.m.: Lee Oswald and Charles Givens. Truly explained several times why
he mentioned Oswald to the police. Once again:
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was
missing.
. . . .
Mr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that [Charles] Givens was not
there afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn't there at the time of the shooting because
I had seen him walk across the street — up the street.
. . . .
Mr. BALL. Now, what did you tell Chief Lumpkin when you came down from
the roof of the building?
Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin
that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean
anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other
warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the [employment] application of the
boy so I could get — quickly get his address in Irving and his general
description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston
Street, east on Elm.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the
employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with
them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short
time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
yeuhd
> On 12/28/2009 9:51 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:09 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2009 9:22 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> >>> No TSBD employees were missing except Oswald and Givens. Note once again
>
> >> Truly said maybe two or three. So who was the third?
>
> > No, Truly said "one OR two more" besides Oswald. Not "two more".
>
> Do we really need to teach you remedial math here? Oswald is one.
> So one or two MORE equals two or three. SO who was the third?
Truly said "one OR two more" besides Oswald, not "two more".
> > Furthermore, I said about 73 people worked in the TSBD building, that
> > 32 of those people worked for the TSBD, and listed those 32. The
> > context of this discussion was supervisor Roy Truly's notice of which
> > of his workers were present and which were missing. The others of the
> > 73 were not Truly's employees, which is why I did not list them. You
> > were the one who incorrectly said "100 employees".
>
> No, I asked you if it was only 1 out of 100.
No, you did not. I quoted Roy Truly: "I noticed some of my boys were over
in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several
officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth. There
were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees,
like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these
boys."
To which you replied, "Yeah, what, like 15 out of 100 employees?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/35e9892664b50f6c
You wrote, "I just love to point out when you are sloppy about the
evidence," but in the same post you made a sloppy error about the
evidence. You have trouble ever admitting you were wrong, don't you?
yeuhd
> Did Truly give them Givens' name?
Once again:
Mr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that [Charles] Givens was not
there afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn't there at the time of the shooting because
I had seen him walk across the street — up the street.
. . . .
Mr. BALL. Was he [Oswald] the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.