Reason # 2 why I believe the government's case against Oswald is bullshit

[Gil Jesus]

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1719/why-governments-case-oswald-bs

[JE Corbett]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:13:36 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1719/why-governments-case-oswald-bs

Oswald lied when he said he was being denied legal representation. The president of the Dallas bar association met with
Oswald and offered to get him a criminal lawyer. Oswald declined the offer because he wanted Communist lawyer John
Abt to represent him.

Since the case against Oswald isn't based on anything Oswald said in the short time he was in custody, your argument is
moot.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:52:33 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> Since the case against Oswald isn't based on anything Oswald said in the short time he was in custody, your argument is
> moot.

I'm nor arguing you fucking idiot. I'm posting the REASONS WHY I BELIEVE the government's case is bullshit.
It's an opinion.
It's not for debate and it's not for your approval.

[JE Corbett]

So you admit your skepticism is based on stupid reasons.

If these are just your reasons for your opinions, what was your point in posting them if they weren't put out there for comment?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 03:52:31 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:13:36?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1719/why-governments-case-oswald-bs

Lies deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:05:21?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:52:33?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> > Since the case against Oswald isn't based on anything Oswald said in the short time he was in custody, your argument is
>> > moot.
>> I'm nor arguing you fucking idiot. I'm posting the REASONS WHY I BELIEVE the government's case is bullshit.
>> It's an opinion.
>> It's not for debate and it's not for your approval.
>

>So you admit ...

That you're an idiot, yes...

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

> >So you admit ...
>
> That you're an idiot, yes...

As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
I wanna examine it for myself.

My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.

The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.

It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.

Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.

The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.

And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.

1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.

The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
PERIOD.

Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
Everything was done in secret.

I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
MORE TO COME

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > >So you admit ...
> >
> > That you're an idiot, yes...
> As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
> You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
> Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
> I wanna examine it for myself.
>

The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.

> My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
> IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.

Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.

>
> The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.

Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.

> This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
> It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
> As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.

>
> From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
> the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?

>
> It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
> And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
> With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.

Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was discovered it was too high to make it
into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.

>
> Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.

A charge with no evidence.

> Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.

More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.

> Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.

Cite?

> Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.

That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.

> He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
>

My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.

> The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
> See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?

>
> That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.

Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They
don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.

> And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
>
> And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.

As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
Oswald's guilt.

>
> 1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
> 2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
> 3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.

None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.

>
> The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> PERIOD.

You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.

>
> Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
> Everything was done in secret.

A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.

>
> I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.

Your reasons are FUBAR.

> MORE TO COME

Oh, goody.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 05:06:48 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>>>>So you admit ...
>>>
>>> That you're an idiot, yes...
>> As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
>> You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
>> Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
>> I wanna examine it for myself.
>>
>The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
>is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.

Lies won't convince people.

>> My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
>> IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
>

>Your opinion...


Is without merit. Gil, however, is speaking from experience.

>> The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
>

>Even if true...


Can't be honest, can you?

>> This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
>> It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
>> As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>

>I don't know why ...


Because you can't think.

>> From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
>> the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
>

>Why ...


Because you're a moron?

>> It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
>> And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
>> With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.

Unsupported speculation deleted.

>> Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
>
>A charge with no evidence.


A charge with no evidence.


>> Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
>
>Cite?

Not needed. Thinking people understand.

>> Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
>

>That's how a fact finding process works...


To ignore evidence? A real moron, aren't you...

>> He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
>>
>My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.

That's because you're too dishonest to acknowledge the truth.

>> The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
>> See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
>>
>> And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> 1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
>> 2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
>> 3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.

Yet another logical fallacy deleted.

>> The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
>> PERIOD.
>>

>> Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
>> Everything was done in secret.
>

>A record was kept...


Provably a lie.

>> I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
>>

>> MORE TO COME

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > > >So you admit ...
> > >
> > > That you're an idiot, yes...
> > As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
> > You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
> > Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
> > I wanna examine it for myself.
> >
> The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
> is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
> > My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
> > IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.

> Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
> it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.

Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
I never said anything about a conspiracy ?

> > The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
> Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.

WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.

> > This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
> > It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
> > As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
> > https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

> I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
> Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
> murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.

Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.

> > From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
> > the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?

Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

> > It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
> > And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
> > With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.

> Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
> discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.

More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?

> > Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
> A charge with no evidence.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4

Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?

> > Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
> More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.

Good God, that's common knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA

> > Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
> Cite?

Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?

> > Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
> That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
> that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
> Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.

> > He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
> >
> My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.

Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png

> > The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
> > See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
> Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?

You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
I call it corroboration.

> > That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.

> Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.

The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.

> > And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
> >
> > And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.

> As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
> some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
> maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
> can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
> Oswald's guilt.

POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.
No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
This case never would have seen the light of day.
As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
And that's why they let Ruby into the building.

> >
> > 1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
> > 2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
> > 3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
> None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.

No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.

> > The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > PERIOD.
> You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.

?????????????????

> >
> > Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
> > Everything was done in secret.

> A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.

After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.

> > I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
> Your reasons are FUBAR.

And your comments, like you, are worthless.

And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 09:56:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>>>>>So you admit ...
>>>>
>>>> That you're an idiot, yes...
>>> As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
>>> You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
>>> Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
>>> I wanna examine it for myself.
>>>
>> The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
>> is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
>>> My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
>>> IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
>
>> Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
>> it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
>
>Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
>I never said anything about a conspiracy ?

It's impossible for believers to deal with what we ACTUALLY say - they
even pretend that we're "hiding" our true beliefs.

>>> The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
>> Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
>
>WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.

It's amusing that Corbutt can't acknowledge the truth.

>>> This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
>>> It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
>>> As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>
>> I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
>> Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
>> murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
>
>Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.

You waste your time explaining the obvious to Corbutt.

>>> From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
>>> the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
>> Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
>
>Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
>https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

Corbutt can't acknowledge the truth - he relies on his speculation and
WC lies.

>>> It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
>>> And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
>>> With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
>
>> Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
>> discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
>
>More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?

It's meaningless to ask Corbutt to support his speculation.

>>> Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
>> A charge with no evidence.
>
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4
>
>Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?

Corbutt won't answer...

>>> Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
>> More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.
>
>Good God, that's common knowledge.
>https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-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
E
>CGLEDGMcBGNEDwgINEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQYCsICDRAuGIAEGMcBGK8BGArCAgcQABiABBgKwgIjEC4YgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYxwEY0QMYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIcEC4YgAQYxwEYrwEYChiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAeIDBBgAIEGIBgG6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
>
>Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho"
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA

Corbutt lives in an alternative reality...

>>> Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
>> Cite?
>
>Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?

Corbutt won't answer.

>>> Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
>> That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
>> that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
>> Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
>
>>> He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
>>>
>> My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
>
>Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png

Watch folks, as Corbutt ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to admit he's been proven a
liar.

>>> The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
>>> See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>> Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
>
>You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
>Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
>Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
>I call it corroboration.

Here, Corbutt simply lied about what Gil said... I'd not let the lie
pass, force Corbutt to QUOTE you talking about Mark Lane taking
testimony under oath.

>>> That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
>
>> Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.
>
>The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.

Corbutt lies, that's what Corbutt does.

>>> And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
>>>
>>> And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
>
>> As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
>> some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
>> maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
>> can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
>> Oswald's guilt.
>
>POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.

Yep. Absolutely true. And Corbutt has no legitimate & credible
rebuttal.

>No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
>This case never would have seen the light of day.
>As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
>And that's why they let Ruby into the building.
>
>>>
>>> 1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
>>> 2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
>>> 3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
>> None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
>
>No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.

Watch folks, as Corbutt ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite this "real
evidence."

>>> The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
>>> PERIOD.
>> You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
>
>?????????????????

Corbutt doesn't understand the English language.

>>> Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
>>> Everything was done in secret.
>
>> A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.
>
>After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.

Not even true. There was PROVABLY quite a lot that was off the
record, and NEVER recorded.

Corbutt will never admit this publicly... it would prove him a liar.

>>> I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
>> Your reasons are FUBAR.
>
>And your comments, like you, are worthless.
>
>And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.

True.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > > > >So you admit ...
> > > >
> > > > That you're an idiot, yes...
> > > As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
> > > You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
> > > Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
> > > I wanna examine it for myself.
> > >
> > The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
> > is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
> > > My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
> > > IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
>
> > Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
> > it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
> Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
> I never said anything about a conspiracy ?

Ok, so these are just your FUBAR opinions and not evidence of anything. That makes them easy to dismiss.

> > > The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
> > Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
> WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.

This is another example of your piss poor reasoning. Even if it were true that the DPD framed some people is not evidence
all or even most of the people prosecuted were framed. What you need is evidence they framed Oswald and since you have
admitted to having no evidence that was done, we can once again easily dismiss your arguments.

You also ignore the fact the DPD only were involved in the initial evidence gathering. The FBI soon took over the collection
and analysis of the evidence. Since the DPD's involvement was limited to the first few days. Did the DPD manage to frame
Oswald in the first 36 hours? What evidence did they fabricate against Oswald? What is your evidence that they did? Did
they know ahead of time they had to start framing Oswald immediately? You've never answered these questions. Being an
incurable optimist, I'm giving you another chance.

> > > This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
> > > It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
> > > As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
> > > https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>
> > I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
> > Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
> > murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
> Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.

Another opportunity for you to provide evidence that the DPD fabricated evidence against Oswald. Are you up to it?

> > > From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
> > > the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
> Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

Why would you think a conversation between Oswald and the president of the Dallas Bar Association would be videotaped?
The meeting between Louis Nichols and Oswald has been documented by the ABA Journal:
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94

Of course you'll dismiss this out of hand but you'll accept at face value Oswald's claim he was being denied legal representation
without any corroborating ebvidence.

> > > It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
> > > And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
> > > With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
>
> > Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
> > discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
> More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?

Who were they?

> > > Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
> > A charge with no evidence.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4
>

Your claim wasn't that the FBI took over the investigation. That is not in dispute. Your claim was that Hoover covered up the
false arrest (presumably of Oswald). Do you have any evidence Hoover engaged in such a coverup? Why would you claim
the arrest of Oswald was a false arrest? Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.

> Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?

I though you were well informed about the facts of the case. My mistake. The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt.
Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.

> > > Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.

> > More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.
> Good God, that's common knowledge.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

It's common knowledge Hoover disliked the Kennedys, especially Bobby who theoretically was his boss. That isn't evidence
that Hoover engineered a coverup. That is an assumption by you with no evidence to support it.

>
> Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA

So. I'll bet Hoover called Bobby a few names too. That still is no evidence Hoover directed a coverup. You just made that up.

> > > Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
> > Cite?
> Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?

That's what the staff laywers did. They looked at the statements the DPD. The called people who had done analysis on the
evidence, some of which was done by crime labs other than the FBI's.

> > > Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
> > That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
> > that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
> > Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
>
> > > He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
> > >
> > My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
> Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.

I would agree with that assessment. Neither is reliable.

> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
> > > The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
> > > See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
> > Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
> You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?

No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
Who were they testifying to when they made these allegations?

> Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?

Which of the people in these videos testified to the WC? Lane even stated in your videos that these witnesses were NOT
called to testify to the WC. Are you calling Lane a liar?

> Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
> I call it corroboration.
> > > That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.

Consiilience refers to evidence. Unsworn statements made to Mark Lane is not evidence.

>
> > Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.
> The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.

That's not what I said. I said there resources were not unlimited. Why do you keep making strawman arguments, AKA lies?

> > > And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
> > >
> > > And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
>
> > As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
> > some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
> > maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
> > can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
> > Oswald's guilt.
> POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.

You're an idiot. You don't think cops sometimes bend the rules to convict guilty people. I would wager that is the reason for
most police misconduct. They want to nail a guy who they know is a scumbag but they can't make the case honestly.

> No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.

For months, years, you have been accusing the DPD and Wade of doing just that. Now you are saying they did that to frame
Oswald. Why would they risk having the case against Oswald thrown out on a technicality?

> This case never would have seen the light of day.

Not if you were the judge.

> As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.

A judge would not have taken Oswald's word that he was being denied legal representation. If it became an issue at trial, the
prosecution would have called Louis Nichols to testify that he offered to find a criminal lawyer to represent Oswald and that
Oswald told him he either want Abt or an ACLU lawyer. Even if it could have been established that Oswald had been denied
legal representation, it would have only invalidated any statement Oswald made. Since nothing Oswald said was part of the
body of eivdence of his guilt, that would not jeopardized the case.

> And that's why they let Ruby into the building.

Another in a long line of your claims with zero evidence to support it.

> > >
> > > 1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
> > > 2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
> > > 3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
> > None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
> No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.
> > > The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > > PERIOD.
> > You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
> ?????????????????

PERIOD is a punctuation mark.

> > >
> > > Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
> > > Everything was done in secret.
>
> > A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.
> After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.

So?

> > > I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
> > Your reasons are FUBAR.
> And your comments, like you, are worthless.
>
> And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.

You haven't posted any evidence.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

…

> > > > The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > > > PERIOD.
> > > You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
> > ?????????????????
> PERIOD is a punctuation mark.
> > > >

And “PERIOD.” is redundant
It’s like calling this site “alt.dot.conspiracy.dot.jfk”.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > > > >So you admit ...
> > > >
> > > > That you're an idiot, yes...
> > > As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
> > > You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
> > > Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
> > > I wanna examine it for myself.
> > >
> > The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
> > is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
> > > My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
> > > IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
>
> > Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
> > it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
> Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
> I never said anything about a conspiracy ?

You have hundreds of people conspiring to make Oswald look guilty, stupid.

> > > The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
> > Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
> WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.

Your questioning of the credibility of the authorities lacks credibility.

> > > This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
> > > It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
> > > As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
> > > https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>
> > I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
> > Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
> > murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
> Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police.

The ones that you say haven`t a clue how to process evidence correctly, yet had a stellar batting average in court.

Not that you can tell but these two ideas are in conflict with one another.

>He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.

I suppose it would be a waste of time to explain to that you haven`t shown that they purposely sent innocent people to jail.

> > > From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
> > > the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
> Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?

What reason did he have to lie about it?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
> > > It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
> > > And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
> > > With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
>
> > Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
> > discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
> More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?

Who saw Ruby enter the building? yet he was there, do you think he teleported Star Trek style?

> > > Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
> > A charge with no evidence.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4
>
> Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?

Day found the palm print, not the FBI.

> > > Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
> > More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.
> Good God, that's common knowledge.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
>
> Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA

Oswald`s own brother accepted that he was an assassin.

> > > Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
> > Cite?
> Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?

He asked you to cite for your claim.

> > > Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
> > That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
> > that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
> > Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
>
> > > He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
> > >
> > My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
> Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
> > > The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
> > > See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
> > Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
> You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
> Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
> Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
> I call it corroboration.

Because you don`t understand the difference between that and consilience.

> > > That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
>
> > Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.
> The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.
> > > And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
> > >
> > > And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
>
> > As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
> > some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
> > maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
> > can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
> > Oswald's guilt.
> POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.

Begged.

> No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
> This case never would have seen the light of day.
> As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
> And that's why they let Ruby into the building.

Nonsense. They had a slam dunk case against Oswald, they didn`t need, or want him dead.

> > > 1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
> > > 2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
> > > 3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
> > None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
> No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.

How did they get Oswald to act like a guilty person?

> > > The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > > PERIOD.
> > You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
> ?????????????????
> > >
> > > Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
> > > Everything was done in secret.
>
> > A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.
> After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.

You think you are capable of finding out what they testified to, but they are not?

> > > I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
> > Your reasons are FUBAR.
> And your comments, like you, are worthless.

I was thinking the same thing about your opinions.

> And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.

It was pointed out that there is evidence that Oswald was offered legal assistance. You did the conspiracy hobbyist thing where you contrive a reason to disregard that evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:17:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:06:50?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:36:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:48:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:47:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>>>>>>So you admit ...
>>>>>
>>>>> That you're an idiot, yes...
>>>> As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock.
>>>> You won't see me writing about 9-11, the Moon Landing, Flight 800, Sandy Hook or any of the other incidents where people have claimed the official version of events was not true.
>>>> Unlike the Lone Nutters and the conspiracy theorists, I don't accept what I'm told just because someone told me.
>>>> I wanna examine it for myself.
>>>>
>>> The LNs have examined the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone because there
>>> is no credible evidence that anyone else participated in either murder.
>>>> My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not.
>>>> IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate.
>>
>>> Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
>>> it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
>> Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
>> I never said anything about a conspiracy ?
>

>Ok...


Got caught lying, and can't retract the lie...

>>>> The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
>>> Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
>> WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.
>
>This is another example of your piss poor reasoning.

When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.

>You also ignore...


Nothing has been "ignored" - this is simply another unsupportable lie
on your part.

>>>> This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
>>>> It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
>>>> As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>>
>>> I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
>>> Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
>>> murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
>> Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
>>>> the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
>>> Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
>> Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>

>Why would you think ...


That you could support yoiur lie.

No, we *never* thought that.

>>>> It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit.
>>>> And the end result, Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby, was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial.
>>>> With Oswald dead, the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court.
>>
>>> Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
>>> discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
>> More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
>
>Who were they?

They were photographed. Are you blind?

Answering a question you can't answer with another question? Quite
the coward, aren't you?

>>>> Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved.
>>> A charge with no evidence.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Chief-Curry-turns-over-assassination-evidence-to-FBI-11.26.63.mp4
>>
>Your claim wasn't that the FBI took over the investigation. That is not in dispute. Your claim was that Hoover covered up the
>false arrest (presumably of Oswald). Do you have any evidence Hoover engaged in such a coverup? Why would you claim
>the arrest of Oswald was a false arrest? Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
>That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.

Gil has ALREADY cited for this.

You lose!

>> Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
>
>I though you were well informed about the facts of the case. My mistake. The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt.
>Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.

I predicted you wouldn't answer this question. Answering it with a
lie is the same as not answering it.

You lose.

>>>> Hoover hated Kennedy. There was no way he was going to entertain any evidence that pointed to the true murderers of Kennedy. They saved his job.
>
>>> More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them.
>> Good God, that's common knowledge.
>>
>https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedys+and+hoover&sca_esv=586327572&biw=1920&bih=931&ei=yG1nZYHBFPmy0PEPwNWxkAk&ved=0ahUKEwiBxZiX1-mCAxV5GTQIHcBqDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=kennedys+and+hoover&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2tlbm5lZHlzIGFuZCBob292ZXIyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iEJVAAWK0fcAB4AZABAJgBkAKgAaIeqgEGMC43LjEyuAEDyAEA-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
E
>CGLEDGMcBGNEDwgINEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQYCsICDRAuGIAEGMcBGK8BGArCAgcQABiABBgKwgIjEC4YgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYxwEY0QMYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIcEC4YgAQYxwEYrwEYChiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAeIDBBgAIEGIBgG6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
>

>It's common knowledge Hoover disliked the Kennedys...


Gil just said that.

>> Bobby even called Hoover a "psycho"
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxFvH7srgTA
>
>So. I'll bet Hoover called Bobby a few names too. That still is no evidence Hoover directed a coverup. You just made that up.

Gil cited for it.

What more would an honest person need?

>>>> Hoover controlled the list of witnesses who would appear before the Warren Commission.
>>> Cite?
>> Who do you say the Warren Commission got the names of the witnesses from ?
>
>That's what the staff laywers did. They looked at the statements the DPD.

You're a DAMNED liar! Name every witness the DPD interviewed, and
let's compare it to the list of witnesses the WCR listed.

>The called people who had done analysis on the
>evidence, some of which was done by crime labs other than the FBI's.

ROTFLMAO!!! You just RAN from the fact that Gil got it right - yet
again...

>>>> Many of those witnesses who the FBI interviewed were ignored and never appeared to give testimony.
>>> That's how a fact finding process works. Preliminary interviews are made to determine which witnesses have information
>>> that will shed light on the assassination and the Tippit murder. Do you think they should have called everyone who was in
>>> Dealy Plaza that day. Should they have called everyone who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.
>>
>>>> He even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence.
>>>>
>>> My bullshit detector is beeping like crazy.
>> Maybe you should have it checked. Sounds like it's as dependable as your lie detector.
>
>I would agree with that assessment. Neither is reliable.

Gil cited for his assertion - your "bullshit detector" is acting like
a mirror. **YOU** were the one lying.

>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/no-interview-clemons-wrights.png
>>>> The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
>>>> See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>>> Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
>> You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
>
>No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
>Who were they testifying to when they made these allegations?

The WC.

>> Why are you ignoring the ones I cited who testified to the Warren Commission ?
>
>Which of the people in these videos testified to the WC? Lane even stated in your videos that these witnesses were NOT
>called to testify to the WC. Are you calling Lane a liar?

Nah, clearly, *YOU* are the liar. You can't quote Gil, then quote
Mark Lane contradicting him.

>> Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
>> I call it corroboration.
>>>> That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All leads are followed through to their end. All witnesses are interviewed, regardless of what they have to say.
>
>Consiilience refers to evidence.

Testimony is evidence.

You lose!

>>> Is that what they taught you at Mall Cop School. Police follow leads that they believe will yield valuable information. They don't have unlimited resources and have to be judicious about how they use their resources.
>> The FBI has resources in every state and in every major city. Don't give me that bullshit that they were short-handed.
>

>That's not what I said. I said there resources were not unlimited...


Yep... they aren't shorthanded.

>>>> And their statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.
>>>>
>>>> And therein lies the smoking gun of Oswald's innocence: the way the authorities handled the case.
>>
>>> As I wrote at the beginning, police misconduct, real or imagined, is not evidence of Oswald's innocence. The police did make
>>> some mistakes. Misidentifying the rifle when it was found. Misidentifying the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. Not
>>> maintaining tight control on the entrances to the police garage. None of these are evidence of Oswald's innocence. Two things
>>> can be true. Oswald murdered too men and the police made some mistakes in the aftermath. Those mistakes do not erase
>>> Oswald's guilt.
>> POLICE MISCONDUCT IN THE HANDLING OF THE CASE IS EVIDENCE OF A SUSPECT'S INNOCENCE.
>

>You're an idiot...


When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.

>> No professional officer, who dedicated hours of his time to build a case against a suspect, would want to see that case thrown out of court on a technicality.
>
>For months, years, you have been accusing the DPD and Wade of doing just that.

He provably did. There's a difference between a professional, who is
honest, and Wade, who was not.

>> This case never would have seen the light of day.
>
>Not if you were the judge.

Nor if you were honest.

>> As soon as a judge would have found out that Oswald's constitutional rights had been violated, this case would have been dropped.
>

>A judge would not have taken Oswald's word ...


Then he could take the word of police officers who knew...

>> And that's why they let Ruby into the building.
>>

>>>> 1. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ).
>>>> 2. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
>>>> 3. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
>>> None of this exonerates Oswald. They are just your opinions. The real evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
>> No the real evidence points to prosecutorial misconduct and the framing by police of an innocent man.
>>>> The actions of the Dallas Police and the FBI were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
>>>> PERIOD.
>>> You don't need to spell out punctuation marks.
>> ?????????????????
>
>PERIOD is a punctuation mark.

"Period" is also an exclamation.

Are you too stupid to understand that?

>>>> Finally, transparency was not exactly the government's priority. In its role in the coverup, the Warren Commission hearings were conducted in executive session. Unlike the Watergate hearings, television was not allowed to broadcast the testimony. The public was not allowed to attend the hearings.
>>>> Everything was done in secret.
>>
>>> A record was kept of everyone's testimony and published for those interested to review.
>> After the fact. But no one was allowed to listen to the testimony live.
>
>So?

Good of you to admit the truth...

>>>> I don't take this stand ( that the case was a fraud ) without reason, so I've taken the liberty to list the reasons why I believe what I believe.
>>> Your reasons are FUBAR.
>> And your comments, like you, are worthless.
>>
>> And you haven't refuted with evidence one thing I've posted.
>
>You haven't posted any evidence.

You're lying again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:59:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:33:47 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Bud]

Besides honesty you are also deficient in reasoning ability.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:37:40 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
> > > it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
> > Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.

> > I never said anything about a conspiracy.

> Ok, so these are just your FUBAR opinions and not evidence of anything. That makes them easy to dismiss.
> > > > The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
> > > Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
> > WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.

> This is another example of your piss poor reasoning. Even if it were true that the DPD framed some people is not evidence
> all or even most of the people prosecuted were framed. What you need is evidence they framed Oswald and since you have
> admitted to having no evidence that was done, we can once again easily dismiss your arguments.

https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

>
> You also ignore the fact the DPD only were involved in the initial evidence gathering. The FBI soon took over the collection
> and analysis of the evidence. Since the DPD's involvement was limited to the first few days. Did the DPD manage to frame
> Oswald in the first 36 hours? What evidence did they fabricate against Oswald? What is your evidence that they did? Did
> they know ahead of time they had to start framing Oswald immediately? You've never answered these questions. Being an
> incurable optimist, I'm giving you another chance.

https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

> > > > This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
> > > > It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
> > > > As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
> > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
> >
> > > I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
> > > Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
> > > murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
> > Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.
> Another opportunity for you to provide evidence that the DPD fabricated evidence against Oswald. Are you up to it?

https://gil-jesus.com/jfk-assassination/

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

https://gil-jesus.com/the-walker-shooting/

> > > > From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
> > > > the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > > Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
> > Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
> > https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

> Why would you think a conversation between Oswald and the president of the Dallas Bar Association would be videotaped?

Who said it was videotaped ? I asked for ANY video or audio of Oswald saying he didn't want a lawyer. I never said anything about the meeting with Nichols.

> The meeting between Louis Nichols and Oswald has been documented by the ABA Journal:
> https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94

Who said it never occurred ? I acknowledge it occurred and go into it in depth on my webpage.

https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

WHY DO YOU KEEP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ? IT SEEMS YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH READING COMPREHENSION.

>
> Of course you'll dismiss this out of hand but you'll accept at face value Oswald's claim he was being denied legal representation
> without any corroborating ebvidence.

Nichols testified that Oswald told him he was being held incommunicado. ( 7 H 328 )
Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
He testified that Oswald told him he wanted John Abt or someone from the ACLU. ( 7 H 329 )
Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
No, he just told the press that Oswald refused his help. ( 7 H 330 )
Nichols, who was reluctant to get involved, among whose clients was the city of Dallas, and who had a brother on the police force, was obviously biased in favor of the police department.
He never wanted to get involved and never told the press the whole story.
Do you realize what bias does to a witness' credibility ?

> > > Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
> > > discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
> > More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
> Who were they?

Are you suggesting the basement was empty during the transfer ?

Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?

> Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
> That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.

Besides the police, who among the witnesses in the theater saw Oswald pull a gun ?

Oswald should have been charged with assault and battery on a police officer. That charge alone would have been enough to hold him until arraignment Monday morning.
Was he ever charged with assault and battery on Off. Nick MacDonald ? Yes or no ?

> > Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?

> The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt. Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.

That's not what Lt. Day testified to. He testified that after he lifted the print, there was enough there for the FBI to do a comparison. When asked why he didn't send the lifted palm print ( CE 637 ) to the FBI on the night of the assassination with the other evidence, Day told the Commission that, "I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, that IT STILL REMAINED ON THERE....." ( 4 H 261 )

The "complete lifting leaving no trace" was the FBI's excuse for why there was no palm print on the rifle when they received it.
It was their speculation, nothing more.
But you accept it as fact.

> > > > The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
> > > > See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
> > > Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
> > You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
> No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.

I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )
Among those witnesses were :

Robert Edwards
Buell Frazier
Michael Paine
B.M. Patterson
James Worrell

That's in ADDITION to the witnesses Mark Lane interviewed.

Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?

Is that enough corroborating evidence for you ?
Probably not.

These are NOT the types of things that go on in a normal homicide investigation.
And the fact that you think they do only proves one thing :

You're an idiot.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

> You haven't posted any evidence.

I think you've got that backwards. My posts are the only ones citing sources.

On the other hand, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've said.

YOU'VE posted No citations
YOU'VE posted No documents
YOU'VE posted No testimony
YOU'VE posted No exhibits
YOU'VE posted No witness videos
YOU'VE posted No photographs

All you post is silly comments, lies and insults.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

[JE Corbett]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:43:58 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > You haven't posted any evidence.
> I think you've got that backwards. My posts are the only ones citing sources.

Citing unsworn statements made to Mark Lane is not evidence.

In those rare instances where you do cite actual evidence, you draw illogical conclusions from it.

>
> On the other hand, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've said.

Giltardo continues to lie.

>
> YOU'VE posted No citations
> YOU'VE posted No documents
> YOU'VE posted No testimony
> YOU'VE posted No exhibits
> YOU'VE posted No witness videos
> YOU'VE posted No photographs

Giltardo continues to lie. Often it is not necessary to post any of the above to refute your silly conclusions. When necessary
I have posted all of the above. For example, just a few days ago, I posted the autopsy photo which refuted the statement by
Chaney which you posted claiming JFK had been shot in the face. Just to refresh your memory, I posted the following:

"Chaney didn't say near the face. He said "in the face". Tell us why you believe Chaney's account that JFK was struck in the
face. Tell us where in the below photo you see a gunshot wound".

http://i0.wp.com/www.nationalenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/old_neq/article_images/jfk_stry_a_0.jpg?resize=451,400

>
> All you post is silly comments, lies and insults.
> A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

I post critical questions which you usually avoid. For example in the same thread that the above passage came from, I asked
you if you believe the throat wound was an entrance, does that mean you believe the back wound was an exit or did you believe
they were both entrances. If you believe they were both entrances, why are there no exit wounds and no bullets found in the
body. Would you like to take that one on or are you going to chicken out again.

I also asked you how Chaney's statement that JFK was shot in the face corroborates the witnesses who said the throat
wound was an entrance.

The above questions are an example of how I am able to refute your silly conclusions without having to post any evidence of
my own. All I have to do is point out how illogical your arguments were.

[JE Corbett]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:25:49 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > > Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
> > > > it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
> > > Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
> > > I never said anything about a conspiracy.
> > Ok, so these are just your FUBAR opinions and not evidence of anything. That makes them easy to dismiss.
> > > > > The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
> > > > Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
> > > WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.
>
> > This is another example of your piss poor reasoning. Even if it were true that the DPD framed some people is not evidence
> > all or even most of the people prosecuted were framed. What you need is evidence they framed Oswald and since you have
> > admitted to having no evidence that was done, we can once again easily dismiss your arguments.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

When Giltardo can't answer a question (which is normally the case) or provide the information asked for, he resorts to
posting links to his websites and expects the other person to search through these to find the answer that was posed to
him. This is the coward's crutch which I have seen used countless times over the years in many discussion groups on a wide
variety of subjects.

Links to websites are not an answer to questions. They are an attempt to shift the burden from the person who was asked
the question to the person who asked the question. Giltardo resorts to the coward's crutch quite often because he is unable
to articulate a lucid response to the question asked.

What was asked for was evidence that the DPD had framed Oswald. Gil's website offers no such evidence. If it did he could
post the specific passages from those websites which contain such evidence. Instead he tries to shift the burden to me to
find the evidence he can't.

> >
> > You also ignore the fact the DPD only were involved in the initial evidence gathering. The FBI soon took over the collection
> > and analysis of the evidence. Since the DPD's involvement was limited to the first few days. Did the DPD manage to frame
> > Oswald in the first 36 hours? What evidence did they fabricate against Oswald? What is your evidence that they did? Did
> > they know ahead of time they had to start framing Oswald immediately? You've never answered these questions. Being an
> > incurable optimist, I'm giving you another chance.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

The coward's crutch. Your webpages aren't evidence, Giltardo. If those webpages actually contain evidence, you should know
where that is and be able to post it here through a simple cut and paste. You wouldn't need to shift the burden to me to find
the evidence you are unable to provide.

> > > > > This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
> > > > > It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
> > > > > As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
> > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
> > >
> > > > I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
> > > > Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
> > > > murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
> > > Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.
> > Another opportunity for you to provide evidence that the DPD fabricated evidence against Oswald. Are you up to it?
> https://gil-jesus.com/jfk-assassination/
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-walker-shooting/

Coward's crutch.

> > > > > From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
> > > > > the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
> > > > Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
> > > Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
> > > https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>
> > Why would you think a conversation between Oswald and the president of the Dallas Bar Association would be videotaped?
> Who said it was videotaped ?

You asked if it was. It was a stupid question.

> I asked for ANY video or audio of Oswald saying he didn't want a lawyer. I never said anything about the meeting with Nichols.

It is silly to ask for any such video. Oswald lied to the news media when he said he was being denied legal representation.
He had been offered legal representation and turned it down. You also ignore the fact that this case preceded the Miranda
ruling that stated if a suspect asks for a lawyer, all questioning must stop. That wasn't the rule in 1963. Even though it wasn't
a rule, Oswald had been offered legal representation and turned it down.

> > The meeting between Louis Nichols and Oswald has been documented by the ABA Journal:
> > https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94
> Who said it never occurred ? I acknowledge it occurred and go into it in depth on my webpage.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>
> WHY DO YOU KEEP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ? IT SEEMS YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH READING COMPREHENSION.

It shows that Nichols met with Oswald and offered to have the Dallas Bar Association provide him with a criminal lawyer.
Oswald refused the offer. Even if it were true that Oswald was denied legal representation, which it is not, that isn't evidence
of a frame up. All that would do would be to make anything Oswald said after that inadmissible in court. Since nothing
Oswald said was part of the body of evidence that proves his guilt, that wouldn't have mattered.

> >
> > Of course you'll dismiss this out of hand but you'll accept at face value Oswald's claim he was being denied legal representation
> > without any corroborating ebvidence.
> Nichols testified that Oswald told him he was being held incommunicado. ( 7 H 328 )
> Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
> He testified that Oswald told him he wanted John Abt or someone from the ACLU. ( 7 H 329 )
> Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
> No, he just told the press that Oswald refused his help. ( 7 H 330 )

What more did he need to say?

> Nichols, who was reluctant to get involved, among whose clients was the city of Dallas, and who had a brother on the police force, was obviously biased in favor of the police department.
> He never wanted to get involved and never told the press the whole story.
> Do you realize what bias does to a witness' credibility ?

The bias is imaginary. You have provided no evidence of bias. Only your silly insinuations.

> > > > Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
> > > > discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
> > > More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
> > Who were they?
> Are you suggesting the basement was empty during the transfer ?

I'm suggesting people's attention would have been focused on the door Oswald was going to be led out of. Why would anyone
notice Ruby coming down the ramp behind them? Why would you assume anyone would have seen Ruby?

> Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?

Ruby said he came down the ramp. How else do you think he could have gotten into the garage.

> > Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
> > That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.
> Besides the police, who among the witnesses in the theater saw Oswald pull a gun ?
>

Who else needed to see it to justify the arrest?

> Oswald should have been charged with assault and battery on a police officer. That charge alone would have been enough to hold him until arraignment Monday morning.

He was charged with murder later that evening because they had probable cause to charge him with the Tippit murder. Later
that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.

> Was he ever charged with assault and battery on Off. Nick MacDonald ? Yes or no ?

I don't know. I do know it doesn't matter since they had evidence he had murdered two guys and that's what they charged him
with.

> > > Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
> > The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt. Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.
> That's not what Lt. Day testified to. He testified that after he lifted the print, there was enough there for the FBI to do a comparison. When asked why he didn't send the lifted palm print ( CE 637 ) to the FBI on the night of the assassination with the other evidence, Day told the Commission that, "I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, that IT STILL REMAINED ON THERE....." ( 4 H 261 )
>
> The "complete lifting leaving no trace" was the FBI's excuse for why there was no palm print on the rifle when they received it.
> It was their speculation, nothing more.
> But you accept it as fact.

Fingerprints do not remain on an object indefinitely. A trace print is going to disappear. I accept as fact that Day lifted the print
off the rifle because he was able to provide the FBI with the lifted print. You on the other hand are looking for an excuse to
dismiss that damning piece of evidence so you invent this feeble excuse. The reason this print is so damaging is that it could
only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. Since prints don't remain on a surface indefinitely, it indicated that
the rifle had been recently disassembled. That would have been required for Oswald to fit his rifle in the 40 inch bag. Once
again, the pieces of evidence fit neatly together and point the finger of guilt at Oswald and no one else.

> > > > > The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
> > > > > See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
> > > > Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
> > > You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
> > No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
> I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )
> Among those witnesses were :
>
> Robert Edwards
> Buell Frazier
> Michael Paine
> B.M. Patterson
> James Worrell

Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.

>
> That's in ADDITION to the witnesses Mark Lane interviewed.
> Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
> Is that enough corroborating evidence for you ?
> Probably not.
>

Your wild accusations are no evidence.

> These are NOT the types of things that go on in a normal homicide investigation.
> And the fact that you think they do only proves one thing :
>
> You're an idiot.

The class dunce just called me an idiot. That's going to ruin my day. <chuckle>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 05:20:50 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:25:49?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:56:06?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> Your opinion is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even if your claims that the things the DPD did were wrong, which they aren't,
>>>>> it would not preclude Oswald being the assassin nor be evidence that others were involved.
>>>> Who said anything about a conspiracy ? I'm giving the reasons why I believe the case against Oswald was fraudulent.
>>>> I never said anything about a conspiracy.
>>> Ok, so these are just your FUBAR opinions and not evidence of anything. That makes them easy to dismiss.
>>>>>> The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
>>>>> Even if true, this is not evidence that Oswald was framed or that others were involved.
>>>> WRONG. The credibility of a criminal case depends on the credibility of the authority bringing that case to trial.
>>
>>> This is another example of your piss poor reasoning. Even if it were true that the DPD framed some people is not evidence
>>> all or even most of the people prosecuted were framed. What you need is evidence they framed Oswald and since you have
>>> admitted to having no evidence that was done, we can once again easily dismiss your arguments.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>

>When Giltardo can't answer a question...


Lying won't convince anyone.

>>> You also ignore the fact the DPD only were involved in the initial evidence gathering. The FBI soon took over the collection
>>> and analysis of the evidence. Since the DPD's involvement was limited to the first few days. Did the DPD manage to frame
>>> Oswald in the first 36 hours? What evidence did they fabricate against Oswald? What is your evidence that they did? Did
>>> they know ahead of time they had to start framing Oswald immediately? You've never answered these questions. Being an
>>> incurable optimist, I'm giving you another chance.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>

>The coward's crutch. Your webpages aren't evidence...


A statement that David Von Penis will never hear from Corbutt.

>>>>>> This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's.
>>>>>> It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime.
>>>>>> As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why you think Wade's record is he least bit relevant given that his involvement in the case ended the minute
>>>>> Oswald was pronounced dead. Wade had no part in the gathering of evidence against Oswald. His only action was to file
>>>>> murder charges against Oswald for the two murders based on evidence the DPD had already gathered.
>>>> Wade's record is tied to the stooges in the Dallas Police. He couldn't have sent innocent people to jail without their cooperation.
>>> Another opportunity for you to provide evidence that the DPD fabricated evidence against Oswald. Are you up to it?
>> https://gil-jesus.com/jfk-assassination/
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-walker-shooting/
>
>Coward's crutch.

Proof of your hypocrisy. Von Penis & McAdams could do it all day, and
never a peep from you.

Why is that?

>>>>>> From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats,
>>>>>> the way the authorities handled the case was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled.
>>>>> Why do you keep ignoring the fact Oswald had turned down legal assistance when offered to him?
>>>> Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>>
>>> Why would you think a conversation between Oswald and the president of the Dallas Bar Association would be videotaped?
>> Who said it was videotaped ?
>
>You asked if it was. It was a stupid question.

Nah, it was a question you RAN from, coward...

>> I asked for ANY video or audio of Oswald saying he didn't want a lawyer. I never said anything about the meeting with Nichols.
>

>It is silly to ask for any such video...


You *STILL* can't acknowledge the truth.

What a coward!!!

>>> The meeting between Louis Nichols and Oswald has been documented by the ABA Journal:
>>> https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94
>> Who said it never occurred ? I acknowledge it occurred and go into it in depth on my webpage.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>>
>> WHY DO YOU KEEP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ? IT SEEMS YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH READING COMPREHENSION.
>

>It shows...


WHAT shows? Your lie?

Okay, that does indeed show something...

>>> Of course you'll dismiss this out of hand but you'll accept at face value Oswald's claim he was being denied legal representation
>>> without any corroborating ebvidence.
>> Nichols testified that Oswald told him he was being held incommunicado. ( 7 H 328 )
>> Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
>> He testified that Oswald told him he wanted John Abt or someone from the ACLU. ( 7 H 329 )
>> Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
>> No, he just told the press that Oswald refused his help. ( 7 H 330 )
>
>What more did he need to say?

Still a coward, aren't you Corbutt?

>> Nichols, who was reluctant to get involved, among whose clients was the city of Dallas, and who had a brother on the police force, was obviously biased in favor of the police department.
>> He never wanted to get involved and never told the press the whole story.
>> Do you realize what bias does to a witness' credibility ?
>
>The bias is imaginary. You have provided no evidence of bias. Only your silly insinuations.

Your bias is shockingly clear.

>>>>> Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
>>>>> discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
>>>> More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
>>> Who were they?
>> Are you suggesting the basement was empty during the transfer ?
>
>I'm suggesting people's attention would have been focused on the door Oswald was going to be led out of. Why would anyone
>notice Ruby coming down the ramp behind them? Why would you assume anyone would have seen Ruby?

This is simply too stupid to answer...

>> Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
>
>Ruby said he came down the ramp. How else do you think he could have gotten into the garage.

You believe Ruby?

>>> Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
>>> That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.
>> Besides the police, who among the witnesses in the theater saw Oswald pull a gun ?
>>
>Who else needed to see it to justify the arrest?

Can you explain why the list of witnesses in the theater disappeared?

Can you even ADMIT this known historical fact?

>> Oswald should have been charged with assault and battery on a police officer. That charge alone would have been enough to hold him until arraignment Monday morning.
>
>He was charged with murder later that evening because they had probable cause to charge him with the Tippit murder. Later
>that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.

You won't cite that evidence.

You're TERRIFIED of the actual evidence in this case.

>> Was he ever charged with assault and battery on Off. Nick MacDonald ? Yes or no ?
>
>I don't know.

Look it up, and answer the question coward.

>>>> Really, when did the FBI find the "palm print" on the rifle ? The first time it received the rifle or the second time ?
>>> The FBI did not find the palmprint on the rifle. Lt. Day did. He lifted the print off the rifle. There was nothing left for the FBI to find.
>> That's not what Lt. Day testified to. He testified that after he lifted the print, there was enough there for the FBI to do a comparison. When asked why he didn't send the lifted palm print ( CE 637 ) to the FBI on the night of the assassination with the other evidence, Day told the Commission that, "I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, that IT STILL REMAINED ON THERE....." ( 4 H 261 )
>>
>> The "complete lifting leaving no trace" was the FBI's excuse for why there was no palm print on the rifle when they received it.
>> It was their speculation, nothing more.
>> But you accept it as fact.
>
>Fingerprints do not remain on an object indefinitely.

We're speaking hours, or at the most, a few days. Why are you afraid
of the truth?

>>>>>> The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745 )
>>>>>> See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>>>>> Mark Lane interviewed people under oath?
>>>> You're suggesting that all of Lane's witnesses lied ?
>>> No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
>> I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )
>> Among those witnesses were :
>>
>> Robert Edwards
>> Buell Frazier
>> Michael Paine
>> B.M. Patterson
>> James Worrell
>
>Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.

Will you admit you're a liar if someone does this?

Mr. BELIN - In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come
from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - No; I didn't say that.

Ready to admit you're a moron and a liar?

>> That's in ADDITION to the witnesses Mark Lane interviewed.
>> Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
>> Is that enough corroborating evidence for you ?
>> Probably not.
>>
>Your wild accusations are no evidence.

But Gil's reference to evidence is.

>> These are NOT the types of things that go on in a normal homicide investigation.
>> And the fact that you think they do only proves one thing :
>>
>> You're an idiot.

And a clear liar, of course...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 04:22:02 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:43:58?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:17:25?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> You haven't posted any evidence.
>> I think you've got that backwards. My posts are the only ones citing sources.
>
>Citing unsworn statements made to Mark Lane is not evidence.

Lying is not evidence.

Why can't you QUOTE what Gil said?

>In those rare instances where you do cite actual evidence, you draw illogical conclusions from it.

Cit4e for your lie... or admit you're lying.

>> On the other hand, you haven't refuted one single thing that I've said.
>
>Giltardo continues to lie.

Refute what he said, then.

>> YOU'VE posted No citations
>> YOU'VE posted No documents
>> YOU'VE posted No testimony
>> YOU'VE posted No exhibits
>> YOU'VE posted No witness videos
>> YOU'VE posted No photographs
>
>Giltardo continues to lie. Often it is not necessary to post any of the above to refute your silly conclusions. When necessary
>I have posted all of the above. For example, just a few days ago, I posted the autopsy photo which refuted the statement by

>Chaney..


Nope. No such thing happened. Indeed, that very photo shows the shot
that entered the temple according to many witnesses.

>> All you post is silly comments, lies and insults.
>> A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.
>
>I post critical questions which you usually avoid. For example in the same thread that the above passage came from, I asked
>you if you believe the throat wound was an entrance,

Yes.

> does that mean you believe the back wound was an exit

Why would that follow?

> or did you believe they were both entrances.

The evidence supports that both were entrance wounds.

> why are there no exit wounds

You forgot the exit wound in the head...

>and no bullets found in the
>body.

Taken out between 7-8pm.

> Would you like to take that one on or are you going to chicken out again.

You want to see an example of someone "chickening out?"

What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?

See how easy that was?

>I also asked you how Chaney's statement that JFK was shot in the face corroborates the witnesses who said the throat
>wound was an entrance.

You're confusing two different shots.

>The above questions are an example of how I am able to refute your silly conclusions without having to post any evidence of
>my own. All I have to do is point out how illogical your arguments were.

In which case, you just got spanked...

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> Later that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.

List that evidence.

> > > No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.

> > I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )
> > Among those witnesses were :
> >

> > Robert Edwards ( 6 H 205 )
> > Buell Frazier ( 2 H 240 )
> > Michael Paine ( 9 H 444 )
> > B.M. Patterson ( 15 H 745 )
> > James Worrell( 2 H 201 )

> Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.

I just did. Can't you read ?

> > That's in ADDITION to the witnesses Mark Lane interviewed.
> > Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
> > Is that enough corroborating evidence for you ?
> > Probably not.
> >
> Your wild accusations are no evidence.

You're the one not posting citations.

> The class dunce just called me an idiot. That's going to ruin my day. <chuckle>

ROFLMAO. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[JE Corbett]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 11:40:55 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > Later that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.
> List that evidence.
> > > > No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
>
> > > I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )
> > > Among those witnesses were :
> > >
> > > Robert Edwards ( 6 H 205 )
> > > Buell Frazier ( 2 H 240 )
> > > Michael Paine ( 9 H 444 )
> > > B.M. Patterson ( 15 H 745 )
> > > James Worrell( 2 H 201 )
> > Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.
> I just did. Can't you read ?

So you expect me to hunt down what they said in order to support your claim. Typical burden shifting.

> > > That's in ADDITION to the witnesses Mark Lane interviewed.
> > > Ever hear of consilience ? The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions ?
> > > Is that enough corroborating evidence for you ?
> > > Probably not.
> > >
> > Your wild accusations are no evidence.
> You're the one not posting citations.
> > The class dunce just called me an idiot. That's going to ruin my day. <chuckle>
> ROFLMAO. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I wasn't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:19:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 11:40:55?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 8:20:53?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> Later that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.
>> List that evidence.
>>>>> No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
>>
>>>> I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )
>>>> Among those witnesses were :
>>>>
>>>> Robert Edwards ( 6 H 205 )
>>>> Buell Frazier ( 2 H 240 )
>>>> Michael Paine ( 9 H 444 )
>>>> B.M. Patterson ( 15 H 745 )
>>>> James Worrell( 2 H 201 )
>>> Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.
>> I just did. Can't you read ?
>
>So you expect me to hunt down what they said in order to support your claim. Typical burden shifting.

I directly QUOTED the first name on the list... You're a liar,
Corbutt.

[Hank Sienzant]

Yes, you did. But why? Because you want to dismiss what Nichols said, that Oswald refused his offer to obtain a lawyer. So, now, you want videotape of a statement because you can't find a good reason for the President of the Dallas Bar to lie about what transpired.

> > The meeting between Louis Nichols and Oswald has been documented by the ABA Journal:
> > https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94
> Who said it never occurred ? I acknowledge it occurred and go into it in depth on my webpage.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>
> WHY DO YOU KEEP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ? IT SEEMS YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH READING COMPREHENSION.

It seems you want to dismiss all the evidence against Oswald and/or get him off on a technicality.

> >
> > Of course you'll dismiss this out of hand but you'll accept at face value Oswald's claim he was being denied legal representation
> > without any corroborating ebvidence.
> Nichols testified that Oswald told him he was being held incommunicado. ( 7 H 328 )
> Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
> He testified that Oswald told him he wanted John Abt or someone from the ACLU. ( 7 H 329 )
> Why didn't he announce that to the press ?
> No, he just told the press that Oswald refused his help. ( 7 H 330 )
> Nichols, who was reluctant to get involved, among whose clients was the city of Dallas, and who had a brother on the police force, was obviously biased in favor of the police department.

Was he biased? He was concerned enough about Oswald’s rights that he made a trip to the jail to visit Oswald and talk to him:

“By that time I had time to think about what I thought my obligation should be, and realizing that under the circumstances maybe some people might overlook the fact that Oswald had rights that needed to be protected at the same time, and if he didn't have a lawyer, regardless of what the legal obligation was to appoint him a lawyer, we, the bar association, ought to look into the matter.”

You allege bias but don't establish it. This is straight out of the CT playbook.Another thing out of the CT playbook is to play offense only, never defend the claims made. You do this by ignoring the points made, Ben does this by deleting my points.

> He never wanted to get involved and never told the press the whole story.
> Do you realize what bias does to a witness' credibility ?

He said he went to the jail and visited with Oswald of his own volition.

“It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon.”

> > > > Ruby's murder of Oswald was a fuck up by the DPD. The cop guarding he ramp Ruby walked down had temporarily stepped away from his post to halt traffic so the armored car could leave the ramp after it was
> > > > discovered it was too high to make it into the basement. Ruby just happened to arrive at that time.
> > > More products of your imagination without a shred of evidence to support them. There were plenty of men in that basement. Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
> > Who were they?
> Are you suggesting the basement was empty during the transfer ?
> Who saw Ruby come down that ramp ?
> > Should they have ignored the fact he pulled a gun on the cops who confronted them?
> > That act alone would justify his arrest, even if he hadn't been the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.
> Besides the police, who among the witnesses in the theater saw Oswald pull a gun ?

Johnny Brewer. Don't you know that?
== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name.
Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man?
Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him…
== unquote ==

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Hank Sienzant: "Another thing out of the CT playbook is to play offense only, never defend the claims made."

Hilarious! Sienzant always weasels out of defending his kooky Lone Nut Theory, crying like a little Vulcan girl that to do so would be illogical, and then accuses his opponents of doing the same. Is Hank stupid? Is Hank a hypocrite? Yes to both.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:16:56 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:25:49 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
> > Besides the police, who among the witnesses in the theater saw Oswald pull a gun ?
> Johnny Brewer. Don't you know that?
> == quote ==

> Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
> Mr. BREWER - No.
>

Your own post proves Brewer didn't see Oswald pull the gun.
Nice one, Hank.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:19:01 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> So you expect me to hunt down what they said in order to support your claim. Typical burden shifting.

I expect you to look it up to prove me wrong.
Don't blame me because you're too lazy to look it up.

But since you wanna be an asshole, here's the statements they made and their denials under oath side-by-side.

Robert Edwards
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/affidavit-lies-edwards.gif
Buell Frazier
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-frazier.jpg
Michael Paine
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-m-paine.png
B.T. Patterson
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-patterson.jpg
James Worrell
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/fbi-lies-worrell.png

Now everybody will know who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

Have a nice rest of your day, idiot.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 11:40:55 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > Later that evening, they had enough evidence to charge him with the assasssination.
> List that evidence.
> > > > No, I'm challenging your claim that witnesses were under oath when they "testified" that the FBI reports is not what they said.
>
> > > I've already cited the testimony. When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. ( 6 H 205, 2 H 240, 9 H 444, 15 H 745, 2 H 201 )
> > > Among those witnesses were :
> > >
> > > Robert Edwards ( 6 H 205 )
> > > Buell Frazier ( 2 H 240 )
> > > Michael Paine ( 9 H 444 )
> > > B.M. Patterson ( 15 H 745 )
> > > James Worrell( 2 H 201 )
> > Please provide examples of these people saying "under oath" that the FBI reports were inaccurate.
> I just did. Can't you read ?

No, you didn't. You cited Edwards correcting a Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit from 11/22/63, not an FBI statement.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0333a.htm

== quote ==
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, I heard one more then than was fired, I believe.
Mr. BELIN - You mean you said on the affidavit you heard four shots?
Mr. EDWARDS - I still right now don't know how many was fired. If I said four, then I thought I heard four.
Mr. BELIN - If you said four, you mean the affidavit-maybe we'd better introduce it into the record as Edward's Deposition Exhibit A. Where do you think the shots came from?
Mr. EDWARDS - I have no idea.

Mr. BELIN - In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - No; I didn't say that.

== unquote ==

Scratch Edwards off the list. He didn't do what Gil claimed: “When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said…” He corrected a Sheriff’s Dept affidavit.

In fact, Edwards credited the FBI with clearing up a mistake:
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back. That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - When you went out with the FBI, they asked you to point out the window?
Mr. EDWARDS - Right.
Mr. BELIN - And you pointed out the same window you saw on November 22?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - The you weren't counting the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - They did.
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch them count?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how many floors from the top it was?
Mr. EDWARDS - I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top.
== unquote ==

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:16:56 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> Was he biased? He was concerned enough about Oswald’s rights that he made a trip to the jail to visit Oswald and talk to him:
>
> “By that time I had time to think about what I thought my obligation should be, and realizing that under the circumstances maybe some people might overlook the fact that Oswald had rights that needed to be protected at the same time, and if he didn't have a lawyer, regardless of what the legal obligation was to appoint him a lawyer, we, the bar association, ought to look into the matter.”

> He said he went to the jail and visited with Oswald of his own volition.
>
> “It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon.”

Hank, you are the biggest bullshit artist here.

District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers regarding the treatment of Oswald.
One of the issues was Oswald’s repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal representation.

In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.

On Saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal representation, wanted legal representation or wanted it but had been denied of it.

Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an inquiry. ( 7 H 327 )

Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer so Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade said he’d pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him. ( ibid. )

Of course, the reason why Wade’s response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the evening before during the “Midnight Press Conference”.

After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald. But according to Nichols, he couldn’t get a member of the criminal bar to go with him.

To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.

A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions: Was he being

beaten?

starved?

deprived of sleep?

isolated from his friends and family?

denied counsel?

In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was “connected” to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.

Nichols used to work for the city attorney’s office, and at the time of Oswald’s incarceration, still represented the city credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 )

Nichols calls the police station

Still trying to avoid personally talking to Oswald in person, Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer:

“Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him—” ( ibid. )

Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday, the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for “someone to come forward to give me legal assistance” and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William Whaley, who testified:

“He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.” ( 2 H 261 )

Nichols attempted to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to deliver a message to Oswald:

I said, “Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one.” ( 7 H 327 )

Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols “didn’t know whether I wanted to or not at this point”.

I didn’t know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer, and I didn’t anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don’t practice criminal law. ( ibid. pg. 331 )

However, Nichols WAS PRESSURED INTO GOING BY A LAW PROFESSOR FROM SMU.

“I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had transpired, what I had done, and I hadn’t decided what should be done at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association.

He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadn’t been able to get one, and I told him that I had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done.

It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon.” ( ibid. pgs. 327-328 )

Nichols’ reluctance to become involved in the issue caused the SMU professor to light a fire under his butt as if to say, “It’s been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn’t asked for an attorney yet ?”

Something doesn’t sound right.

Forced to go

When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief’s office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to Oswald’s cell himself. ( ibid., pg 328 )

When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment:

Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, “Well, he really didn’t know what it was all about, that he was–had been incarcerated, and kept INCOMMUNICADO, and I said, “Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I understand–” I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I DON'T REMEMBER WHO SAID WHAT AFTER THAT. This is a little bit vague. ( ibid. )

Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of President Kennedy, and he can’t remember what was said in the exchange ?

Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word “incommunicado” to describe—-

Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.

Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any—or indicate to you that he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of his choice?

Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything. Just didn’t elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN’T ASK HIM at that point. MY INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a lawyer and been refused….. I didn’t go into the other questions, or whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn’t been permitted. I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one. ( ibid., pg. 330 )

In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, Nichols told him that he didn’t know Abt and he didn’t know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but admitted under oath that “as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know ARE members”. ( ibid. pg. 329 )

What a surprise.

According to Nichols’ testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald:

NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?”

OSWALD. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don’t get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me.

NICHOLS. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now.

OSWALD. No. ( ibid. )

As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the press:

“….As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a statement to the press, and I said, “Well, I don’t know whether I do or not. I don’t know whether it is the thing to do or not.” And he said, “Well, they are going to be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We don’t want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer. As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( ibid. )

Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in this video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day, Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted and police were not going to call all over town to find him one and obtaining counsel was Oswald’s responsibility, not the department’s.

Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his offer for help:

“He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently–at least the conversation was that if he didn’t get somebody to represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not appear to be irrational." He appeared to be calm. He turned down my offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn’t get a lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that’s all I know about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.” ( ibid. pg. 330 )

Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald’s request for John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union.
He never mentioned to the press Oswald’s complaint of being held “incommunicado”.

Nichols didn't go there on his own volition.
He didn't want any part of it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:42:00 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Watch folks, as Corbutt slinks away - without acknowledging that he's
been proven a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:43:41 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:16:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:54:10 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

All you need do to prove believers to be liars & cowards is to keep
wacking them over the head with the facts.

They run away...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:43:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> No, you didn't. You cited Edwards correcting a Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit from 11/22/63, not an FBI statement.

> Mr. BELIN - In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
> Mr. EDWARDS - No; I didn't say that.
> == unquote ==
>
> Scratch Edwards off the list. He didn't do what Gil claimed: “When asked under oath, several witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said…” He corrected a Sheriff’s Dept affidavit.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A TERRIBLE MISTAKE I MADE. IT WASN'T THE FBI, IT WAS THE SHERIFF'S DEPT.
What about the other four ? FBI ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 2:00:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> All you need do to prove believers to be liars & cowards is to keep
> wacking them over the head with the facts.
>
> They run away...
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!

Hanky was beside himself with joy because one the five I mentioned wasn't the FBI.
I still got 4 out of 5 for 80 % correct.
You won't hear a peep from Hank about any of those.
That 80 % is 75 % more than "the more knowledgeable" one scored on my questions.
Go figure.

[Hank Sienzant]

0-1 thus far. And you didn't quote anything. Ben did, and it turns out it wasn't the FBI, it was a Dallas Sheriff’s Office affidavit. Neither you nor he knew that at the time of your respective posts.

And, “If you don't know about that one, then what else don't you know?” - Arlo Guthrie

[Hank Sienzant]

Your claim, your burden of proof. You've made @ claim. When do you intend to prove it?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:54:11 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:16:56 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Was he biased? He was concerned enough about Oswald’s rights that he made a trip to the jail to visit Oswald and talk to him:
> >
> > “By that time I had time to think about what I thought my obligation should be, and realizing that under the circumstances maybe some people might overlook the fact that Oswald had rights that needed to be protected at the same time, and if he didn't have a lawyer, regardless of what the legal obligation was to appoint him a lawyer, we, the bar association, ought to look into the matter.”
> > He said he went to the jail and visited with Oswald of his own volition.
> >
> > “It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon.”
> Hank, you are the biggest bullshit artist here.
>

…

>
> According to Nichols’ testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald:
>
> NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?”
>
> OSWALD. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don’t get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me.
>
> NICHOLS. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now.
>
> OSWALD. No. ( ibid. )

Oswald declined his offer to help him acquire counsel. That’s what’s important.

>
> As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the press:
>
> “….As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a statement to the press, and I said, “Well, I don’t know whether I do or not. I don’t know whether it is the thing to do or not.” And he said, “Well, they are going to be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We don’t want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer. As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( ibid. )
>
> Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in this video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day, Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted and police were not going to call all over town to find him one and obtaining counsel was Oswald’s responsibility, not the department’s.
>
> Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his offer for help:
>
> “He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently–at least the conversation was that if he didn’t get somebody to represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not appear to be irrational." He appeared to be calm. He turned down my offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn’t get a lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that’s all I know about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.” ( ibid. pg. 330 )
>
> Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald’s request for John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union.
> He never mentioned to the press Oswald’s complaint of being held “incommunicado”.
>
> Nichols didn't go there on his own volition.
> He didn't want any part of it.

Nobody held a gun to his head. After conferring with other lawyers, he decided to do he due Finland ask Oswald himself if he needed or wanted help in acquiring a lawyer. Oswald seemed coherent, knowledgeable about the law, and his rights, and declined Nichols’ offer.

Oswald said, no, not at this time. Oswald wasn't refused counsel, he declined it.

You don't want to accept that. I get it, if I appointed myself Oswald’s defense counsel, I would want to reject it as well. But you’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. And the fact is Nichols offered Oswald the opportunity to get a lawyer through him, and Oswald declined.

And that’s why you raised this nonsense issue: “Do you have video or audio of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?”

You claim he didn't want to get involved, but Nichols himself went to the jail of his own volition to ensure that Oswald knew his rights, and that Oswald could obtain a lawyer with his help if Oswald wanted one. Oswald wanted a specific lawyer, and declined Nichols’ offer of help.

.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:54:11 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

…

> > Hank, you are the biggest bullshit artist here.
> >
> …

> > He didn't want any part of it.

Damn auto correct:
**Nobody held a gun to his head. After conferring with other lawyers, he decided to do his due diligence and ask Oswald himself if he needed or wanted help in acquiring a lawyer. Oswald seemed coherent, knowledgeable about the law, and his rights, and declined Nichols’ offer. **

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 2:14:14 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 2:00:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > All you need do to prove believers to be liars & cowards is to keep
> > wacking them over the head with the facts.
> >
> > They run away...
> >
> > EVERY
> >
> > SINGLE
> >
> > TIME!
> Hanky was beside himself with joy because one the five I mentioned wasn't the FBI.
> I still got 4 out of 5 for 80 % correct.
> You won't hear a peep from Hank about any of those.

I’m awaiting your proof. I already went out of my way to disprove one of your claims.

When did the rule become, “Your claim, my burden to disprove?”

> That 80 % is 75 % more than "the more knowledgeable" one scored on my questions.
> Go figure.

I have you as batting zero on the law, and a lot of other issues, in addition to the FBI claim.

[Hank Sienzant]

Nice one, Gil.
You quote out of context to try to prove your point. Being a conspiracy theorist, I expected no less.

He saw the gun in Oswald’s hand. He saw Oswald pull the gun. He didn't see from *where* Oswald pulled the gun (from Oswald’s pants, under the seat, etc.)

“I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.”

He saw Oswald pull the gun. He saw Oswald with the gun in his hand. After assaulting a police officer.

You want to quibble about whether Brewer saw the entire action, and avoid discussing the pertinent parts of Brewer’s testimony. What did Oswald intend to do with that weapon after punching McDonald in the face? Why did he punch McDonald in the face if he was an innocent man and being framed? Why did he pull the gun on McDonald if he was innocent?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:06:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you asking Huckster to tell the truth???

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:40:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> Your claim, your burden of proof. You've made @ claim. When do you intend to prove it?

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:39:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:09:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:00:51 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:05:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:14:13 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Huckster's a proven coward & liar.

Where's the "A" team?

[Hank Sienzant]

Sad. When not spamming the board, Ben is reduced to ad hominem..

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:54:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You can run, Huckster - but you can't hide: