The look on Oswald's face was the look of disbelief ! It was said that Oswald thought he might be getting set-up . Oswald was no dumb-ass as some people portrayed him to be . He was charged with killing Tippit while he was in the Texas Theater and he was charged with assassinating Kennedy while he was in the break room at the TSBD . From Russia to New Orleans to Dallas , he was setup to take a fall for the Biggest Assassination of our time ! From JFK to Trump , how in the world did we go backwards ? Coincidence ? I don't think so !
It is a trait that apparently is in response to stress. There are a few witnesses that remarked about this in their statements. Here are a couple of them that I have recently take note of:
Cecil McWatters in his 11/22/63 affidavit:
McWatters’ “grinning man” was Roy Milton Jones.
From McWatters' affidavit (in case you missed it):
"This man looks like the #2 man I saw in a lineup tonight."
Several witnesses thought LHO's trait of pursing his lips with upturned ends was a smile, grin, or smirk:
(https://i.vgy.me/DzV1N2.jpg)
His mother also had this trait:
(https://i.vgy.me/9BRnef.jpg)
It is a trait that apparently is in response to stress. There are a few witnesses that remarked about this in their statements. Here are a couple of them that I have recently take note of:
Cecil McWatters in his 11/22/63 affidavit:
(https://i.vgy.me/5SeZOc.jpg)
Barbara Davis in her WC testimony:
(https://i.vgy.me/RUjOrB.png)
I was wondering how many other witnesses noticed this trait and remarked about it. If you know of or come across any, please add them to this post. Thanks!
"looks like" :D :D :D :D
| (https://i.vgy.me/DzV1N2.jpg) | (https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/06/76/15495100/3/920x920.jpg) |
"looks like" :D :D :D :D
Charles, Oswald's smirk is accompanied by a self-satisfied look in his eyes, while the look in Mommy Dearest's eyes is one of sadness. She's not smirking; she looks to be about to cry.
There's a guy in my tennis club who smirks all the time: A very very critical person who seems to consider himself superior to others.
(https://i.vgy.me/DzV1N2.jpg) (https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/06/76/15495100/3/920x920.jpg)
A smirk could mean you think you're smarter than everybody. And expect to get away with everything because there's no time travel or you're not caught on HQ film/audio.
Yes, I agree, the eyes also are a part of the body language. I think it is also a look of defiance in the eyes.
Agreed, and 'defiance' describes the look even more completely, in that it could be argued that it sums up Oswald's entire backstory
What strikes me from the clips I've seen of Oswald is how polite he is.
He never used profanities, always added sir to yes and no answers.
He is calm and appears neither agro or truculent at all in the times he is seen on camera during the interrogation.
Maybe he was different away from the camera.
From McWatters' affidavit (in case you missed it):
"This man looks like the #2 man I saw in a lineup tonight."
What strikes me from the clips I've seen of Oswald is how polite he is.
He never used profanities, always added sir to yes and no answers.
He is calm and appears neither agro or truculent at all in the times he is seen on camera during the interrogation.
Maybe he was different away from the camera.
From McWatters’ testimony (in case you missed it):
Mr. BALL - Let's get back to that lineup.
Did you pick out one man or two men that night as people you had seen, as a person you had seen before?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I picked out, the only one that I told them it was the short man that I picked out up there.
Mr. BALL - And you thought he was the teenager whom you described?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, first that is what I thought he was.
Mr. BALL - Now you have named him Milton Jones.
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he was--
Mr. BALL - Now you realize you were mistaken in your identification that night?
Mr. McWATTERS - That is right.
Frankly, I hadn't read McWatters' WC testimony and took the affidavit at face value. I don't mind saying so when I am wrong or ignorant or both; and it does appear that the one McWatters saw "grinning" was not LHO. Thanks for pointing this out.
Senator Cooper. Well, did the passenger that you have testified about, and whom you stated that you later identified, did he get on in the vicinity of Murphy Street?
Mr. McWatters. Yes sir.
Senator Cooper. Murphy Street - You proceeded from Murphy Street toward the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr McWatters. Yes sir.
Senator Cooper. Is that correct?
Mr. McWatters. That is correct.
Senator Cooper. Was the passenger that got on near Murphy Street the same passenger that you later testified about who told you that the President had been shot in the temple?
Mr. McWatters. Well, they told me later that it was, but at the time they didn't tell me.
Senator Cooper. Who didn't tell you?
Mr. McWatters. The police didn't.
Frankly, I hadn't read McWatters' WC testimony and took the affidavit at face value. I don't mind saying so when I am wrong or ignorant or both; and it does appear that the one McWatters saw "grinning" was not LHO. Thanks for pointing this out.
However, I do find it interesting that the WC took enough time with McWatters to try to correct the inaccurate statement in the affidavit. Because in doing so, it tends to discount McWatters and counter the claim that the WC was trying to frame LHO, or cover up something. And it shows that they were trying to obtain the correct facts.
Here's more testimony:
Senator Cooper. Well, did the passenger that you have testified about, and whom you stated that you later identified, did he get on in the vicinity of Murphy Street?
Mr. McWatters. Yes sir.
Senator Cooper. Murphy Street - You proceeded from Murphy Street toward the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr McWatters. Yes sir.
Senator Cooper. Is that correct?
Mr. McWatters. That is correct.
Senator Cooper. Was the passenger that got on near Murphy Street the same passenger that you later testified about who told you that the President had been shot in the temple?
Mr. McWatters. Well, they told me later that it was, but at the time they didn't tell me.
Senator Cooper. Who didn't tell you?
Mr. McWatters. The police didn't.
.
.
.
Senator Cooper. Now was this man that you saw got on the bus the same one who told you that the President got shot in the temple?
Mr. McWatters. The man who got on the bus now?
Senator Cooper. Yes. The man to whom you have just referred as getting on the bus near Murphy Street.
Mr. McWatters. Yes.
Senator Cooper. Is he the same man who told you that the President had been shot in the temple?
Mr. McWatters. No, sir.
Senator Cooper. Who told you that?
Mr. McWatters. A man in an automobile in front of me, in other words, that was sitting in a car come back and told me.
Senator Cooper. Told you what?
Mr. McWatters. That the President had been shot, that he had heard over his radio in his car that the President had been shot.
Senator Cooper. I think that you have testified that someone, some passenger on the bus, in response to a question that you had asked, "I wonder where they shot the President" said "They shot him in the temple."
Mr. McWatters. Oh that was now, that was after we had done, that is when I turned on Houston Street, the conversation with the teenage boy.
Senator Cooper. It was the teenage boy that told you that?
Mr. McWatters. Yes, sir; it was the teenage boy, sitting on his right side of the seat there, the one that I conversationed with about the President being shot in the head or temple, I don't remember, but the teenage boy was the one. That was after the man that had already got off that had boarded my bus around Griffin up there.
Senator Cooper. Then the one that told you the President had been shot in the temple was not the one you later identified in the police lineup?
Mr. McWatters. No, sir.
Senator Cooper. This has probably already been testified to, but where did the man that you later identified in the police lineup get off the bus?
Mr. McWatters. Got off between Poydras and Lamar Street.
.
.
.
Mr. Ball. I have a few more questions to ask you, a few more questions, Mr. McWatters. Let's look again at this affidavit.
Mr. McWatters. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball. "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston," as I remember you didn't stop at Elm and Houston; you stopped at Record and Houston for a pickup.
Mr. McWatters. Yes.
Mr. Ball. Do you remember having picked up any man around the lower end of town at Elm around Houston?
Mr. McWatters. Elm and Houston?
Mr. Ball. Yes.
Mr. McWatters. No, no sir; I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up---
Mr. Ball. Take a look at it. "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston."
Mr. McWatters. No I didn't. I picked--- "I picked up a man on the lower end of town at Elm," no, sir, I didn't pick up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--- I must not have read that very good when I signed that, because I sure didn't. No I didn't.
.
.
.
Mr. Ball. In other words, this statement is not an accurate statement?
Mr. McWatters. That is right sir, because in fact that day the police wouldn't let nobody, in other words they run them buses through but they wouldn't let nothing stop there, in other words.
Kennedy was shot in the temple? I thought he was shot in Dealey Plaza. Budda-boom, budda-bing.Smirk :-\
Kennedy was shot in the temple? I thought he was shot in Dealey Plaza.
Budda-boom, budda-bing.
Thumb1:
This gives us some insight on how the police manipulated the witnesses.
The two facts (who said the President was shot in the temple then grinned; and where LHO got on the bus) in error in the affidavit are not as important as the fact that is correct: "The transfer #004459 is a transfer from my bus with my punch mark."
I’m not sure I understand the importance of whether or not Oswald was on McWatters’ bus.
It is hard evidence of his whereabouts at that point in time.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LBJ_sworn.jpg)
When LBJ wanted to get sworn in by Sarah Hughes aboard AF1, she said to him, "Sorry but I don't have the Oath of Office on me." LBJ pulled a copy of the Oath from his pocket and handed it to her then turned to the small crowd aboard AF1 and said jokingly, "If any of you speak of this, I'll deny it." He did all this right in front of Jackie who still had blood on her clothes. Then he turned to his long-time friend, Texas congressman Brian Thomas who winked at him. Johnson returned a smile.
Sorry, but a smirk is meaningless, however, a wink is worth a thousand words.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily y’all accept such nonsense and dismiss hard evidence.
McWatters was probably shocked and befuddled when they whisked him off the bus to question him on the evening of 11/22/63.How did they know to do this? How did they know that Oswald was on that bus...that transfer ticket? Come on :-\
It never ceases to amaze me how easily y’all accept such nonsense and dismiss hard evidence.A smirk is 'hard evidence'?
Well, you know that there was a sound of a bell on the DPD recording allegedly about the same time as the “shots.” Did the temple have a bell? wink, wink...
How did they know to do this? How did they know that Oswald was on that bus...that transfer ticket? Come on.
A smirk is 'hard evidence'?
How did they know to do this? How did they know that Oswald was on that bus...that transfer ticket? Come on :-\A smirk is 'hard evidence'?
The hard evidence is the bus transfer found in LHO's pocket.That indeed certainly appears to be hard evidence...of Oswald possibly taking the bus home. So what?
No, it’s hard evidence that the police claimed to “find” a bus transfer in his pocket a couple of hours after his arrest in a shirt that he may or may not have been wearing at the point in time of the bus ride.
But either way, it tells us nothing about who shot JFK.
That indeed certainly appears to be hard evidence...of Oswald possibly taking the bus home. So what?
If this happened..catching a bus is no crime. Also--- it seems like the cops caught up with the bus driver in the same record time that they arrested Oswald. He signed [or was told to] the [dated] transfer. Why? Something doesn't smell right about all that.
How did they know to do this? How did they know that Oswald was on that bus...that transfer ticket? Come on :-\A smirk is 'hard evidence'?
So what?his whereabouts at that point in time?. According to the time punch ...
It accounts for his whereabouts at that point in time.
Why?His punch mark was standard operating procedure. The transfers are also numbered. This is how they kept track of who issued the transfers, and where, and for how long they were good for.
Mr. McWatters. Well, they told me that they had a transfer that I had issued that was cut for Lamar Street at 1:00, and they wanted to know if I knew anything about it. And after I looked at the transfer and my punch, I said yes, that is the transfer I issued because it had my punch mark on it.Oswald left the bus at 1:00? 1:00PM? ??? Of course that couldn't be right could it? That blows the "whereabouts at that point in time" into lala land huh? Evidence that he was on the bus doesn't prove that Oswald shot anybody so it is moot. It seems like the cops located the bus driver and then asked him if that transfer was his :D Makes no sense.
Mr. Ball. Did your punch mark have a distinctive mark?
Mr. McWatters. It had a distinctive mark and it is registered, in other words, all the drivers, every driver has a different punch mark.
his whereabouts at that point in time?. According to the time punch ... Oswald left the bus at 1:00? 1:00PM? ??? Of course that couldn't be right could it? That blows the "whereabouts at that point in time" into lala land huh? Evidence that he was on the bus doesn't prove that Oswald shot anybody so it is moot. It seems like the cops located the bus driver and then asked him if that transfer was his :D Makes no sense.
Why didn't the cops ever locate the bus driver or drivers who took him downtown and home from work on a daily basis? They might have had some useful information.
The 1:00 PM isn’t the time he left the bus. The transfers are only good for a limited time and a specific route.I had read that before and forgot about it. A transfer that is only good for 15 minutes or so seems rather worthless. It would seem that Oswald would have tossed it away.
Evidence of his whereabouts makes it difficult to claim that he was somewhere else.I wouldn't know where else he could have claimed to be and it still remains moot.
I had read that before and forgot about it. A transfer that is only good for 15 minutes or so seems rather worthless. It would seem that Oswald would have tossed it away. I wouldn't know where else he could have claimed to be and it still remains moot.
I believe it was within 15-minutes of the 1:00 expiration time. LHO admitted being on the bus. But some nutty CTs have tried to claim that he hopped into a station wagon, etc.Quite probable that someone who looked very much like Oswald got into this car....re: A report from a deputy sheriff who had no particular reason to make something like that up. The claim that it was indeed Oswald might be 'nutty' but this forum is chocked full of some nutty ideas found in the Warren Report. Maybe this station wagon 'Oswald' had the same peculiar smirk.
Quite probable that someone who looked very much like Oswald got into this car....re: A report from a deputy sheriff who had no particular reason to make something like that up. The claim that it was indeed Oswald might be 'nutty' but this forum is chocked full of some nutty ideas found in the Warren Report. Maybe this station wagon 'Oswald' had the same peculiar smirk.
Quite probable that someone who looked very much like Oswald got into this car....re: A report from a deputy sheriff who had no particular reason to make something like that up. The claim that it was indeed Oswald might be 'nutty' but this forum is chocked full of some nutty ideas found in the Warren Report. Maybe this station wagon 'Oswald' had the same peculiar smirk.
This guy:
(https://i.imgur.com/IeS1t6X.jpg)
Thumb1:
... you find some guy loitering, checking out the scenery and just hanging around in a "brown jacket" and suddenly he's the guy who killed the President.Yeah, that could have been the guy that was seen getting into the station wagon. Or probably not--- but that is all that was stated.
This is what happens when you can't refute the mountain of evidence against Oswald, you make up fairy-tales.
Another Alan Ford classic, you find some guy loitering, checking out the scenery and just hanging around in a "brown jacket" and suddenly he's the guy who killed the President.
This is what happens when you can't refute the mountain of evidence against Oswald,
You find a guy watching a movie and suddenly it’s “kill the president, will you?”
LOL
You see a guy running in front of the library that fits the description of the suspect and suddenly it’s:
“They immediately grabbed me and pushed me up against the wall—my legs spread apart—and frisked me, I was so scared.”
The difference is that Adrian Hamby didn’t punch an officer in the face, and pull a revolver out and try to shoot him.
Yeah, that was illegal too.
There’s no evidence whatsoever that Oswald pulled a revolver out or tried to shoot an officer.
Charles, Oswald's smirk is accompanied by a self-satisfied look in his eyes, while the look in Mommy Dearest's eyes is one of sadness. She's not smirking; she looks to be about to cry.
There's a guy in my tennis club who smirks all the time: A very very critical person who seems to consider himself superior to others.
Here are the words of close civilian eyewitness Hugh Aynesworth from page 35 of his book "Witness to History":
Charles, Oswald's smirk is accompanied by a self-satisfied look in his eyes, while the look in Mommy Dearest's eyes is one of sadness. She's not smirking; she looks to be about to cry.
Two words for Bill here: Oh. Brother.
How appropriate was cigar chompin' Detective Paul Bentley's smirk, seen here mugging for the camera?All those cops are smirking. Oswald is not smirking.
I've always wondered..what are the odds of someone being in Dealey when the shots were fired...given exclusive taxi rides by the Dallas police...showing up at the Tippit shooting site....arriving in time to see Oswald arrested...and then standing along side with everybody when Ruby shot Oswald?
Yeah, that was illegal too.
They had probable cause.
There is plenty of evidence. Here are the words of close civilian eyewitness Hugh Aynesworth from page 35 of his book "Witness to History":
"Oswald stood up, raised his hands in an apparent gesture of surrender and then socked McDonald in the face with his left fist. With his right hand, he pulled a .38 Smith & Wesson from his belt."
Actually so he said....so he wrote. Who saw Oswald return with a long package? Did you? How would Aynes' know that he should "run to the Texas Theater" and then be there just in time for Oswald's arrest? Impossible...even for Lois Lane.
given exclusive taxi rides by the Dallas police
Actually Hugh Aynesworth rode with WFAA-TV camera crew Vic Robertson and Ron Reiland from the TSBD to the scene at 10th Street and Patton Ave. Then he ran the distance from there to the Texas Theater on his own two legs. And he showed up at the Ruby shooting Oswald scene on his own at the last minute. It is amazing how y'all can suspect a reporter doing his job, and turn around and dismiss LHO going to Irving on Thursday 11/21/63 unexpectedly and returning with a long package to the TSBD on Friday 11/22/63. Simply amazing... ???
He was with the police when they entered the Texas Theater searching for Oswaldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth#cite_note-Broyles-2
Actually so he said....so he wrote. Who saw Oswald return with a long package? Did you? How would Aynes' know that he should "run to the Texas Theater" and then be there just in time for Oswald's arrest? Impossible...even for Lois Lane.
You sure are gullible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth#cite_note-Broyles-2
An inside man for the CIA in Dallas and an informant for the FBI...Aynesworth went to New Orleans with the express task to discredit The Garrison inquiry...and that was before anyone hardly even knew what the inquiry was all about. Then he had the never-ending task [still does] of squelching any hint of a JFK conspiracy.
Hugh Aynesworth seems to be be some kind of hero to you because you spoke to him a couple of times. So buy into the myth...no skin off my ear.
He was there on the scene as it happened. (Were you there?)I was a school kid. I did see the motorcade parade pass by that day up further on Main St.
Please specify what probable cause they had to suspect the man at the library or the man in the theater committed a crime.
Aynesworth wasn't inside the theater. He just repeating the official mythology.
I was a school kid. I did see the motorcade parade pass by that day up further on Main St.
Please specify what probable cause they had to suspect the man at the library or the man in the theater committed a crime.
Aynesworth wasn't inside the theater. He just repeating the official mythology.
Please specify what probable cause they had to suspect the man at the library or the man in the theater committed a crime.
A major crime (shooting a police officer) had been committed in the immediate vicinity. The police had an eyewitness description of the offender running away on foot and were canvasing the area looking for him. They both fit the description and were acting suspiciously.
BTW, the police didn't really need reasonable cause to stop and question someone, only to arrest, or search, or seize property.
Then I don’t think you understand what probable cause means. “Acting suspiciously” is not probable cause of a crime having been committed.
Right. They searched Hamby, Oswald, and the two other men in the theater without probable cause. They arrested Oswald for murder without probable cause.
How appropriate was cigar chompin' Detective Paul Bentley's smirk, seen here mugging for the camera?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_theater_arrest.jpg)
It's called setting up the patsy, otherwise, there is no way in hell that the inept Keystone Cops DPD captured Oswald an hour after he shot JFK. The whole timeline stinks of double-cross and rush to judgement.
There was no doubt that a crime had been committed. One of their own was DOA at the nearest hospital. Someone appearing to match the description of the suspect and running to hide from the police search is certainly suspicious behavior which warrants investigation.
Frisking someone for weapons is not the same as searching them. Especially, under the circumstances of a search for a cop killer.
They arrested Oswald for murder without probable cause.
By the time he was arrested and handcuffed, he had punched McDonald in the face and pulled out his pistol and tried to shoot him. Both of those are more than probable cause.
By the way, please explain how this is a “matching description”:
“I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt”
“. . . And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me”
He could have been holding a sign that said "I shot the poor dumb cop" and you would say: "What poor dumb cop?" ::)
Oh brother.....analyst wannabe :-\
All those cops are smirking. Oswald is not smirking.
No argument, but it’s not probable cause to detain, search, or arrest. By the way, who was “running to hide”?
There was no distinction in 1963. Frisking on a reasonable suspicion wasn’t a thing until 1968. But there wasn’t a reasonable suspicion, either.
He was arrested for murder. There is nothing on the arrest report about punching anyone or “pulling out a pistol and trying to shoot” someone (of which there is no evidence whatsoever, anyway).
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)
Does that mean that you can’t explain your claim that it was a “matching description”.
No it means that no matter how closely they matched, it would never be good enough for you.
Hi Charles, it doesn't matter how close the description is, it's never going to be a perfect match and is thus flawed and evidence of a conspiracy but if the description is spot on that's obviously impossible and must be evidence of a conspiracy, go figure.
JohnM
Let me make sure I get the word count right here for my reply, lest I'll be accused of being wrong.
Two words for Bill here: Oh. Brother.
And four more words here for Bill here:
Give. Me. A. Break.
::)
No it means that no matter how closely they matched, it would never be good enough for you.
The police didn't need a perfect match. The running into the library by Hamby was mistakenly taken to be running to hide from the police search. LHO's actions aroused the suspicions of Brewer and Postal. They reported it to the police. That was enough for the police to investigate.
I think you've just set JudgeJohnny's powdered wig on fire.
As a longtime illustrator specializing in people, and having drawn hundreds of life portraits and figures, I have a professional-level set of skills that qualify my opinion as to people's expressions.
Do tell us what set of professional-level skills you can offer that would place you in a similar position.
The civil rights movement brought about rebellions and challenges:
The street-level challenge to stop-and-search policing made its way to the US Supreme Court in June 1968. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court upheld the principles underlying stop-and-search policing, and determined that the threshold for a “stop-and-frisk” was an officer’s reasonable and articulable suspicion— not probable cause— that a person was involved in crime and was armed.
Warren wrote the majority opinion. Stop-and-frisk became official federal policy and the strategic cornerstone of the “war on crime” that followed.
The point is that the scuffle and gun were the reasonable cause for the arrest.
No it means that no matter how closely they matched, it would never be good enough for you.
The running into the library by Hamby was mistakenly taken to be running to hide from the police search. LHO's actions aroused the suspicions of Brewer and Postal. They reported it to the police. That was enough for the police to investigate.
As a longtime illustrator specializing in people, and having drawn hundreds of life portraits and figures, I have a professional-level set of skills that qualify my opinion as to people's expressions.
I feel really bad about that. I mean, he never ruffles anyone’s feathers.
. . . Which matches what I said. Terry v. Ohio created the reasonable suspicion standard to frisk for weapons. Before that, the standard was probable cause. The problem is that they didn’t even have grounds for any reasonable suspicion that Oswald was involved in a crime and was armed. He didn’t match the description and Brewer didn’t see a weapon.
Again, he was arrested for murder. In order to do that, they needed probable cause when they made the arrest that he murdered somebody. They had none. The arrest report says nothing about an officer being punched or a trigger being pulled in the theater, or of resisting arrest — which points to those claims being invented after the fact in order to rationalize the police misconduct.
. . . Which matches what I said. Terry v. Ohio created the reasonable suspicion standard to frisk for weapons. Before that, the standard was probable cause. The problem is that they didn’t even have grounds for any reasonable suspicion that Oswald was involved in a crime and was armed. He didn’t match the description and Brewer didn’t see a weapon.
Again, he was arrested for murder. In order to do that, they needed probable cause when they made the arrest that he murdered somebody. They had none. The arrest report says nothing about an officer being punched or a trigger being pulled in the theater, or of resisting arrest — which points to those claims being invented after the fact in order to rationalize the police misconduct.
The police didn't need a perfect match. The running into the library by Hamby was mistakenly taken to be running to hide from the police search. LHO's actions aroused the suspicions of Brewer and Postal. They reported it to the police. That was enough for the police to investigate.Many many guys have been arrested for ...'suspicion'. The cops can do that. You can scream "I am not resisting arrest" and they would call all that screaming as 'resisting' ::)
Before that, the standard was probable cause.
Wrong. Before that it was whoever and whenever the police decided to. And some of their practices in certain areas of certain cities were being challenged in court.
The arrest report says nothing about an officer being punched or a trigger being pulled in the theater, or of resisting arrest — which points to those claims being invented after the fact in order to rationalize the police misconduct.
Just because they didn’t include those charges in the arrest report, it doesn’t follow that it didn’t happen. Any police misconduct is strictly in your head.
No, you’re wrong. The reason the suit was brought up was because the police were violating the probable cause requirement, at which point the Supreme Court carved out an exception.
Even if police routinely ignore the law, that doesn’t magically make their conduct legal.
LOL. Are you a professional mind-reading psychologist illustrator?
Police in the south used to routinely beat up black people too. Something isn’t automatically legal just because it hasn’t yet been challenged in court. The US Constitution is clear about probable cause.
How interesting. And utterly irrelevant.
Who gives a damn what constitutes a “smirk”?
Police in the south used to routinely beat up black people too. Something isn’t automatically legal just because it hasn’t yet been challenged in court. The US Constitution is clear about probable cause.
How so? And if so, why then did the supreme court rule otherwise?
Pretty sure Dallas is in Texas. The Texas Penal Code does not provide a clear definition of probable cause.
Revisit the OP
... it doesn't matter how close the description is.... go figure.Yeah...I know--Oswald's smirk proves his guilt.
Yeah...I know--Oswald's smirk proves his guilt.
“Pretty sure” the US bill of rights supersedes any state law, Canuck.
There's also the spirit of the law to consider here... Tex.
To wit:
https://brettpodolsky.com
"Probable cause is an abstract concept of law. The finite definition of probable cause is evasive. Courts must determine whether sufficient probable cause was available for an arrest on a case by case basis." - Brett Podolsky
Getting back to the point of this thread - how Oswald's smirk *somehow* in some way signifies his guilt when he:
Went to work that day
Said, "Oh..." when a co-worker explained what all of the commotion was about in DP
Hid a gun
Built a nest
Put the gun together but didn't fire the gun to test the scope
Fired 3 shots
Hid the gun
Went down and bought a Coca Cola
Left the building
Walked down the street
Caught a bus
Got off the bus and walked over to a cab stand
Took a cab
Got out away from his destination and walked back
Changed clothes and got his pistol
Walked down the street
Shot a cop
Ejected his shells
Threw his coat down on the ground
Snuck into a theater
Fought with police and was arrested
Said, "The only reason why this happened was because I lived in Russia. I'm a patsy."
Reminded his wife to buy his daughter new shoes
Told police he was down on the first floor to watch the P. Parade.
Was murdered
Further, Oswald's mouth shape was narrow with kind of an overbite. Like this guy's mouth. Cover up this guy's face except for the mouth and you can't tell them apart. I have yet to hear if this guy has been arrested because of his smirk - LOL
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dki-wCvWo0g/Xepw6t34zdI/AAAAAAAAFeg/qV9PMQCM_1UOlaD36dEVA7uCIQPOT0qRACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/lewis1.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zNZCOhexQUA/Xepw6nEeFuI/AAAAAAAAFec/9WgyRBSaGWMMmnjullJP5vfLfsC2w8H1gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/lewis2.jpg)
No, Oswald's smirk ONLY proves he had a smirkHuh? Your senility may be fast approaching.. old man :-\
Now stop crying
Not sure if it is entirely true but I had heard that Elvis had been watching TV when they had brought Oswald out and Mr Presley saw that smirk and put a bullet into the television ...freaking out his manager and others who were watching with him.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth185020/m1/1/med_res/)
Could have been a crowd response to a yahoo doing a rebel-yell and waving his Stetson Texas-style when the news was heard. Could be some didn't hear the radio at all and didn't known at first what it was about.
Sort of like the media getting wrong the "mocking" of Trump at the NATO celebration.
So, going by my layman's memory of what I learned many years ago in school:
The U.S. Supreme Court, or any part of the judicial branch, does not create laws. It only interprets laws which are created by the legislative branch, and sometimes decides whether or not they violate the Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court rulings in 1961 or 1968, for example, did not change the law, they clarified the intent of the law. Based on this, it appears to me that the Terry stop (which had been common practice for a long time in 1963) was not illegal.
Here’s the thing. Even if you want to argue that a “Terry stop” was constitutional before the Supreme Court majority invented it, what the Dallas police did to Oswald did not qualify.
“We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), (emphasis mine).
No police officer observed Oswald or the other two men in the theater engaging in any unusual conduct prior to being detained and searched, nor did any police officer make reasonable inquiries first.
And in any case, probable cause was absolutely necessary to make an arrest for murder.
I will come back to your argument. But first I would like to know if you think that the police acted “illegally” when they stopped Hamby before he sprinted across the library lawn. Just this part, I already know what you have said about what happened after this point in time.
Here is a quote from “With Malice” by Dale Myers:
Hamby swung his car south off
Jefferson onto Denver and nosed into a dirt parking area for library employees. As he climbed out of his car, Hamby noticed a crowd of policemen near the intersection of Jefferson and Marsalis. He thought there had been a car wreck on the corner. Suddenly, two plainclothesmen appeared out of nowhere and grabbed him. Adrian D. Hamby in 1963. Courtesy of Adrian Hamby “Sir, what are you doing in this area,” one of them demanded. “I work here at the library. I’m a page,” Hamby replied unsure if this was some kind of joke. “Well listen,” the man replied. “Someone just shot and killed a police officer in the vicinity and we think the suspect is loose. Do us a favor. Go into the library, get a hold of management, tell them to lock the doors and not let anyone inside until we secure the area.”
There's nothing illegal about asking questions. It depends if they physically grabbed him at that point or not. That's assault. This part of Hamby's story that Myers claimed Hamby told him in a 1997 interview doesn't make much sense. Who were these "plainclothesman"? And if they were DPD, then why did the DPD later order Hamby back outside, throw him against a wall and frisk him? Did he somehow become more "suspicious" after entering the library?
Running across a lawn is not much more suspicious than looking in a shoe store window. But at least in this case the cops actually saw the behavior.
But what "Secret Service man" was hanging around the library telling the cops who was or was not the right man?
Running across a lawn is not much more suspicious than looking in a shoe store window. But at least in this case the cops actually saw the behavior.
But what "Secret Service man" was hanging around the library telling the cops who was or was not the right man?
Running across a lawn is not much more suspicious than looking in a shoe store window. But at least in this case the cops actually saw the behavior.
But what "Secret Service man" was hanging around the library telling the cops who was or was not the right man?
I would agree that, under ordinary circumstances, running across a lawn would not be likely to be considered suspicious. But this was during an intense manhunt for an armed cop killer who was last seen running from the nearby murder scene.
How big a conspiracy do you figure it was, anyway?
Couple hundred?
More?
How many people helped you beat your wife?
Oh, I know why they were manhandling anybody they felt like, but that doesn't make it ok.
... how big of a conspiracy do you figure it was?Asked before...which conspiracy? The one that planned...the one that executed...or the one that covered it up?
I will come back to your argument. But first I would like to know if you think that the police acted “illegally” when they stopped Hamby before he sprinted across the library lawn. Just this part, I already know what you have said about what happened after this point in time.
Here is a quote from “With Malice” by Dale Myers:
Hamby swung his car south off
Jefferson onto Denver and nosed into a dirt parking area for library employees. As he climbed out of his car, Hamby noticed a crowd of policemen near the intersection of Jefferson and Marsalis. He thought there had been a car wreck on the corner. Suddenly, two plainclothesmen appeared out of nowhere and grabbed him. Adrian D. Hamby in 1963. Courtesy of Adrian Hamby “Sir, what are you doing in this area,” one of them demanded. “I work here at the library. I’m a page,” Hamby replied unsure if this was some kind of joke. “Well listen,” the man replied. “Someone just shot and killed a police officer in the vicinity and we think the suspect is loose. Do us a favor. Go into the library, get a hold of management, tell them to lock the doors and not let anyone inside until we secure the area.”
They could see for themselves whether or not they thought he fit the description of the cop killer before they even approached him.
Therefore the police had reasonable suspicion, which could be articulated at a later date, (not just a hunch) that the person may be armed and dangerous: (1)-a murder had just occurred in that neighborhood and the murderer had been (2)-seen running away in the direction of the theater
, the man in the theater had been reported to (3)-appear to be running from the police
and (4)-ducking into the theater without purchasing a ticket,
Technically, the concept of the Terry Stop originated in 1968, so it wasn't applicable in 1963.
It was in response to police tactics in Cleveland, Ohio which were being challenged. The results of the challenge amounted to a restriction, reasonable suspicion, (not a loosening) of the stop and frisk practices that had been used freely up until that time. Therefore the DPD didn't even technically need "reasonable suspicion" but they did have it, nonetheless.
Asked before...which conspiracy? The one that planned...the one that executed...or the one that covered it up?
I mean, I mean, I mean .... The Deep State is very deep, indeed, and has been for a very long time!I think it all rather shallow really. You do not have to be a very deep person to be a yes man. LBJ & JEH ...We have an assassin lets go with it.
Thank God the Deep State known as the Kremlin installed Donald Trump as our president to clean it all up, huh?WTF? Sounds like another conspiracy theory there...and it is off topic :-\
He didn’t.
Who saw the gunman “running away in the direction of the theater”?
Neither Brewer or Postal saw anybody running.
Neither Brewer or Postal saw anybody duck into the theater. Postal said she was out on the street looking west at the time and she said “what man?” When Brewer asked about him. She also told Brewer she wasn’t sure if she sold him a ticket. In any case, not paying a theater admission is not reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous.
The key point is that the police didn’t witness any suspicious behavior whatsoever prior to approaching Oswald and attempting to frisk him. Police can’t even write a traffic ticket on a civilian’s say-so.
Hallelujah, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you! In 1963 it was just probable cause. The police just argued that hunches (which is basically “if I feel like it”) were probable cause enough.
Seems like you’re trying to have it both ways. The Supreme Court clarified that searching a suspect without sufficient cause was unconstitutional. Even if that’s the way they did things before then. I know that you’re trying to argue that they did have sufficient cause, but that is not supported by the evidence. It’s after-the-fact rationalization.
He didn’t.
Apparently the DPD disagreed with your opinion.
And...he definitely wasn't a little old lady from Pasadena.
Who saw the gunman “running away in the direction of the theater”?
Several, including Warren Reynolds, L.J. Lewis, Harold Russell, and B.M. Patterson, Robert Brock, Mary Brock, Burt, Smith. Furthermore, at 1:21:29, the DPD channel 1 dispacher broadcast that the suspect "just passed 401 East Jefferson." This is in the direction of the Texas Theater (from the murder scene).
From "With Malice" by Dale Myers:
Postal later told authorities that she remembered seeing a man out of the corner of her eye, approaching the theater from the east as she stepped out of the box office.[621]
Postal: "Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there, and as I started back in the box office, Johnny asked me if I sold that man a ticket. I asked him what man, and he said the man that just ducked in the theater. I said no, by golly, he didn't and turned around expecting to see him.
Mr. Brewer said he had been ducking in at his place of business and he had gone by me, because I was facing west."[/i]
Put it in context with a murder just happening in the neighborhood, the armed suspect seen running away in their direction, the police search, police cars coming by when the suspect was ducking into their two businesses and it very much is reasonable suspicion that he may be armed and dangerous. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain stupid.
Once you resort to insults, you’ve lost the argument'
Once you resort to insults, you’ve lost the argument.A dead guy could give you a better argument :-\
A dead guy could give you a better argument :-\
He usually makes more sense.That illustrates my point. For once we concur.
Then you've lost every argument to me, by default, given the most distasteful insult I've ever encountered here personally.
Huh? Your senility may be fast approaching.. old man :-\
... the most distasteful insult I've ever encountered here personally.Link that....please.
Link that....please.
No idea what you’re talking about. As usual.
That brief exchange with Iacoletti has been removed by the admin and rightly so.
The admin took appropriate action.
Good news, Bill. ;D
That was an "impeachable act". Iacoletti's ongoing behavior alone should result in a permanent ban.
What “ongoing behavior”? Daring to dispute bogus nonfactual claims?
And Bill Chapman making another unsupported accusation. What’s new?
The admin has removed the exchange
Yeah, it's that bad
You weren't banned? Even for a month. That says a lot about admin.
I don’t believe that I have indicated that the “smirk” implied guilt. I thought that it was interesting that some of the witness comments included seeing the perpetrator smile or grin, etc. And I asked if anyone knew of other such witness comments. One of the two that I bought up in the first post, from Ms Davis, tends to suggest that the “smile” of the Tippit murderer, that she saw running away from the scene, could have been Oswald’s infamous “smirk.” And makes the suggestion that the murderer was someone else less likely to be true.
Maybe not, but his character got hanged in Homeland. ;)
...and the sum total of evidence that Tatum was actually there that day is . . .
he said so (15 years later).
What “ongoing behavior”? Daring to dispute bogus nonfactual claims?
And Bill Chapman making another unsupported accusation. What’s new?
Did you actually report John for being mean to you? :D What a pussy!
Mr. Belin. Anything else?
Mr. Benavides. No; I guess that is all I can think of right now. I think there was another car that was in front of me, a red Ford, I believe. I didn't know the man, but I guess he was about 25 or 30, and he pulled over. I didn't never see him get out of his car, but when he heard the scare, I guess he was about six cars from them, and he pulled over, and I don't know if he came back there or not.
Ah, yet another knee-jerk reaction from yet another CT booblehead..
I suggest you get the facts before running your mouth
Is that supposed to be evidence that it was Tatum?I was wondering that too.
Is that supposed to be evidence that it was Tatum?
I don't need the facts before running my mouth if you don't provide any. Instead you refer to banned material, which should not be allowed, leaving us to speculate re your prev behavior. That might not be the case here but your vague in-your-endos re banned material left us no other choice. If you don't want anyone to speculate about sensitive material then don't bring it up. Otherwise, man up and reap what you sow.
Lonnie Hudkins reporter, Frontline - Who was Lee Harvey Oswald @ about 29:58:
“At that time he had this little smirk on him”
It was evidence that there was a red car on the scene.
As now-banned material, I'm loathe to repeat it.
I have screen shots of the originals.
And be advised that it was Iacoletti doing the sowing.
Maybe people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
So what?
Show us where I've ever mocked anyone to the extent that you have attempted to scandalize me.
So Tatum said he drove a red car at the scene
So Benevides saw a red car at the scene
So you got info of a second red car at the scene, Bubba?
So that's waddup, Holmes..
:'(
Beverly Oliver said she wore a babushka. We see a babushka lady at the scene. You got info of a second babushka at the scene, Bubba?
There was nothing in Tatum’s account that couldn’t have been gleaned from just reading the WC volumes.
I didn’t “attempt to scandalize” you. What does that even mean?
>>> So now you do remember what you said to me. Thanks so much for clearing that up.
... and?
... and so how is Tatum’s reference to a red car evidence that he was actually there?
And what did you say to me first, hypocrite? Bullies always cry the loudest when they get a taste of their own medicine.
And why do you keep trying to drag religion into a JFK assassination discussion in the first place? Because your conclusions about it are authority and faith-based?
There is no particular value in citing church or religion at this point IMHOQuoteThreads, and/or Posts considered to be motivated by Sectarianism, will be deleted.Forum rules
sectarianism...excessive attachment to a particular sect or party, especially in religion.
Is that supposed to be evidence that it was Tatum?
Forum rules
sectarianism...excessive attachment to a particular sect or party, especially in religion.There is no particular value in citing church or religion at this point IMHO
Further, you assume that I'm a believer in religious dogma
It is evidence that your "sum total" was derived using "biased math."
No. Claiming that he was in the red car that Benavides mentioned is not evidence.
The jeweler wouldn’t know if Tatum was at the scene that day either.
Both Benavides’ and the jeweler’s accounts are evidence that tend to corroborate Tatum’s account. I believe that you are trying to require that any evidence must be conclusive to be considered “evidence” in your opinion.
Both Benavides’ and the jeweler’s accounts are evidence that tend to corroborate Tatum’s account. I believe that you are trying to require that any evidence must be conclusive to be considered “evidence” in your opinion.
You're the one who brought up religion
Wrong again Chapman. Be honest and admit your initial attack that engendered the response in kind. Stop playing the victim with your moral outrage grandstanding and take some damn responsibility for your own actions.
C’mon Charles. It’s not a corroboration that Benavides said he saw a red car when anybody could have read that and claimed they were there in a red car.
Tatum claimed that he came back and interacted with Markham, Scoggins, and Callaway. Yet none of them mentioned anything about him.
All Myers did was invent a scenario for what Tatum might have been doing on Tenth street when it was not on the way from the jewelry store to the bar, which Tatum didn’t even recall the correct locations of in the first place.
If reciting publicly available details years after the fact is corroboration then you must accept the accounts of Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver, and Judyth Vary Baker. Right?
The only reason nutters accept Tatum’s account is because he said it was Oswald. If he said it was someone else they would be falling all over themselves to discredit him, like they do with Clemons.
Cite my initial 'attack'
If there are any spoken words lower than falsely accusing someone as being an apologist for child molesters, lets see them.
I understand your skepticism. But if you applied it in an unbiased way, you might ask yourself why would Tatum make this up and then not come forward with it (like the ones in your list above, btw). The HSCA investigation spent considerable time and effort looking for additional witnesses. And they found Tatum, not the other way around.
I understand your argument, but that’s not evidence that Tatum was actually there.
Yes, it is. It may not be conclusive. But it is evidence nonetheless.
Claims aren’t evidence. Anybody can claim anything they want to.
You supposedly screenshotted it. Read the damn thing.
You’ve been taking religious swipes at me for months, ever since you discovered TAE. You’ve called me a heathen, and a devil- worshipper, and made false accusations about things I have said there, and falsely claimed that I was “kicked out”. None of which has anything to do with the JFK assassination.
So stop whining and get the halo off your head — it doesn’t suit you.
And yes, it’s no secret that churches, particularly the Catholic Church, enable and cover up child abuse. Maybe your ire should be directed towards them.
You still haven't posted my 'initial attack'
Instead you deflect to another grievance
It seems you're the one doing whining here.
And you are no longer with TAE last time I looked.
And point out any misquotes by me
And since when can't I voice my opinion about atheists?
Or joke about them? AtheistTV snickers and puts down callers all the time,
taking advantage of those who aren't particularly well-spoken or all that bright.
Boo-hoo. Too bad not everyone agrees with you, huh?
Same attitude you show here.. that's the connection I made.
You attempted to depict me as an apologist for child molesters.
My ire is directed at you, and for good reason.
Okay Bill and John. I am going to ask politely for you two to take this discussion to another thread. It is irrelevant to this one. Thanks.
Claims aren’t evidence. Anybody can claim anything they want to.
You still haven't posted my 'initial attack'
And you are no longer with TAE last time I looked.
And point out any misquotes by me
And since when can't I voice my opinion about atheists?
Or joke about them? AtheistTV snickers and puts down callers all the time,
taking advantage of those who aren't particularly well-spoken or all that bright.
Boo-hoo. Too bad not everyone agrees with you, huh?
Same attitude you show here.. that's the connection I made.
Okay Bill and John. I am going to ask politely for you two to take this discussion to another thread. It is irrelevant to this one. Thanks.
Agreed. If Bill is interested in provoking religious arguments, he can do it in the off-topic section, or off line.
Nah, atheist ones
I'm already Off-Topic here with that:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2080.0.html#new