Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.
No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

****************************************

One of the most basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the right to legal representation if we are accused of a crime.  Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was denied this right.  In his nearly 48 hours in custody of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) he was NEVER given a lawyer despite repeatedly asking for  “someone to come forward to represent him.” The DPD did NOT even see fit to give him a Public Defender (PD) until he could secure his own lawyer. Let’s look at this in more detail.

************************************

The official excuse (still used to this day by the WC defenders) is that he wanted John Abt and only John Abt.  John Abt was known to defend Communists in different situations.  LHO was supposed to have said the following during his interrogations (I have to say supposedly since NO notes were taken or recordings made per the DPD):

"I want that attorney in New York, Mr. Abt. I don't know him personally but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act, [which made it illegal to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government] . . . I don't know him personally, but that is the attorney I want. . . . If I can't get him, then I may get the American Civil Liberties Union to send me an attorney."

This quote alone shows LHO was NOT set on Abt alone as he said he would take a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as well (heck, I’m sure he would have been grateful for a Public Defender at that point).  Where did this claim of him ONLY wanting Abt come from? Who knows for sure, but it has served the DPD, the WC and its current day defenders well.  It also served another purpose quite well – it made LHO look like a Communist and this was valuable for the official solution.

It seems odd that a man who LHO supposedly wanted so bad would tell the WC he was NEVER given a request by LHO. Read this testimony and see how it corresponds to the claim LHO supposedly made while being interrogated.


Mr. RANKIN - You have been informed, I am sure, that Lee Harvey Oswald, after his arrest, tried to reach you to request that you act as his counsel. I don't know how you were informed, but I have seen it in the newspapers. When did it first come to your attention?

Mr. ABT - May I tell you the story, Mr. Rankin? Perhaps that is the simplest way.

Mr. RANKIN - Yes.

Mr. ABT - On Friday evening, the 22d, my wife and I left the city to spend the weekend at a little cabin we have up in the Connecticut woods. Sometime on Saturday, several people phoned me to say that they had heard on the radio that Oswald had asked that I represent him, and then shortly after that the press--both the press, radio, and TV reporters began to call me up there. I may say we have a radio but we have no TV there. And in the interim I turned on the radio and heard the same report.

I informed them--and these calls kept on all day and night Saturday and again Sunday morning--I informed all of the reporters with whom I spoke that I had received no request either from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf to represent him, and hence I was in no position to give any definitive answer to any such proposal if, as and when it came. I told them, however, that if I were requested to represent him, I felt that it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, for me to do so because of my commitments to other clients. I never had any communication, either directly from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf, and all of my information about the whole matter to this day came from what the press told me in those telephone conversations and what I subsequently read in the newspapers.

Does this sound like LHO requested Abt as claimed? Not to me.  Abt did NOT even know why LHO would want him and had to assume the reason.

Mr. RANKIN - Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?

Mr. ABT – No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a good .man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.

The assumption was meant in regards to Abt’s defense of Communists that he had defended in the past who had been accused of violating the Smith Act. Again, this whole claim regarding Abt was meant to paint LHO as a “red.”  There is NO evidence he, or anyone on his behalf, ever contacted Abt at all.

So we must ask again, why was LHO denied his most basic right?  Also, why did the DPD behave in this manner when it was in their BEST INTEREST to make sure they followed the law and had representation for the accused? Anything LHO might have told them in those hours of interrogation was NOT allowed in court since he had NO lawyer and they could NOT show he WAIVED his right to one.  He was brought to the station in handcuffs, thus, he was automatically being arrested, and had the right to remain silent and have an attorney if he wished.  He obviously wished since he mentioned it many times.

This statement is one of the rights:


- If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.

Why was NONE appointed? LHO obviously wanted one, especially as the day drew on and the charges became more serious.  The only time a lawyer was acquired for him was when he was dead. Then too, the WC suddenly decided he needed a lawyer.  LHO had more lawyers when he was DEAD than when he was alive.

As most will know who have researched this case Mark Lane was hired by LHO's mother, Marguerite Oswald, to defend her son's interest during the WC hearings. However, the WC saw fit to provide the deceased alleged assassin with another lawyer for the record to serve his interests. They would write this about it:


"In all fairness to the ALLEGED (WC defenders take note of this word) assassin and his family, the Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to advise whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice.  Mr. Craig accepted this assignment and participated fully and without limitation.  He attended Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to have the Commission hear.  This procedure was agreeable to counsel for Oswald's widow." (WCR, xiv-xv)

Further endorsement would come from Gerald Ford who would call him the "ethical conscience of the American Bar" and the NY Post would say, "The Warren Commission's appointment of the president of the American Bar Assn. to represent the INTERESTS of Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy's accused assassin, is a welcome development."  The NY Post continued with "His willingness to undertake the assignment is consistent with a long legal tradition of which men of conservative backgrounds have entered the arena of controversy and undertaken to defend the least popular causes." (NY Post, February 27, 1964)

What did Craig have to say about this assignment?  "We are NOT counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald", he told the Commission.  He said he would participate in the hearings to see that "all facts pertaining to the INVOLVEMENT of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy are FULLY investigated and fairly presented."
The "bar's ethical conscience" seemed to lack the knowledge of our system of "innocent UNTIL proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as much as the WC defenders on this board.

So how did this all work out?  Well there is NO record in the WCR or its 26 volumes of Mr. Craig or his associates EVER recalling a witness. There is NO record of a witness being listed as a prospective witness by Mr. Craig or his associates. IF they presented a name of a new witness it is not mentioned in the WCR.  IF Mr. Craig or his associates ever attended one of the 25,000 interviews, there is NO record of it in the WCR.  In fact, beyond the section above Mr. Craig appears NOWHERE in the WCR, the 26 volumes or the index.  Mr. Craig and his associates NEVER participated in cross-examinations, beyond an occasional question or two on a rare occasion, and these were of minor importance or to fasten guilt to LHO more firmly.

The WC would state "The Commission has functioned neither as a court presiding over an adversary proceeding nor as a prosecutor determined to prove a case, but as a fact finding agency committed to the ascertainment of the truth." (WCR, xiv)  Here is their outline for their "fact finding" investigation:

I.    Oswald's activities on November 22;
II.   Oswald's background;
III.  Oswald's career in the Marine Corps and his stay in the Soviet Union;
IV. Oswald's murder in the Dallas police station;
V.  Ruby's background;
VI. The procedures employed to protect President Kennedy

Sounds like they left NO stone uncovered, huh? No wonder the N.Y. Times would say this AFTER LHO was dead (safely?):

"The Dallas authorities, abetted and encouraged by the newspaper, TV and radio press, trampled on every principle of justice in their handling of Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . The heinousness of the crime Oswald was alleged to have committed made it doubly important that there be no cloud over the establishment of his guilt.

Yet -- before any indictment had been returned or any evidence presented and in the face of continued denials by the prisoner -- the chief of police and the district attorney pronounced Oswald guilty." (New York Times, November 25, 1963, p. 18.)

We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.

This statement is one of the rights:

- If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.


Wrong. As usual.  Miranda rights did not exist until 1966.
2
A couple of points.

Yes, I consider it possible Oswald shot Kennedy. While it seems probable more than one shooter was involved, to my mind it remains possible Oswald got "lucky" and hit a shot or two he would normally have missed.

What is not possible, however, is what most LNs insist is true--that Ozzie did it and the investigation was on the up and up and sincerely committed to getting at the truth, etc. That's Earth is flat kind of stuff. To my mind, some of the evidence was faked, and a number of the investigators lied. I mean, get real--is there a single person on this forum, on either side of the fence, who could possibly look at the autopsy photos of Kennedy and come away thinking he had a wound on the back of his neck? After previously believing he had a wound on his back? Of course not. And yet that's what all too many want us to believe--that after looking at the back wound photo, Specter honestly believed the wound was on the back of the neck. Hogwash.

Two of the most problematic pieces of evidence, for that matter, were the fibers supposedly found on the rifle, and the "bag." It is my contention neither of these pieces of evidence would have made it to trial, should Oswald have been allowed to live that long. They both smell like fabricated evidence, and any decent defense attorney would have seized upon the holes in the chain of  evidence to cast great doubt upon their authenticity.

I mean, really, the threads to a shirt no one saw Oswald wearing to work on the day of the shooting end up wrapped around the butt plate of the rifle...on top of the fingerprint powder left by the examiner who first dusted the rifle, and who supposedly missed these fibers? While at the same time the shirt Oswald claimed to have been wearing to work on the day of the shooting gets mislabeled and never shown to anyone who could identify it as the shirt he wore to work?

The bag that wasn't noticed by any of those first on the scene and wasn't photographed in place is just part of a larger pattern, IMO.


 

3
Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.
No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

****************************************

One of the most basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the right to legal representation if we are accused of a crime.  Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was denied this right.  In his nearly 48 hours in custody of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) he was NEVER given a lawyer despite repeatedly asking for  “someone to come forward to represent him.” The DPD did NOT even see fit to give him a Public Defender (PD) until he could secure his own lawyer. Let’s look at this in more detail.

************************************

The official excuse (still used to this day by the WC defenders) is that he wanted John Abt and only John Abt.  John Abt was known to defend Communists in different situations.  LHO was supposed to have said the following during his interrogations (I have to say supposedly since NO notes were taken or recordings made per the DPD):

"I want that attorney in New York, Mr. Abt. I don't know him personally but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act, [which made it illegal to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government] . . . I don't know him personally, but that is the attorney I want. . . . If I can't get him, then I may get the American Civil Liberties Union to send me an attorney."

This quote alone shows LHO was NOT set on Abt alone as he said he would take a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as well (heck, I’m sure he would have been grateful for a Public Defender at that point).  Where did this claim of him ONLY wanting Abt come from? Who knows for sure, but it has served the DPD, the WC and its current day defenders well.  It also served another purpose quite well – it made LHO look like a Communist and this was valuable for the official solution.

It seems odd that a man who LHO supposedly wanted so bad would tell the WC he was NEVER given a request by LHO. Read this testimony and see how it corresponds to the claim LHO supposedly made while being interrogated.


Mr. RANKIN - You have been informed, I am sure, that Lee Harvey Oswald, after his arrest, tried to reach you to request that you act as his counsel. I don't know how you were informed, but I have seen it in the newspapers. When did it first come to your attention?

Mr. ABT - May I tell you the story, Mr. Rankin? Perhaps that is the simplest way.

Mr. RANKIN - Yes.

Mr. ABT - On Friday evening, the 22d, my wife and I left the city to spend the weekend at a little cabin we have up in the Connecticut woods. Sometime on Saturday, several people phoned me to say that they had heard on the radio that Oswald had asked that I represent him, and then shortly after that the press--both the press, radio, and TV reporters began to call me up there. I may say we have a radio but we have no TV there. And in the interim I turned on the radio and heard the same report.

I informed them--and these calls kept on all day and night Saturday and again Sunday morning--I informed all of the reporters with whom I spoke that I had received no request either from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf to represent him, and hence I was in no position to give any definitive answer to any such proposal if, as and when it came. I told them, however, that if I were requested to represent him, I felt that it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, for me to do so because of my commitments to other clients. I never had any communication, either directly from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf, and all of my information about the whole matter to this day came from what the press told me in those telephone conversations and what I subsequently read in the newspapers.

Does this sound like LHO requested Abt as claimed? Not to me.  Abt did NOT even know why LHO would want him and had to assume the reason.

Mr. RANKIN - Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?

Mr. ABT – No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a good .man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.

The assumption was meant in regards to Abt’s defense of Communists that he had defended in the past who had been accused of violating the Smith Act. Again, this whole claim regarding Abt was meant to paint LHO as a “red.”  There is NO evidence he, or anyone on his behalf, ever contacted Abt at all.

So we must ask again, why was LHO denied his most basic right?  Also, why did the DPD behave in this manner when it was in their BEST INTEREST to make sure they followed the law and had representation for the accused? Anything LHO might have told them in those hours of interrogation was NOT allowed in court since he had NO lawyer and they could NOT show he WAIVED his right to one.  He was brought to the station in handcuffs, thus, he was automatically being arrested, and had the right to remain silent and have an attorney if he wished.  He obviously wished since he mentioned it many times.

This statement is one of the rights:


- If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.

Why was NONE appointed? LHO obviously wanted one, especially as the day drew on and the charges became more serious.  The only time a lawyer was acquired for him was when he was dead. Then too, the WC suddenly decided he needed a lawyer.  LHO had more lawyers when he was DEAD than when he was alive.

As most will know who have researched this case Mark Lane was hired by LHO's mother, Marguerite Oswald, to defend her son's interest during the WC hearings. However, the WC saw fit to provide the deceased alleged assassin with another lawyer for the record to serve his interests. They would write this about it:


"In all fairness to the ALLEGED (WC defenders take note of this word) assassin and his family, the Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to advise whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice.  Mr. Craig accepted this assignment and participated fully and without limitation.  He attended Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to have the Commission hear.  This procedure was agreeable to counsel for Oswald's widow." (WCR, xiv-xv)

Further endorsement would come from Gerald Ford who would call him the "ethical conscience of the American Bar" and the NY Post would say, "The Warren Commission's appointment of the president of the American Bar Assn. to represent the INTERESTS of Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy's accused assassin, is a welcome development."  The NY Post continued with "His willingness to undertake the assignment is consistent with a long legal tradition of which men of conservative backgrounds have entered the arena of controversy and undertaken to defend the least popular causes." (NY Post, February 27, 1964)

What did Craig have to say about this assignment?  "We are NOT counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald", he told the Commission.  He said he would participate in the hearings to see that "all facts pertaining to the INVOLVEMENT of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy are FULLY investigated and fairly presented."
The "bar's ethical conscience" seemed to lack the knowledge of our system of "innocent UNTIL proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as much as the WC defenders on this board.

So how did this all work out?  Well there is NO record in the WCR or its 26 volumes of Mr. Craig or his associates EVER recalling a witness. There is NO record of a witness being listed as a prospective witness by Mr. Craig or his associates. IF they presented a name of a new witness it is not mentioned in the WCR.  IF Mr. Craig or his associates ever attended one of the 25,000 interviews, there is NO record of it in the WCR.  In fact, beyond the section above Mr. Craig appears NOWHERE in the WCR, the 26 volumes or the index.  Mr. Craig and his associates NEVER participated in cross-examinations, beyond an occasional question or two on a rare occasion, and these were of minor importance or to fasten guilt to LHO more firmly.

The WC would state "The Commission has functioned neither as a court presiding over an adversary proceeding nor as a prosecutor determined to prove a case, but as a fact finding agency committed to the ascertainment of the truth." (WCR, xiv)  Here is their outline for their "fact finding" investigation:

I.    Oswald's activities on November 22;
II.   Oswald's background;
III.  Oswald's career in the Marine Corps and his stay in the Soviet Union;
IV. Oswald's murder in the Dallas police station;
V.  Ruby's background;
VI. The procedures employed to protect President Kennedy

Sounds like they left NO stone uncovered, huh? No wonder the N.Y. Times would say this AFTER LHO was dead (safely?):

"The Dallas authorities, abetted and encouraged by the newspaper, TV and radio press, trampled on every principle of justice in their handling of Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . The heinousness of the crime Oswald was alleged to have committed made it doubly important that there be no cloud over the establishment of his guilt.

Yet -- before any indictment had been returned or any evidence presented and in the face of continued denials by the prisoner -- the chief of police and the district attorney pronounced Oswald guilty." (New York Times, November 25, 1963, p. 18.)

We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
4
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
US Code Title 18 is very specific throughout when referring to
"....Officers, Employees, and Elected Officials of the Executive and Legislative branches.."
which one is the POTUS?

The POTUS is all three.
5
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Read it. I'm not going to hold your hand and lead you through it. Read it and try to understand what you read. Go through it a dozen times if need be.

The President takes an oath of office. He holds the highest office in the country.  He is also an employee of the United States.

Try all you want but you'll never get around the fact that the Feds were legally justified in removing JFK's body under 18 U.S. Code § 372.

US Code Title 18 is very specific throughout when referring to
"....Officers, Employees, and Elected Officials of the Executive and Legislative branches.."
which one is the POTUS?
6
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is you with the silly argument ...CEO?  LOL !!!
I said he is NOT an officer as referred in the context of Title 18 

US Code Title 18 is very specific throughout when referring to
"....Officers, Employees, and Elected Officials of the Executive and Legislative branches.." [esp Pres. & VP]

What you are quoting makes no mention of specific Federal Jurisdiction over State or Local authorities and is specific to officers not Elected Officials
like below are specific group(s) provisions but also do not include the POTUS
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 18 › § 351
Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties [specific group]

[but does suspend specific jurisdiction for these groups]
(f) If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is terminated.

18 U.S. Code § 372 - Conspiracy to Impede or Injure an Officer does neither
It does NOT refer to the POTUS nor does it assert Federal jurisdiction over TX State law in the removal of this body in 1963...
...that would be specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1751 - Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties (1965)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Read it. I'm not going to hold your hand and lead you through it. Read it and try to understand what you read. Go through it a dozen times if need be.

The President takes an oath of office. He holds the highest office in the country.  He is also an employee of the United States.

Try all you want but you'll never get around the fact that the Feds were legally justified in removing JFK's body under 18 U.S. Code § 372.
7
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bugliosi and the Warren Commission said that the Parkland Doctors were wrong about where they put the head wounds on JFK . The back of the blown-out head wound is not mentioned by the WC or Bugliosi.

The Clark Panel said the autopsy doctors were wrong about the head wounds.

The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel.
8
Bugliosi and the Warren Commission said that the Parkland Doctors were wrong about where they put the head wounds on JFK . The back of the blown-out head wound is not mentioned by the WC or Bugliosi.
9
Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.
No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

*****************************************

We will continue our look at the General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) shooting.  The Warren Commission (WC), as usual, had very little evidence to lead one to even make the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired at EAW, let alone evidence to support the claim. We will look at this evidence and see what it shows us, but first a background on EAW will be helpful.

*****************************************

EAW served in the U.S. Army during World War II and the Korean conflict and reached the rank of Major General by the time of his release.  His views were extreme right-wing in their nature and he even publicly called Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman “pink” (meaning Communist).  This caused a severe backlash although Mrs. Roosevelt’s husband was one of the most SOCIALIST presidents this country has ever had.  The New Deal was a socialist program in the highest order.

He would finally be cashiered out of the Army by JFK as he supposedly violated the Hatch Act by telling his soldiers how to vote. The odd thing about this is if one reads about the Hatch Act, (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939), it does NOT apply to the U.S. military personnel so it makes one wonder how President John F. Kennedy (JFK) would have been allowed to use this to evict EAW from the Army if he had NOT resigned himself. Also consider EAW was in Germany at the time and NOT within the U.S.

Obviously President Eisenhower did NOT think badly of EAW, because he TURNED DOWN a resignation request he made on August 4, 1959, and instead gave him a command in Germany of more than 10,000 troops. EAW became a staunch supporter of the Pro-Blue program which was a severe anti-Communist group. He made this a mandatory indoctrination program for his troops and this is what was the real reason for his dismissal (acceptance of resignation) in all likelihood.  One has to wonder why when the early 60s was still a hot-bed time for anti-Communism thinking. IF you have ever served then you know as a military person you are indoctrinated all the time with one thought or another, so why did this bother the Kennedy administration so much when it appeared NOT to bother Eisenhower in the least? My guess would be that it went PUBLIC in April 1961 when the Overseas Weekly did a front page story about him “brainwashing” his troops with John Birch Society (JBS) materials. Since the whole country had been brainwashed since the end of WWII about the evils of Communism I can only conclude that it was simply bad timing for EAW to have had this appear as the fiasco, and disaster of the Bay of Pigs, was also occurring at the same time.

Since we have been told the JBS is bad you may wonder why it is bad.  This is from Wikipedia and can’t get any more clear in their values.


Quote on

The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a constitutional republic[1][2] and personal freedom. It has been described as radical right-wing.

[1]Principles of the John Birch Society, 1962. "We believe that a Constitutional Republic, such as our Founding Fathers gave us, is probably the best of all forms of government"

[2]LectLaw "We believe that our system of government, a Constitutional Republic, is the finest yet developed by man."

Quote off

If you look at the statement one may wonder what is so bad about this organization? Weren’t most Americans anti-Communist in the early 1960s? I know the government sure was. Don’t most Americans believe in the Constitution and personal freedom? I would think so. Many Americans, even more so today, sure want a more LIMITED government too, but alas, this could be one of the things that made the John Birch Society “bad” to the government. 

The JBS is also very anti-United Nations too (and currently calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve).  In an interview with Jim Marrs in 1964 Walker said the following:


Quote on

The United Nations charter, which is only eight pages, should have been placed before [the American public] to study. Very few… have even seen the Fulbright Memorandum or the Walter Reuther Memorandum submitted to Attorney General Robert Kennedy upon his request… very few had even seen these papers or the U.N. declaration on racial discrimination, U.N. term for integration. This paper declares that the whole world will integrate. I do not know where such authority comes from or who it represents. I can realistically predict that no one living today will see six hundred million Chinese integrated with one hundred million Japanese, Turks integrated with Greeks, or Mohammedans with Isrealis… A cause for America first and last and always is essential to our existence. All organizations which are implementing such a cause are in the best interest of the country and are needed. The Birch Society is doing a great job in educating people and exposing such memoranda as I have referred to previously.

Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, p. 256

Quote off

I don’t know, but if we just look at their statement and what EAW just said in that interview there is nothing bad in it.  Obviously though, things are not always what they seem.  We will leave it there.

The only reason I brought this up was to remind folks that many members of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) were also members in the JBS.  Whether you agree with their outlook or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that they had this outlook, and that many of those on the right-wing side thought JFK was a Communist. This is important to remember when looking at the assassination and the actions taken later by many of these DPD members.

On November 2, 1961, EAW again offered his resignation from the Army and this time it was accepted.  This meant the general would get NO pension for his 30 years of service. Two other events must be mentioned before we can move on to the shooting event of April 10, 1963.

Firstly, in 1962 EAW would run for the role of Governor in the state of Texas. He would lose by finishing last of the six Democratic candidates.  The winner of this primary--John Connally—would eventually win the office

Secondly, in September 1962 EAW embroiled himself in the University of Mississippi segregation issue. African-American James Meredith was attempting to become the first non-white student in the university’s history. This caused a major storm in this deep south school and community.  EAW would go on television on September 29, 1962 and say the following:


Quote on

This is Edwin A. Walker. I am in Mississippi beside Governor Ross Barnett. I call for a national protest against the conspiracy from within. Rally to the cause of freedom in righteous indignation, violent vocal protest, and bitter silence under the flag of Mississippi at the use of Federal troops. This today is a disgrace to the nation in 'dire peril,' a disgrace beyond the capacity of anyone except its enemies. This is the conspiracy of the crucifixion by anti-Christ conspirators of the Supreme Court in their denial of prayer and their betrayal of a nation.[10]

[10]"Walker Demands a 'Vocal Protest,'" New York Times, September 30, 1962, p. 69.

Quote off

A 15-hour violent riot would break out on campus on September 30 and leave hundreds wounded, two dead and six US Marshals shot.  This would lead to EAW’s arrest on four federal charges including sedition and insurrection. Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) even had him put in a mental institution and demanded a 90-day psychiatric examination. One can wonder what EAW thought of the Kennedys at this time. In January 1963 he would not be indicted and he was free to go.

Now on to the assassination attempt.

EAW had many connections that had connections.  For example, his aide who drove him had a brother by the name of Larrie Schmidt.  Larrie Schmidt knew Bernard Weissman.  Both Schmidt and Weissman would author the infamous “Welcome Mr. Kennedy to Dallas” ad that ran in the Dallas Morning News on 11/22/63. The ad was black bordered and ask twelve loaded questions about JFK.  It ended with asking him why he was carrying on the “Spirit of Moscow” during his presidency.

Another aide of EAW’s, Robert Surrey, would produce the “Wanted for Treason” leaflets that would be handed out along the motorcade’s route. Surrey would tell researcher Penn Jones, Jr. years later that his best bridge playing partner was none other than FBI agent James Hosty. Hosty, you may recall, was assigned to LHO in the Dallas area and he allegedly flushed a note LHO left for him shortly before the assassination. 

Another interesting connection was none other than Carlos Bringuier.  He was the man who would get into an altercation with LHO for handing out pro-Castro pamphlets in New Orleans during August 1963. It seems LHO had earlier approached Bringuier and said he was ANTI-CASTRO.  This brawl, if you want to call it that, would lead LHO to jail for a day. LHO would be visited by the FBI on his request while he was there. Bringuier and LHO would also do a radio debate about Communism and Castro.

Bringuier had served on the faculty of Christian Anti-Communist Youth University.  Guess who else was on the faculty there? You got it – EAW.  What a small world, huh? According to researcher Gary Shaw EAW was retained by the CIA to train and arm the Cuban exiles shortly after the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

The WC would claim LHO did surveillance on the EAW house as they claimed the DPD allegedly found three photographs of his house in his belongings. According to WC photograph experts the background of the photographs led them to believe they could NOT have been taken later than March 10, 1963. Interestingly enough, one of the photographs would lead many researchers over the years to the conclusion LHO was framed. It is the one that shows a 1957 Chevrolet in EAW’s driveway. Why? Because CE-5 has a hole in it where the license plate of the car would have appeared.

In FBI reports, R.B. Stovall, a Dallas police detective who helped to confiscate LHO’s belongings from the Paine house in Irving was quoted as saying:


Quote on

…at the time he observed this photograph [the detective] surmised that Oswald had evidently taken the license plate number area out of the photograph to keep anyone from identifying the owner of that automobile. He advised he is positive the photograph was mutilated as shown in Commission Exhibit 5 at the time they  recovered it at the Paine residence.

Quote off

According to the FBI Stovall’s partner, Guy Rose, would add:

Quote on

…he had noted that someone had torn out a section on the automobile, which area contains the license plate for the 1957 Chevrolet … He stated… that it had been mutilated at the time they had recovered the box containing the photographs.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

So we see two DPD detectives, per the FBI, say that that the photo was INTACT when it was RECOVERED from LHO’s belongings.  How can the WC, and its defenders, explain this then?

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 5, which is a copy of one of the photographs that was found among these effects after the assassination.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that appear to be one of the photographs about which you were speaking?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; that's one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you absolutely sure about that?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't remember when Lee showed me the picture that it was this. When I was first shown this picture, I remember that there was a license plate number on this car.

Mr. LIEBELER. When Lee showed you the picture, there was a license plate number on the car?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. As shown in Commission Exhibit No. 5; is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you look at this picture you see that there is a black mark on the back of this, do you know what makes that black mark?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; but I think when the Commission showed me this picture the number was there.

Mr. McKENZIE. License plate?

Mrs. OSWALD. I would have remembered this black spot if it were there at the time the Commission showed me this, or the FBI. When the FBI first showed me this photograph I remember that the license plate, the number of the license plate was on this car, was on the photograph.

It had the white and black numbers. There was no black spot that I see on it now. When Lee showed me this photograph there was the number on the license plate on this picture. I would have remembered it if there were a black spot on the back of the car where the license plate would be.

Mr. LIEBELER. The original of this picture, the actual photograph, has a hole through it. That's what makes this black spot.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is from the negative?

Mr. GREGORY. This picture was made from the original photograph, rather than from a negative?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; it's simply a picture of a picture.

Mrs. OSWALD. When the FBI and Lee showed me this particular picture--Not this big size. This photograph--it was a smaller size.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. There was a license plate on this car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that very clearly?

Mrs. OSWALD. When Lee showed it to me, I remember very distinctly that there was a license plate on this car. When this business about General Walker came up I would have remembered this black spot.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or the hole?

Mrs. OSWALD. Or the hole in the original--I would have remembered it.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you remember, then, that the license plate was actually on that car when you saw the picture?


Mrs. OSWALD. This black spot is so striking I would have remembered it if it were on the photograph that Lee showed me or the FBI.

So we see from Marina’s testimony there was NO hole when either LHO or the FBI showed her the photograph before! How can this be? Is someone lying? Yes is the answer.  The proof of WHO was lying would come with DPD Chief Jesse Curry’s book JFK Assassination File. In it, on page 113, there is a police photo of LHO’s belongings that shows the photo in question up front.  Guess what it shows?  It shows the Chevy’s license-plate number INTACT! This means ONLY one thing.  The license-plate was removed while in CUSTODY OF EITHER THE DPD OR THE FBI.  Since Marina said the FBI showed her the photo and it was still intact that means they are the ones that REMOVED IT in all likelihood. This is called TAMPERING WITH EVDIENCE.

Whose car was this? Why did the FBI feel the need to do this? These are questions that we don’t have answers for and we will never know for sure unfortunately, but there are some clues.  As said in the previous post in this series, a Cuban exile by the name of Filipe Vidal Santiago of the group known as “Alpha 66” was known to drive a 1957 Chevrolet.  As stated previously, research by Gary Shaw showed it is very likely EAW had been retained by the CIA to train Cuban exiles, thus, the car belonging to Santiago being there is by no means a stretch.

Also covered in the previous post in this series was the fact a volunteer worker, Charles Klihr (known to Walker as Clyr), was known to drive a 1957 Chevrolet too.



Mr. LIEBELER. I will spell it right in just a minute. K-l-i-h-r. 2046 Rosebud Street, Irving, Tex. Do you know that man?

General WALKER. Not that spelling. I know a Charles Clyr. As I know the spelling, it is C-l-y-r.

-------------

Mr. LIEBELER. How about that car, do you recognize that as his car?

General WALKER. I don't recognize that car.

Mr. LIEBELER. This gentleman that we may be talking about we may be talking about the same man, is a volunteer worker for you from time to time?

General WALKER. If it is the one I am referring to, he is in and out quite often, right. He and his wife have helped me quite a bit.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to identify that car as being his?

General WALKER. No; I am not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that car appear to be a 1957 Chevrolet? Or aren't you able to tell by looking?

General WALKER. I am not able to tell. I am not very good on cars.

This troubled at least one person on the WC.  In 1966 WC Attorney Liebeler wrote a letter to Charles Klihr about this issue.  The letter said in part:

Quote on

The [Oswald} picture was mutilated by someone in such a manner that the license plate is no longer visible. When we noticed this during the investigation we asked the FBI to determine whose car it was. They asked [Walker aide] Surrey about it and he  thought it was your car. I find no indication that FBI agents talked with you about the matter, however… I would appreciate it very much if you would let me know whether or not the FBI did interview you about this and if you were able to identify the car as your own.

Quote off

Needless to say Liebeler NEVER heard from Klihr. Why did the FBI do NO follow-up on this as instructed? Why did the WC and FBI NOT find it odd that EAW knew the man with a different last name? Who was this man really? Why did the FBI show NO interest in determining who owned this car in EAW’s driveway?

Jim Marrs did a great job of showing all the connections EAW had, including possibly links to both Ruby and LHO via a man named John Martin. He also goes over something in the book Farewell America (a book based on an investigation supposedly paid for by RFK) that was written by French intelligence agents that mentions EAW being flown to Mexico to hide out with H.L. Hunt for a month after the assassination. This book also claims LHO was introduced to both EAW and Clay Shaw in the late summer of 1963 by David Ferrie! Keep in mind, EAW’s name and telephone number appeared in LHO’s notebook. The WC would say:


Quote on

Although Oswald’s notebook contained Walker’s name and telephone number there is no evidence that they knew each other. It is probable that this information was inserted at the time Oswald was planning his attack on Walker.

Quote off

Isn’t it ironic that they can conclude LHO attacked EAW with NO evidence, but can’t conclude that he knew EAW with NO evidence? Another piece of evidence, if you want to call it that, that shows LHO shot at EAW supposedly is a letter that was found shortly after the assassination.  The letter supposedly fell out of a book found among LHO’s possessions and was shown to Ruth Paine by the SS.  They wanted her to identify it.  I don’t know why they thought she could since she and LHO did not get along well and I doubt he would have shown it to her even IF he wrote it.

It would be determined by government handwriting experts that LHO wrote it and Marina said she remembered seeing it shortly after the EAW shooting. Supposedly LHO left it in the Russian book entitled Book of Useful Advice and it was discovered two weeks after the assassination when it fell out of the book. One can wonder why it took TWO WEEKS to fall out, but that is a question we can’t answer.

Evidence that puts further doubt on this story was given by Ruth Paine when she commented about the Dallas Police search of her home and she said, “Before I left they were leafing through books to see if anything FELL OUT but that was all I saw.” So again, based on this testimony, one can ask why did the note NOT FALL OUT EARLIER IF IT WAS REALLY THERE AS CLAIMED? Surely LHO did NOT have that many books in his belongings.

In the letter he NEVER MENTIONS EAW so one is left to assume what he was talking about IF they believe it is genuine. Also, since it does NOT mention EAW, and Marina knew nothing of his planned attack on him supposedly, how could she “watch for stories” about this particular incident and tie LHO to it? Also, the letter mentioned sending the information she somehow would know to watch for to the Russian Embassy.  Why would the Russian Embassy care about his shooting of/at a right-wing Dallas ex-General? Does this make any sense to you?

Jim Marrs makes a great point on this as well.  He wrote that the WC concluded that this letter , presumably by LHO,  “appeared to be the work of a man expecting to be killed, or imprisoned, or to disappear”, but LHO had NO money, NO passport, and NO reasonable expectation of escape at the time of the EAW incident.  Again, does this make any sense to you?

Finally, we get to CE-573.  Over the years before his death in 1993 EAW said many times this bullet was NOT the bullet he held on the night of the shooting.  He said *that* bullet was too mangled to even know what kind of bullet it was, but that it was a steel-jacketed type. Contemporary news reports concerning the shooting said the bullet was “identified as .30.06” and of course this means LHO could NOT have fired it. Further corroboration comes from the DPD reports of the incident. In NINE separate reports they too said the bullet was a STEEL-JACKETED type.  All the ammo from the alleged murder weapon, CE-139, fired COPPER-JACKETED bullets. So again, we see LHO could NOT have fired the bullet at EAW.

EVEN IF we allow the tainted bullet in evidence, CE-573, into the discussion this bullet has NO link TO LHO at all. (Of course CE-139 has NO link to LHO either, but that is another post) Why you may ask? Because of the FBI’s own spectrographic analyses of CE-399 [magic bullet] and the two bullet fragments allegedly found in the president’s limo.  In 1975 JFK researcher George Michael Evica looked at these reports and concluded the following:


Quote on

the bullet recovered in the assassination attempt on General Walker does NOT match either CE 399 or two fragments recovered from President Kennedy’s limousine; the Warren Commission’s linking of Lee Harvey Oswald to the General Walker assassination attempt is SERIOUSLY weakened.

Quote off

Of course Hoover would term these reports “inconclusive” [one of the WC’s favorite words along with “mistaken”] when they were NO such thing.  In science the results that matter are matches and non-matches. Here we see they COULD NOT MATCH the bullet in question—CE-573 that had NO chain of custody or evidence that it was actually recovered from EAW’s house—to the other supposed ballistics in this case [CE-399 and the other two fragments], thus, NO link exists.  Period.

Again, we see the claims of the WC have NO support.  They are sunk quite easily. Could this happen so frequently IF LHO had actually committed the crime as they claimed?  It is highly doubtful.


Portions of this post came from Jim Marrs’ book, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, pp. 256-262 and Wikipedia
10
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Possible he saw a good bit of it but it wasn't extended beyond the plane of the window like Doofus has it.

Use some common sense, and tell me how Brennan could have seen the man who was dressed in LIGHT COLORED clothing, STAND and REST THE ( HUNTING) RIFLE AGAINST THE LEFT side of the window with the gun shouldered to his right shoulder if he had seen the man behind that SE corner window???

 Mr. BRENNAN.--- Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired

A man of average height ( 5' 10" ) could not stand and hold a rifle to his shoulder and fire from that half open window......Any such attempt would cause the bullet to strike the concrete ledge beneath the window,


Problem is that Brennan thought everyone in that area was standing.

Quote

Brennan was describing a wide open window like that window on the fifth floor where Junior Jarman was kneeling at the time of the murder.   That wide open window allows us to see that a gunman could Stand and perform the feat that Brennan witnessed.

Brennan was describing the WIDE open window at the west end of the sixth floor.


LOL! We've been over this before. So you CTs are so inept or mulishly adverse to anything WC that you can't even picture the straight-forward act of someone getting into firing position at the SN window.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10