Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Nova "Cold Case" JFK
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 11:38:17 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 10:36:58 PM
I've told you this a number of times before. The person proposing a hypothesis has the burden of supplying the proof to support it. A hypothesis isn't accepted as the default truth until somebody disproves it. The person proposing it has the burden of proving it is correct. You haven't even come close to doing that.

I really don't care if you post additional "evidence" for your theory or not. Given the quality of what you've posted so far, I doubt it would make much difference.

However, if you really believe you've made a bombshell discovery that has eluded an army of amateur researchers for the past 62 years, why are you wasting your time presenting it to the major legacy news organizations. They can reach a much bigger audience than what you have here. Maybe they will be much more impressed by your research than the followers of this forum. Fame and fortune could be awaiting you.

  So YOU of all people are pimping the, "major legacy news organizations"? You got Storing Derangement Syndrome (SDS) bad. A tell tale symptom being not knowing what you are saying.
52
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The All-Important Curtain Rods
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 11:37:00 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 11:28:36 PM
BEFORE the assassination....

"I'll make a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work to retrieve the curtain rods for my room."

AFTER the assassination....

"Work is suspended for the day.  I think I'll head to my room and then off to the movies.  Screw the curtain rods, can't find them right now.  Not missing the beginning of "War Is Hell" is more important."

And the conclusion of this is that he killed the President and a police officer? Are you a comedian now?
53
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The All-Important Curtain Rods
« Last post by Bill Brown on Yesterday at 11:28:36 PM »
BEFORE the assassination....

"I'll make a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work to retrieve the curtain rods for my room."

AFTER the assassination....

"Work is suspended for the day.  I think I'll head to my room and then off to the movies.  Screw the curtain rods, can't find them right now.  Not missing the beginning of "War Is Hell" is more important."
54
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 11:23:58 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 11:11:47 PM
1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.

These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.

Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.

I couldn't care less of some "explanation" of what would or possibly would not have happened at trial.

Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.

So, at trial they would have bothered but the WC/FBI couldn't care less, is that what you are saying?

And btw it wasn't Westbrook who found the jacket and it wasn't officer X who turned in a jacket at the crime lab

These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.

Yes, that's how a chain of custody normally works. CE2011 was the result of a request by the WC about a number of chains of custody. So, why not this one?
Which of course begs the question of how the WC could conclude that the grey jacket presented by Westbrook to the evidence room at 3:00 PM was the same as the white jackets the officers at the parking lot reported to have seen.

And that brings me back to my original question; can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onë of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?

Or is your answer simply, they just threw away all the rules of evidence because they "knew" they had their man?
55
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Bill Brown on Yesterday at 11:11:47 PM »
1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.

These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.

Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.
56
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Interview With JFK Assassination Witness Mary Lea Williams In Dealey Plaza
« Last post by David Von Pein on Yesterday at 11:09:49 PM »
Good find!

After seeing this woman briefly in David Wolper's "Four Days In November" film, I always wondered what her name was.

Mrs. Williams' March '64 statement can also be seen in CD706 (below):

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11104#relPageId=103
57
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 11:06:17 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 10:52:50 PM
"And he said look, there's a jacket under the car. He pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars. I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there, if I remember right. So I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket." -- Capt. Westbrook



Nice try

Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, I did, when I left this scene, I turned this jacket over to one of the officers and I went by that church, I think, and I think that would be on 10th Street.

Now, can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onë of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?
58
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 11:00:38 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 10:48:08 PM
Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.
Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.
Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle. But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.

And those are the words of an extremely confused person;

Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.

Roberts is important, because if Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket, nobody could have seen him "wearing a jacket" while shooting Tippit. And no, there is not a shred of evidence that the (white) jacket found under a car is the same one (the grey one) that's now in evidence as CE 162. Once again the master of assumptions strikes again!

Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.

So, now he believes in magic when he needs it!  :D

Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle.

Oh boy, here he goes again with the fibers BS! But never mind, it doesn't matter as it is of course probable that fibers of Oswald's shirt were found in the grey jacket that's now in evidence. What you still can't figure out is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the white jacket found under the car is the same as Oswald's grey jacket that's now in evidence. I guess it must all be just a little too difficult for you to understand this.

But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.

So, being an unlucky SOB makes a murderer in your mind?
59
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Bill Brown on Yesterday at 10:52:50 PM »
"And he said look, there's a jacket under the car. He pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars. I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there, if I remember right. So I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket." -- Capt. Westbrook

60
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 10:51:20 PM »
Quote from: Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 10:16:36 PM
Not sure we can even conclude that ANY jacket was found under under ANY car in ANY parking lot.
I don’t know how a story that is claimed to have been 1st heard from an unidentified person could be introduced as evidence, but I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure what the rules  of evidence are. Just seems like hearsay  imo.

Good point, but don't worry... the LNs are going to go full "It's common sense" to justify them jumping to conclusions from one piece of unauthenticated evidence to the next.

That's about the only thing that makes participating on this forum fun.

As for the jacket;

According to Captain Westbrook a patrol officer who was never identified pointed out a jacket under a car. In radio traffic with the DPD dispatchers this jacket was described as white. This description was of course the result it being seen in bright sunlight. Westbrook then said he gave the white jacket to another unidentified officer before moving on to the Texas Theater.
Then the jacket disappears. We don't know where it was or who had it. When a jacket shows up again, it's at the police station and it has the markings of seven officers on it who never were (or came forward to being) in the chain of custody, and guess what, the jacket was suddenly grey. Go figure!
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10