Author Topic: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley  (Read 3425 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gary Craig

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4708
  • "The human mind is our fundamental resource." JFK
Re: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2017, 05:32:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are still playing games. The FBI had no jurisdiction. The SS had no jurisdiction. And yet, they both TOOK POSESSESION of the evidence on November 22 and 23, 1963. They violated the chain of custody and ruined all the evidence. End of story.

Possession is 9 tenths of the law.

They had the POTUS and federal government behind them.

Local and state regulations and officials were steamrolled by the coverup.

End of story.

Online Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22489
Re: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2017, 11:34:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Possession is 9 tenths of the law.

They had the POTUS and federal government behind them.

Local and state regulations and officials were steamrolled by the coverup.

End of story.

The FBI knew that the American people wouldn't go for this so that is why they gave it back to the DPD so it could "officially" be given to the FBI on November 26, 1963. This is proof positive that the FBI knew what they did was illegal as otherwise they would have simply kept the evidence.

None of it is worth squat, but of course this didn't matter as LHO was already dead. Beginning of a fictional story.

Online Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22489
Re: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2017, 02:43:31 PM »
The FBI kept investigating the assassination long after the WC released their conclusion. This is a very important point. Would they have done this IF the WC had gotten it correct? Highly doubtful.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3463
Re: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2017, 02:59:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is not a matter of ASSISTING in the investigation, but rather completely taking over, seizing any and all evidence while doing so. Robert has said this before, but his statement was ignored in order to be able to keep up the attacks.

So the question is: did the FBI have the jurisdiction to completely take charge of the investigation of the assassination of the President and all related matters, yes or no?

Can you give us some examples of the FBI forcibly "seizing" evidence in this case from the DPD?  Also keep in mind that Oswald died less than 48 hours after his arrest.  You are also continuing to miscontrue the term "jurisdiction" in this context.  The state of Texas had the sole legal authority (i.e. jurisdiction) to prosecute Oswald for murder.  Even if the FBI had been given the primary responsibility to review the evidence ONLY the state of Texas had jurisdiction to prosecute Oswald.   The jurisdictional issue is not influenced by how much investigative ASSISTANCE the FBI provided.   And to my knowledge no one has ever argued the FBI or federal government had any jurisdiction to prosecute the assassin in this case.  The law was subsequently changed but in 1963 only the state authorities had legal authority (ie. jurisdiction) over a murder.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 03:40:51 PM
by Richard Smith
»

Offline Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3463
Re: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2017, 03:37:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The FBI kept investigating the assassination long after the WC released their conclusion. This is a very important point. Would they have done this IF the WC had gotten it correct? Highly doubtful.

Why would the FBI continue to investigate if they were a major part of the effort to frame Oswald as you routinely imply?  The fact that they continued to look into the case demonstrates - if anything - that they followed up on any information but never found anything to revisit the obvious conclusion that Oswald was the sole assassin.   It is laughable that you - of all people - would cite the open mind of the FBI as a means to confirm your paranoid fantasy which typically necessitates that the FBI actively framed Oswald.  That's a rich conflicting narrative even from a fringer.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 03:58:32 PM
by Richard Smith
»

Offline Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3463
Re: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2017, 03:51:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are still playing games. The FBI had no jurisdiction. The SS had no jurisdiction. And yet, they both TOOK POSESSESION of the evidence on November 22 and 23, 1963. They violated the chain of custody and ruined all the evidence. End of story.

Do you have some type of reading comprehension issue?  I have repeatedly agreed that the FBI did not have jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for a murder that took place in Texas in 1963.  The state of Texas had the sole legal authority to prosecute Oswald for this crime.  That does not preclude the FBI, however, from assisting in the investigation.  As they often do in high profile cases.   Even if the FBI was given the primary responsibility for the investigation it would still be up to the state of Texas to make decisions about who to prosecute.  And the state of Texas would be the sole legal entity responsible for the case which could rely upon the investigative findings of the FBI.  The fact that the FBI was involved - even if heavily involved - in the investigation doesn't mean they somehow usurped the "jurisdiction" of the state of Texas to charge and prosecute an individual.  And I've seen no indication that the FBI seized or took any evidence from the DPD.  Rather the evidence was sent along to the FBI for their assistance and expertise.  How anyone could twist such an obvious narrative of events into something sinister is amazing.

Online Johnny Hartley

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
Re: The HSCA Says....James R. Malley
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2017, 08:39:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you have some type of reading comprehension issue?  I have repeatedly agreed that the FBI did not have jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for a murder that took place in Texas in 1963.  The state of Texas had the sole legal authority to prosecute Oswald for this crime.  That does not preclude the FBI, however, from assisting in the investigation.  As they often do in high profile cases.   Even if the FBI was given the primary responsibility for the investigation it would still be up to the state of Texas to make decisions about who to prosecute.  And the state of Texas would be the sole legal entity responsible for the case which could rely upon the investigative findings of the FBI.  The fact that the FBI was involved - even if heavily involved - in the investigation doesn't mean they somehow usurped the "jurisdiction" of the state of Texas to charge and prosecute an individual.  And I've seen no indication that the FBI seized or took any evidence from the DPD.  Rather the evidence was sent along to the FBI for their assistance and expertise.  How anyone could twist such an obvious narrative of events into something sinister is amazing.

You are right, the evidence wasn't handed over by the DPD, rather it magically appeared from the FBI.

It is remarkable to read the contents of Hoover's phone call from 24 November, where he admits:

The police didn't  really have a case against Oswald until the FBI gave them FBI information. 

All the Dallas Police had was three witnesses who tentatively identified him as the man who shot the policeman and boarded a bus to go home shortly after the President was killed.  He got on a bus to go home to get a shirt and the bus conductor tentatively identified him as the man who boarded the bus. (no mention here of a taxi ride).

Hoover believed the case built by the Dallas police would not have resulted in a conviction.

Hoover believes that Oswald did not act alone and had accomplice(s) support, "we now think it involves the Criminal Code on a conspiracy charge". Once Oswald was dead, all responsibility was officially placed solely on him.

The predetermined nature of the investigation - the goal to show that Oswald was the assassin -, is evident that they wanted to "convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin
I believe officials were terrified of the idea that Oswald had been working in collaboration with the Russians to assassinate the US President, and tellingly the conversation edits out the part of the conversation relating to foreign relations
"

It is also striking to see Hoover admit that Oswald's civil rights were violated.

Hoover confirms they know no firm information on Ruby, other than rumours of his undercover connections, (which rapidly got covered up in official publications) and his clubs.

Hoover correctly believes that the Dallas police statements would have prejudiced any Dallas trial, and make it impossible for him to receive a local trial.


"I dispatched to Dallas one of my top assistants in the hope that he might stop the Chief of Police and his staff from doing so damned much talking on television.  They did not really have a case against
Oswald until we gave them our information.  We traced the weapon, we identified the handwriting, we identified the fingerprints on the brown bag.

We were able to identify the bullets as coming from that gun.  All the Dallas Police had was three witnesses who tentatively identified him as the man who shot the policeman and boarded a bus to go home
shortly after the President was killed.  He got on a bus to go home to get a shirt and the bus conductor tentatively identified him as the man who boarded the bus.

Oswald had been saying he wanted John Abt as his lawyer and Abt, with only that kind of evidence, could have turned the case around, I'm afraid.  All the talking down there might have required a change
of venue on the basis that Oswald could not have gotten a fair trial in Dallas.  If they keep on talking, perhaps the same will be true of Ruby.

Chief of Police Curry I understand cannot control Capt. Fritz of the Homocide (sic) Squad, who is giving much information to the press. Since we now think it involves the Criminal Code on a conspiracy
charge under Section 2-11, we want them to shut up.  Furthermore, I have ordered the evidence be secured by the Police Department. We sent most of the evidence back to them.  We still have the
bullets that were fired and will keep them.

The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.  Mr. Katzenbach thinks that the President might
appoint a Presidential Commission of three outstanding citizens to make a determination.  I countered with a suggestion that we make an investigative report to the Attorney General with pictures,
laboratory work, etc.  Then the Attorney General can make the report to the President and the President can decide whether to make it public.  I felt this was better because there are several aspects
which would complicate our foreign relations.

- at his point deletion at bottom of page 2 (1-2 lines), and deletion   at top of page 3 (max. 10 lines), marked 'SECRET' horizontally   on right margin

And since this has nothing to do with proof that Oswald committed the murder, I made the suggestion to Mr. Katzenbach that instead of a Presidential Commission, we do it with a Justice Department report base on an FBI report.

Oswald having been killed today after our warnings to the Dallas Police Department, was inexcusable.  It will allow, I am afraid, a lot of civil rights people to raise a lot of hell because he was handcuffed and had no weapon.  There are bound to be some elements of our society who will holler their heads off that his civil rights were violated -- which they were.

We have no information on Ruby that is firm, although there are some rumors of underworld activity in Chicago.  Of his two night clubs, one is a strip tease joint and the other is a liquor place
."