NEW GIL JESUS WEBSITE

[David Von Pein]

Ray Mitcham said:

Because he wasn't near the elevator when the lads went down.

Huh? Of course he was close to the elevators. You think Oswald shouted down the elevator shaft from the opposite side of the building?

 

Ray Mitcham said:

If he wanted to stay there, why would he ask the others to send the elevator back up[?]

So he could lock the elevator down on the sixth floor, Ray. That's why.

I'll ask again:

Why did LHO want to stay on the sixth floor for so long? What could he possibly be doing up there if he wasn't filling orders (which he wasn't)?

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

Lawyers are, if nothing else, trained to deal with evidence - what is credible, what is not; what constitutes the best evidence regarding a particular matter; what is admissible and convincing, what is not; how to tie a large body of evidence into a coherent theme.

We have Charles Givens' lengthy testimony under oath, admittedly without the benefit of cross-examination.  But those are his actual words, and they hold together well.  To the extent we have testimony by other witnesses that arguably or actually conflicts with his, this is not unexpected but must be dealt with.

We also have Revill's reference to Givens possibly being willing to "change his story for money" being left in a report dated only six weeks before Givens' testimony, as well as Belin's references to the inconsistencies concerning Givens in his own report dated only six weeks before Givens' testimony.  If there were some sinister conspiracy for Givens to change his story when he testified, these seem like extremely curious things to put or leave in the record.  These are the sorts of things that would leap out to any lawyer.

8-line affidavits typed up by someone else, one-page FBI reports, CBS interviews three years later, etc., etc. - such things just carry no weight.  I am struck by how often the 8-line affidavit and one-page FBI report are magnified into vastly important "testimony" by Givens, as though he had said these very words and forever locked himself into a position.  Any lawyer - or for that matter anyone familiar with evidence - knows this is just silly.  Even Sylvia Meagher, in her vitriolic rebuttal to Belin in 1971, took him to task for daring to suggest that Given's actual testimony carried decisive weight vis-à-vis an 8-line affidavit typed by someone else in the chaos of the DPD on the very afternoon of the assassination.

I have enjoyed looking at Pat Speer's site and comments here from time to time, but speculation by your fellow conspiracy theorists is not evidence.  "Someone, somewhere [must have] alerted Givens' to Piper's testimony" before the CBS interview in 1967?  An unnamed negro described in a 1964 newspaper article that itself has an exceedingly checkered history is "most certainly Givens"?  When the source of the newspaper article describes what he recalls saying about the unnamed negro, "This is clearly a reference to Givens"?  "If the Howards were telling the truth" (rather a large question, I would think), it "seems an incredible coincidence" that Givens "would shortly thereafter change his story"?  From a minor discrepancy in LIFE magazine, "one might gather LIFE paid Givens for his story, and that he lied to them, or that someone paid or pressured Givens to lie to them"?

This is not evidence.  It is raw speculation, built on things Given supposedly said or did that we do not know he said or did at all.  A diehard Conspiracy Theorist will find such speculation entirely reasonable and completely convincing, of course, but a neutral judge would not even consider it or allow a jury to hear it.  Prove someone got to Givens and that he intentionally changed his story.  Again, he lived until 1982 - did anyone confront him with all of the supposed inconsistencies after Meagher's article came out in 1971?

These threads always seem to devolve into pissing contests of rampant speculation, as though the goal were simply to overwhelm readers and thereby "win."  As stated, I have no emotional investment in whether Givens was lying.  I don't have a pet theory that hinges on him lying (or not lying, for that matter).  I am just simply trying to look at the best evidence and the things we know without question took place, acknowledging that there will forever be loose ends as there always are.  It does seem to me that the Lone Nut community does a better job of staying on track with the evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence than does the Conspiracy Theory community, but enough genuine loose ends are problematical that I am entirely willing to consider a plausible conspiracy theory (not that what I am willing to consider should be important to anyone, the point merely being that I am hardly here as a Lone Nut Advocate but am placed in that box because I am likewise not a sufficiently faithful Conspiracy Loon).

Edited January 11, 2017 by Guest

[Gary Murr]

"Of course, no one can ever root out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is a game lawyers play. There is something touching about their naïve assumption that one gets the full story by putting a man under oath. In practice you get very little of it. Anxious not to perjure himself, the witness volunteers as little as possible. The President's Commission on the assassination was dominated by attorneys. The record shows it. Their depositions of minor witnesses were remarkable brief."

William Manchester - 1967.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Gary Murr said:

"Of course, no one can ever root out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is a game lawyers play. There is something touching about their naïve assumption that one gets the full story by putting a man under oath. In practice you get very little of it. Anxious not to perjure himself, the witness volunteers as little as possible. The President's Commission on the assassination was dominated by attorneys. The record shows it. Their depositions of minor witnesses were remarkable brief."

William Manchester - 1967.

But this is not the point - i.e., that Givens' testimony is trustworthy because he was "under oath."  The point is, these are Given's actual words, in a formal setting under questioning by an attorney, his words faithfully recorded by a reporter who was present.  The 8-line affidavit and the FBI report are not Givens' actual words - we know essentially nothing about whether they faithfully record anything Givens' actually said.  The speculation based upon those documents is, of course, even further down the chain of reliability.

In my experience, the legal system has no such "naïve assumption."  That is why we allow cross-examination with leading questions.  That is why we allow certain witnesses to be questioned as hostile witnesses.  That is why the judge or jury is charged with assessing the credibility of witnesses.  Putting a witness under oath, and thereby exposing him to the possibility of being charged with perjury, is merely one way to help ensure honesty, but there is no naïve assumption it is a guarantee.

In a perfect world, Givens would have been cross-examined when Belin examined him.  In a perfect world, Belin would have asked Givens specific questions about the 8-line affidavit, the FBI report and whatnot.  This is not a perfect world.

"In practice you get very little of it [the truth].  Anxious not to perjure himself, the witness volunteers as little as possible."  Now that is naïve.  Clients constantly have to be reminded to answer only the question asked, not volunteer additional information, not speculate when they don't really know, and say "I don't remember" if they actually don't remember.  Givens was, in fact, a remarkably good witness.

Just a guess, but is this perhaps one of the few times William Manchester has ever been quoted favorably on this forum? 

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Huh? Of course he was close to the elevators. You think Oswald shouted down the elevator shaft from the opposite side of the building?

 

So he could lock the elevator down on the sixth floor, Ray. That's why.

I'll ask again:

Why did LHO want to stay on the sixth floor for so long? What could he possibly be doing up there if he wasn't filling orders (which he wasn't)?

 

But he didn't stay there for so long, David.

He was seen by Carol Arnold on the first floor at about 12.25. 

He saw Jarman and Norman walk past the domino room, at about 12.15 which they did.

Givens said he saw Oswald at about 11.50 in the domino room.

 

Who saw Oswald after 12 noon on the sixth floor?

Edited January 11, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

22 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

But this is not the point - i.e., that Givens' testimony is trustworthy because he was "under oath."  The point is, these are Given's actual words, in a formal setting under questioning by an attorney, his words faithfully recorded by a reporter who was present.  The 8-line affidavit and the FBI report are not Givens' actual words - we know essentially nothing about whether they faithfully record anything Givens' actually said.  The speculation based upon those documents is, of course, even further down the chain of reliability.

 

How long you been a lawyer, Lance? Never heard anybody lie under oath?

Agreed that the 8 line affidavit are not Givens actual words. However why would an FBI agent insert the words Givens saw Oswald in the rest too at about 11.50. It makes no sense.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Agreed that the 8 line affidavit are not Givens actual words.

Why in the world are you guys saying that the words that appear in Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit are "not Givens' actual words"? That's not true at all. Those are most definitely the words that Givens HIMSELF wrote down on paper on Nov. 22 (and in his own handwriting; see the original handwritten affidavit below). Look at all the references to "I did this" and "I did that" in this statement. If these aren't Givens' own words, then whose do you think they are?....

Edited January 11, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

How long you been a lawyer, Lance? Never heard anybody lie under oath?

Agreed that the 8 line affidavit are not Givens actual words. However why would an FBI agent insert the words Givens saw Oswald in the rest too at about 11.50. It makes no sense.

A mere 35 years since I had a 7-year career in journalism before law school.  That was the entire point of my response to Gary Murr - lawyers know people lie under oath all the time.  That is why the critical point is not that Givens' was "under oath" when he testified, but that it is the once instance where we have an extensive transcript of what he actually said.

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Why in the world are you guys saying that the words that appear in Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit are "not Givens' actual words"? That's not true at all. Those are most definitely the words that Givens HIMSELF wrote down on paper on Nov. 22 (and in his own handwriting; see the original handwritten affidavit below). Look at all the references to "I did this" and "I did that" in this statement. If these aren't Givens' own words, then whose do you think they are?....

 

OK, that's my error.  I thought Givens had been questioned and the affidavit summarized what he had said.  The Dallas PD records indicate this affidavit was "taken" by J.R. Leavelle, whatever that is supposed to mean.  It certainly looks like someone just handed Givens a pen and said "write a quick summary of what you were doing this morning."  After looking at numerous of these "affidavits," they all seem to be extremely short and cursory.  So assuming these are indeed Givens' actual words, it seems to me the point remains the same - they are scarcely of any great significance vis-à-vis his subsequent testimony.

Edit:  I had not realized how fantastically well-organized, indexed and accessible the DPD documents are (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/index.html). Apparently all Leavelle had to say in regard to every one of these affidavits is that he "took" them.  Concerning Givens, he merely says in his report "I assisted other officers in taking affidavits and answering the telephone.  I took affidavits from Charles Douglas Givens and Billy Nolan Lovelady."

Edited January 11, 2017 by Guest

[David Von Pein]

Lance Payette said:

After looking at numerous of these "affidavits," they all seem to be extremely short and cursory.

Some of the affidavits are much lengthier, however. It just depends on the witness. Buell Wesley Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, for example, is a longer one and extends to a second page.

I think it's quite obvious that the police told Frazier to write down more information about Lee Oswald than about Frazier's own observations concerning the assassination itself, because the vast majority of Frazier's affidavit includes stuff about Oswald and the paper bag that Lee took into the Depository, plus the "curtain rod" story, etc., with the shooting of the President being almost an afterthought.

I've archived many of the witness affidavits (in large format) at my webpage below:

Edited January 11, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Why in the world are you guys saying that the words that appear in Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit are "not Givens' actual words"? That's not true at all. Those are most definitely the words that Givens HIMSELF wrote down on paper on Nov. 22 (and in his own handwriting; see the original handwritten affidavit below). Look at all the references to "I did this" and "I did that" in this statement. If these aren't Givens' own words, then whose do you think they are?....

They're not the words I was talking about, David. The words I said were not his actual words were what he was reported to have been saying in the FBI report the following day. Big difference. In his hand written testimony above, he doesn't mention Oswald, just the basics of what he had done the day before. (including that he was downstairs at about 11.30). The following day when interviewed by the FBI he gave further information which included seeing Oswald about 11.50 in the domino room. I know it doesn't fit your scenario but then that's life.

)

 

[David Von Pein]

20 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

They're not the words I was talking about, David. The words I said were not his actual words were what he was reported to have been saying in the FBI report the following day.

No, that's not what you said earlier. Here's what you said:

"...the 8 line affidavit are not Givens actual words."

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

How any lawyer can score Pat Speer, who did very meticulous work on this issue, but then accept the WC testimony of Givens is astonishing.

One does not have to be an attorney to know that the WC disobeyed just about every stricture of legal procedure imaginable. When Clay Shaw's lawyers tried to get it admitted into court, the judge did everything but laugh out loud at them.  The WC was nothing but a dog and pony show, in which the FBI aided the phony sideshow of the commissioners. (I know this since I saw the information posed in advance for the commissioners.) 

There was no judge to make objections to, there was no judge to rule out inadmissible evidence, there was no defense attorney for Oswald, but further, there was no attorney to even defend his rights as a defendant.  There was no one there to point out contradictions in the record of certain witnesses and confront them.  There was no one there to question the efficacy of the evidence itself e.g. CE 399.  As more than one attorney has stated, almost any witness can make it through direct examination.  The real truth seeker in a trial is the cross examination.  

Can you imagine what Mark Lane or DIck Sprague could have done with the evidentiary record above--Speer, Policoff, and Meagher-- to impeach Givens?  I think he would have been crying.

Edited January 12, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Ray Mitcham]

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

No, that's not what you said earlier. Here's what you said:

"...the 8 line affidavit are not Givens actual words."

 

How many lines are other in the written affidavit? (in his own hand) 15

How many lines are there in the typed affidavit (which are not his actual words but what he was reported to have said)? 8

[Ray Mitcham]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

How any lawyer can score Pat Speer, who did very meticulous work on this issue, but then accept the WC testimony of Givens is astonishing.

One does not have to be an attorney to know that the WC disobeyed just about every stricture of legal procedure imaginable. When Clay Shaw's lawyers tried to get it admitted into court, the judge did everything but laugh out loud at them.  The WC was nothing but a dog and pony show, in which the FBI aided the phony sideshow of the commissioners. (I know this since I saw the information posed in advance for the commissioners.) 

There was no judge to make objections to, there was no judge to rule out inadmissible evidence, there was no defense attorney for Oswald, but further, there was no attorney to even defend his rights as a defendant.  There was no one there to point out contradictions in the record of certain witnesses and confront them.  There was no one there to question the efficacy of the evidence itself e.g. CE 399.  As more than one attorney has stated, almost any witness can make it through direct examination.  The real truth seeker in a trial is the cross examination.  

Can you imagine what Mark Lane or DIck Sprague could have done with the evidentiary record above--Speer, Policoff, and Meagher-- to impeach Givens?  I think he would have been crying.

Precisely, Jim. Only the true believers think that Givens testimony at the warren Commission was the truth.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

How any lawyer can score Pat Speer, who did very meticulous work on this issue, but then accept the WC testimony of Givens is astonishing.

One does not have to be an attorney to know that the WC disobeyed just about every stricture of legal procedure imaginable. When Clay Shaw's lawyers tried to get it admitted into court, the judge did everything but laugh out loud at them.  The WC was nothing but a dog and pony show, in which the FBI aided the phony sideshow of the commissioners. (I know this since I saw the information posed in advance for the commissioners.) 

There was no judge to make objections to, there was no judge to rule out inadmissible evidence, there was no defense attorney for Oswald, but further, there was no attorney to even defend his rights as a defendant.  There was no one there to point out contradictions in the record of certain witnesses and confront them.  There was no one there to question the efficacy of the evidence itself e.g. CE 399.  As more than one attorney has stated, almost any witness can make it through direct examination.  The real truth seeker in a trial is the cross examination.  

Can you imagine what Mark Lane or DIck Sprague could have done with the evidentiary record above--Speer, Policoff, and Meagher-- to impeach Givens?  I think he would have been crying.

Givens lived until 1982 - did someone keep him in a locked box for 18 years?

The WC proceedings were not, of course, a trial or even an adversarial administrative hearing.  One can legitimately criticize the adequacy of the proceedings - but to complain that trial procedures weren't followed is to mix apples and oranges.  To borrow from Gary Murr's above post, it is a "naïve assumption" to think that truth is the objective of a trial.  Winning is the objective of a trial.  If anyone thinks that a team of defense lawyers would have aided in the quest for truth, one is delusional (you apparently were not glued to the TV during the OJ trial like the rest of us).  A team of defense lawyers would have had pretty much the same objective as conspiracy theorists - to sow as much confusion as possible.  Approximately 95% of the "evidence" and speculation on which conspiracy theorists rely would never be allowed at a trial because the rules of evidence likewise focus more on reliability than truth; the rules are generally more relaxed for an administrative hearing, but it is hardly "anything goes."  In an adversarial proceeding LHO would probably have been acquitted on the basis of "reasonable doubt," not on the basis that "he didn't kill JFK."  Sure, there would likewise have been reasonable doubt as to where Givens actually was and what he saw - but his actual testimony would be given heavy weight, the FBI reports would be demonstrated to be generally unreliable, and speculation would not be allowed.  What you apparently think would happen if Mark Lane had been defending LHO is just a layman's fantasy.

I didn't "score" Pat Speer.  I merely pointed out that what you deem to be "compelling evidence" is actually raw speculation.  It can only be pointed out ad nauseam that what wild-eyed conspiracy theorists do is precisely what criminal defense attorneys do - de-emphasize the prosecution's actual evidence, emphasize gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence, and rely heavily on speculation and innuendo.  Any criminal defense attorney would tell you that truth is the least of his concerns.