James DiEugenio Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) I can't believe Davey brought up the Dallas Police office as part of a frame up. This is like a boxer leading with his chin. Which by the way is what Bugliosi does throughout his book In Reclaiming Parkland, I called this "Bugliosi's perfect Bad Timing". "In 2006 Dallas elected Craig Watkins, its first black DA.....let's use Watkins own words to describe what preceded him: There was a cowboy kind of mentality and the reality is that kind of approach is archaic, racist, elitist, and arrogant. Therefore once in office he was free to go ahead and review many of his cases with an independent eye. What was the result? No other county in America--and almost no state, for that matter--has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas, where Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986. Watkins has said that many of the cases won under Wade "were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored, and defense lawyers were kept in the dark." (RP, p. 172) I go onfor three pages on this subject. Watkins has freed well over thirty people from Wade's regime. And the last I heard, its not over. The Dallas Police and DA's office, on this evidence, was the most corrupt and unethical in the country at the time. Allen Dulles--who's brains i respect as little as I do the uses to which he put them-- knew what he was doing with these guys. He relied on them, and they came through with flying colors. Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Let's try not to steal all the thunder of my upcoming article... One of the greatest lies related to the rifle iis the ten packing slips claimed to accompany the Feb 1963 shipment to Kleins. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11277&search=rupp#relPageId=13&tab=page is a link describing the origination of Waldman 3 (Exh D164) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0359b.htm is a link to Waldman 3 - the 10 "packing slips" So ok... Waldman claims these ten slips where mailed to him after the shipment.. Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 and ask you to state if you know what this is.Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; these are memos prepared by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles that were shipped to us and each one of these represents those rifles that were contained in a case.Mr. BELIN. Now, you earlier mentioned that these were packed with the case.Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I would like to correct that. This particular company does not include these with the cases, but sends these memos separately with their invoice. Yet we need to remember the Feldsott interview from Nov 22/23 and what Feldsott gave the FBI. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11188&search=rupp#relPageId=5&tab=page is WCD790 p3 which mentions that FELDSOTT provided these slips. They couldn't BOTH provide the same 10 slips that were used as Waldman 3.... The key thing is the designation of the rifles on these slips... Crescent deals with international shipments and international rifle designations, "38 E" is not a designation we'd see on items sent to US customers. Furthermore, when the FBI wrote up it's reports it completely forgets that it spells out the rifle serial numbers from the JUNE 18, 1962 shipment from Crescent to Kleins... except the only evidence for that shipment came from FELDSOTT and does not appear in the available evidence. If Rupp didn't take rifles out of Harborside until Aug 1962 (where C2766 was stored) - how did Klein's get the June 18 shipment from Crescent which these FBI agents claims is in conflict with the available evidence? If C2766 was sold to Kleins in June, it could not again be sent to Kleins in Feb 1963. There also appears to be a "three twenty seven sixty three" shipment as well... for which there is no evidence. It is my opinion that these ten slips - which were created in Italy to describe the shipment to the USA for Crescent - had nothing to do with any of these order directly but feeds into the June 1962 order for which Rupp kept no serial number records - yet Kleins obvious did... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Very nice Dave. Your article should be a real hum dinger. Its amazing how long this rifle mythology was around. Its one of the things that the first generation critics accepted. PS Let me thank Brad, Jim and Jim. Very nice kudos. I sort of feel like Kirk Douglas in Spartacus when everyone says, "I am Spartacus." Edited July 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 What seems to happen with these critically important topics is something I wrote on a differet post just now: The presentation of truth in any subject is inversely proportionate to the amount of info the WCR offered.... When they know there is something very wrong with the evidence it is usually spread out across the volumes and WCDs and then hidden within any and all tangents they can find. At the end of the day we are expected to believe that a Finance manager and a Management Analyst were responsible for firing up the Records Facility computers on a Saturday evening, (in reality the "reporting agent SA' BURKE, PARKER and/or GRIMES, JR state they THEY experienced difficulty in bringing up these computers at the Federal Records Center... the Finance Manager tells these SS agents (even though it is they who already have someone on the inside firing up computers) that they will need an employee of the facility to physically obtain the PMO. (WCD 87, p119) We come to find the initial request to find the PMO had come from a Postal Inspector in FORT WORTH who tells the Deputy Chief of the Postal Insp Service in DC that the PMO will be given to the Secret Service. At 9:30pm the Finance officer reports to the SS that he now has the original PMO in his possession. by 10:10pm SA Parker has the PMO (WCD 87 p120) At 7:55pm 1 hour and 35 minutes earlier, while Chicago SS is on the phone with Dallas SS, Chicago SS learns the money order has been found by "Postal Inspectors" in DC and has been forwarded to SS Deputy Chief PATERNI At 8:00pm SAIC Mroz in Kansas City is called and informed that the original PMO has been located (WCD87 p94) At 8:30pm SS Asst Chief PATERNI (who should have the original PMO in his possession) asks SA Geiglein to locate and obtain the PMO and gives a detailed description with "#, date, amount, payable to, and sent by" - all the info needed to create a PMO... (WCD87 p118) the summary from page 89 of THE VERY SAME WCD87 states, in direct conflict with CE1799, that the PMO was found in KC. IMO, once the correct PMO # was found and taken from KC storage, the one in evidence can be created in DC at the Postal records center (which is why we have ZERO DC evidence of that strange acquisition). The first "truth" told here is that the Finance Officer, Management Analyst and SA Parker initial the back of this newly created PMO. (we are to remember that the "stub" which led Holmes to help find the PMO in VA is not in evidence) With regards to the Microfilmed Envelope and Coupon... the Microfilm acquisition also contains duplicity as the FBI claims they both took the film in one report while the "master" for that report claims Waldman keeps the film... but I'll get into that more deeply in the article. The PMO, like the trip to Mexico and virtually every bit of incriminating evidence is fake, created (much of it after the fact) so that history has the evidence needed to incriminate at a cursory 50,000 foot glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 Looks good Dave. Good digging. The problem with the WC was that it was a runaway prosecution. One that had no strictures on it, an they could therefore get away with just about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) I can appreciate Jim's approach by "working backward" yet that requires we rely on the memory of Postal workers who claim they did not remember a package or an Oswald picking up said package, not showing ID, etc, etc... which I feel is indeed a strong argument for the rifle not being "picked up" - yet this assume imo that the rifle was shipped to the HIDELL/OSWALD PO Box. It assumes the two pages of documents which associates the serial numbers and VC#s for these AND ONLY THESE 100 rilfes is authentic. The rifles were all removed There are no records of a single one of the other 99 rifles being shipped, stored, inventoried, NOTHING other than those 2 pages of VC#'s... If Klein's sent the FC rifle in inventory in place of the TS rifles ordered, any single order showing the same thing closes the door on speculation. not only are there no other orders, the microfilm is gone and has a dubious past and the rifle are gone with ZERO evidence of what happened to them. Working backward is like the original article I did for the Evidence IS the Conspiracy series - I put Oswald at the window shooting and then worked backweard to put him there with the rifle... it proves he couldn't have planned and carried out the activities the WCR/FBI attribute him. Since he was never at the window, starting with that assumption has a preconceived conclusion. Since the rifle was never shipped, never ordered, never rec'd at Klein's like the FBI says it was... it follows that no one would have seen or reported anything at the post office and that each and every aspect of the story is a fabrication... I hope in the paper I am trying to complete asap that I present the evidentiary record that illustrates this lie. DJ Something to notice... these are the 100 rifles supposedly from the Feb 23, 1963 shipment from the 10 packing slips that I show cannot possbily be related to this order.Notice that each of the serial numbers is written on what can only be described as "a blanked out area" of that page... could be why Scribor and Westra did not want to cooperate and why Waldman rather than those involved in the shipment is used as the prime Klein's witness. Without corroboration, this document appears to me created by removing the Serial numbers from another VC list and putting in these to account for the 10 packing slips (which again cannot be associated with the Feb 1963 shipment) Klein's simply did not, could not have receieved these 100 rifles - these 100 rifles are shown to be part of a much bigger shipment in 1960 from Italy to Crescent... we are required to accept that of these 100 rifles which have no evidence for ever being removed from Harborside, did not have a single problem or replacement and that the same packing slips used from Italy are sent to Klein's... Given the FBI's track record so far... I'm thinking, not so much. PS... this is the SS copy of the FBI copy of the VC page with C2766 on it... Edited July 10, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Someone went to a lot of trouble to plant "the rifle". I don't even know what "the rifle" is. If it's the weapon Robert Frazier examined on the morning of 11-23-63, I say there's no proof [a] that Oswald ever possessed that weapon, or that the weapon had been fired the day before. Perhaps it's better to say someone went to a lot of trouble to frame Oswald. Someone had to be dedicated to framing Oswald. Someone else had to help frame Oswald. Rifles, bus and cab rides, alleged paper bags -- these are all things and events, meaningless things and events until tied to Oswald. So either he did what the Warren Commission claimed or he was framed. One might say the FBI framed him. Very good. But he was served up to the FBI. Question: Who served him up? I believe the party who served him up knew all about Oswald, all about the FBI, and all about the CIA, as well as all about the Kennedy family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) One might say the FBI framed him. Very good. But he was served up to the FBI. Question: Who served him up? Jon, What exactly do you mean when you say that Oswald was "served up to the FBI"? Oswald was never in "FBI custody". He was always in DPD custody. And one of the big problems CTers have is constructing a reasonable and sensible "Oswald Was Framed" theory since it would by necessity need to involve people from various law enforcement agencies -- the DPD, the FBI, the Sheriff's Department, and the Secret Service. All of those agencies had a hand in gathering and processing at least some of the evidence that incriminates Oswald (e.g., the front-seat bullet fragments were first touched by the SS; the rifles and Sniper's Nest evidence was first handled by the DPD; several Dallas Deputy Sheriffs were on the sixth floor and first discovered all of the TSBD evidence; and we all know the CTers love to blame Hoover for a lot of evidence switching and other assorted tomfoolery with documents, etc., so that puts the FBI in the middle of the alleged frame-up too, or even in the LEAD, even though the FBI didn't actually COLLECT a single bit of the evidence, they just tested it). And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. (That's how far off the rails of reality many CTers have strayed.) So if Oswald was truly innocent, we'd have to believe that many individuals were trying their darndest to make it look like Oswald was guilty -- and guilty of TWO murders on November 22 too, not just one killing. The Tippit murder cannot be brushed aside as just an unrelated murder on that same day the President was killed (although some CTers seem to brush it aside anyway). Given the evidence against him, believing in Oswald's guilt is quite easy to do. In fact, it's impossible, IMO, to believe Oswald could have been innocent of TWO murders with the evidence that exists against him. And believing it's all been manufactured to make an innocent man look guilty is too much to stomach---because there's TOO MUCH evidence to manufacture and get away with such a scheme. But CTers, particularly on the Internet, seem to lean toward all the evidence being fake anyway, despite the implausible nature of such massive fakery being attempted and--even more unlikely--the evidence fakers being able to get away with every last bit of it. And then when we add in the implications of Oswald's own actions ON TOP of the large pile of evidence that all points toward LHO (guns, bullets, shells, the paper bag, and fingerprints), it becomes much much more difficult to envision a large-scale "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. For how on Earth did those same evidence planters/manipulators (or even a DIFFERENT group of plotters) manage to get a totally innocent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the unorthodox things he did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22? If the EVIDENCE + OSWALD'S ACTIONS don't add up to a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, I'd sure like to know why not. Edited July 10, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 DV, Someone served up Oswald. You believe Oswald served up himself. Fine. I can buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 If the EVIDENCE + OSWALD'S ACTIONS don't add up to a guilt Lee H. Oswald on 11/22/63, I'd sure like to know why not. Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC. The BOTTOM red arrow is at the level of the throat wound location as seen from the back and somewhat accurately depicted in Ryberg The holes in the jacket and shirt are no where close to the "IN" location or Ford's change to Ryberg's "IN" location. The SBT is based on very specific things happening which includes a bullet traveling on a DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY from the back to the front and thru to John. So do us a favor David... on the bottom image on the right... place a dot where YOU blieve the bullet entered... On this image it's not hard to see how the Evidence IS the Conspiracy The EVIDENCE as offered is not representative of the evidence as collected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Now, when Holmes testified to Wesley Liebeler, he lied and said that Oswald could have written down a name on the box form, and that person could have picked up the rifle. Here is my question: If we go by Mr. Ralph Rea, and not the lying Harry Holmes, would not Oswald have had to prove he was Hidell? In other words, since the box was not in Hidell's name, Oswald would have had to have shown he also went by Hidell, right? And would not something like that have gone up to the immediate supervisor? And you are going to say that no one in the post office remembered that either? Even when it was revealed in the news that Oswald used the alias Hidell in New Orleans and in Dallas to order the rifle? And let us stay with this absurdity. How did the FBI know about the Hidell alias? Through Oswald!! When Oswald was arrested in New Orleans, he called for the FBI to interview him. (Think about that one a minute. An arrested communist wants to be interviewed by the FBI.) Oswald wanted DeBrueys, but Quigley showed up. Quigley picked up a lot of the stuff confiscated by Martello from Oswald. One of these things was the FPCC card with the Hidell alias on it. Now, recall, this is August. And Oswald understood what Quigley was doing since he spent over an hour with him. (What did they talk about, what life was like in the USSR?) So Oswald knew that the New Orleans FBI had this card. In other words, he knows that the alias will trace right back to him in FBI files! What he was too cheap to buy a different rifle to shoot Kennedy with? Oswald had an IQ of about 112. He was not an idiot. But yet this is the kind of junk the WC wants us to buy. Your kryptonite is back Davey. You should not have called me a clown. Your kryptonite is back Davey. You should not have called me a clown. Oh, I missed that, was it recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Given all of the evidence presented HERE, plus adding in just a small amount of common sense to go with it, can any reasonable person really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963? I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot. Lots more Rifle Talk below..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/lee-harvey-oswalds-rifle.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html DVP, you're gonna have to do better than that. You're saying you are your own and only source of proof. I've looked over some of your links and have never found anything resembling proof that LHO ordered a rifle, received a rifle, owned a rifle, fired a rifle (other than MC). When/if will you begin to show some of this evidence you claim to have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Jim, Nothing you have ever said knocks down the case against Lee Oswald murdering both JFK and Officer Tippit. Because in order for Oswald to be innocent of BOTH of those crimes, as you (incredibly) do believe, then we'd have to believe that literally ALL of the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are fake or fraudulent pieces of evidence. And that notion is, of course, just plain ridiculous. And now, Jim, you seem to think that after a relatively brief examination into the Manson case, you have discovered things that rip apart the whole "Helter Skelter" case that Vincent Bugliosi worked on for over a year between late 1969 and January of 1971. Your arrogance is staggering, James. And as far as the JFK case goes, as I said before (and it's probably even more accurate today, with Jim DiEugenio entertaining the idea of even more conspiracy theories in his head since I wrote this 1.5 years ago).... "I can add dozens of additional outrageous things to the list [below], but I'll stop at those twenty-two items for now. And yet despite [that] laundry list of silliness, James DiEugenio is still held in high esteem by many people when it comes to his evaluation of the evidence and his assessment of the facts concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Unbelievable." -- David Von Pein; January 4, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes , then we'd have to believe that literally ALL of the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are fake or fraudulent pieces of evidence. That's not true at all. First of all, there are no pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald, so if it doesn't exist, it's not fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Incredible. How could Oswald be framed he asks? As if he missed the post I made about the DPD being the single most corrupt police department in America, and actually worse than several states. Over 30 men have been released from the evil Wade regime. And its still going on. And If Watkins had not been elected we would have never known about it. Geez Davy, you mean J. Edgar Hoover was so pure as the driven snow that he would never even think of prosecuting someone unjustly? HA HA HA HA Why don't you read about the victims of the Palmer Raids, over 7,000 of them that Hoover rounded up unjustly and denied them their rights and lawyers. Why not read about Emma Goldman? He actually made up stuff on that one to get her deported. What about all that info about commies in the State Department that he funneled to McCarthy? What about Harvey Matusow, the professional witness who Hoover paid to lie in court about people like Pete Seeger. What about the planted typewriter in the Hiss case. What about the COINTELPRO operations against people like King and the Black Panthers, in which Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were killed. What about the libel against Cong. Cornelius Gallagher, made up by breaking into his home and tapping his phone in order to say his wife died in the arms of a mobster. (Reclaiming Parkland pgs.213-16) Do you ever read a book about these men who ran the WC? I mean there are four really good biographies of Hoover, which is where I got all this stuff. Now, do I have to continue: I mean you do know the way Hoover felt about the Kennedys? And you do know how friendly he was with LBJ? Do I need to draw a picture now? Anything else you need tutoring on? Edited July 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 Now, how did Hoover get away with what he did in this case? Because the WC was a runaway prosecution. There were no rules of evidence, no legal procedure, no defense for Oswald, almost no cross examination of witnesses. That only happened once with Marina toward the end. And the Troika did not show up for it: Ford, McCloy and Dulles. See, the rules of procedure and evidence have evolved over time just for this reason: to prevent the prosecution from going rogue and framing the defendant. Well, in this case, when the staffers had qualms about the credibility of some witnesses, like Brennan, they were overruled by the administration. When Liebeler wrote his memorandum warning about Markham and Oswald's marksmanship, he was called in by Redlich and Rankin and given a butt kicking. Do you really think guys like this were going to duke it out with Hoover? Heck no. I mean look at the Odio case. Liebeler goes down to scare her with a polygraph, tells her the fix is in anyway so it does not matter what she says, and then tries to get her into bed. When that did not work, Rankin gives the job to Hoover. He comes up with a pile of crap about Hall, Howard and Seymour. Which falls apart once the ink is dry on the page. The WC was travesty of justice. And Hoover knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now