Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gil Jesus

Members
  • Posts

    1,563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JFK63Conspiracy/videos
  • MSN
    Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@giljesus8298/videos
  • Website URL
    www.gil-jesus.com
  • ICQ
    email: GJJmail120253@aol.com
  • Yahoo
    posts: https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/user/86/recent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    20th Century American History, JFK assassination

Recent Profile Visitors

14,556 profile views

Gil Jesus's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

  1. I owe you an apology. While the Dallas Police transcript shows the caller to be "78", ( Tippit ) the FBI transcript shows the callers to be two different units, the first being "58" and the second being "488". I went back and listened to the audio and the FBI transcript is correct. The two calls made at 1:08 that the Dallas Police attributed to Tippit were not made by him. This is the FBI transcript and I've added the audio to show this to be true. Note: The FBI did not transcribe all the the broadcasts only those they felt were pertinent. So you're going to hear exchanges that are not on the transcript. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/the-two-78s.mp4 I erred in saying that both versions of the radio transcripts had the same information. I also erred in taking the Dallas PD version as gospel without comparing it to the FBI version. When I did and found the conflict between the two transcripts, I went back and studied the audio and found that the FBI transcript was the correct one. I apologize to anyone who was misled. The two calls to dispatch made at 1:08 were NOT made by Tippit. But that doesn't mean he was killed at 1:15.
  2. You don't have to rely on the honesty of Helen Markham when there is corroborating evidence that supports what she says. I identified a call at the time I WANTED ? I use it because I like it ? No I use it because it's evidence and part of the official record. I identified what was cited on the transcript as Tippit's last call. I didn't make the transcript up myself, it's part of the official record. I didn't alter it. It's cited for anyone to double-check. I merely cited it as the last time we know Tippit was alive. It's cited on both the Dallas Police transcript ( CE 705 ) and the FBI version ( CD 1420 ). And yes, it is audible on the recording. I have it a copy of it. Anyone who knows me knows I don't make stuff up. I may not always be right, but I don't make stuff up. Everything I post I back up with evidence. And I cite everything in red so anyone who doesn't believe me can check my sources for themselves. It's called transparency. If you have evidence that Tippit never made the two attempts to call his dispatcher at 1:08 or was alive after 1:10 pm please post it. I'd be interested in seeing your evidence. Thanks in advance.
  3. You can't have the shooting at 1:15 and Markham standing on the corner, a block from her bus. At 1:15, she would have been on her bus. She testified to that. So either the shooting was at 1:15 and Markham never witnessed it because she was on her bus, or she DID witness it and it occurred before 1:15. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that she DID witness the murder ( other witnesses place her there ) so the shooting HAD to have occurred BEFORE 1:15. Mr. Brown's theory that Bowley used the radio at 1:17 is in error and it's based on the dictabelt being accurate. Unlike some of you folks, I don't rely on the dictabelt being accurate. I've already given an example of the recording of a second civilian use of the police radio to call for help ( blue highlight ) AFTER the ambulance has arrived on the scene ( pink highlight ). No one's been able to explain why the civilian ( Callaway ? ) made a second broadcast for help AFTER the ambulance had reportedly arrived. When I see things depicted out of their logical order, this certainly raises my suspicion over the accuracy of that order. Maybe other people have no problem with this, but to me it makes no sense. A second call for help SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the ambulance arrived. This is common sense. The fact that the second call appears on the dictabelt AFTER the ambulance arrived leads me to believe that the dictabelt is not accurate and may have been tampered with. The evidence indicates Mrs. Markham was on the corner at 1:06-1:07. Her testimony indicates Tippit was alive and confronted someone on foot. The evidence indicates Tippit was alive and used his radio at 1:08. The evidence indicates he was dead at 1:10. The evidence indicates his body arrived at Methodist Hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival at 1:15. The evidence indicates the FBI altered two reports dated 11/29 to reflect that Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:25. Like I've said, you can believe the dictabelt, or you can believe everything else to the contrary.
  4. Because he rode a bus to get to the theater. Earlene Roberts saw him standing at the bus stop outside the roominghouse after he left. ( 7 H 439 )
  5. All speculation. Bowley was never called to testify. The only statement he made was an affidavit taken by an unknown officer ( 24 H 202 ). In that affidavit, he stated, "I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm." He leaves no doubt what time his watch displayed. When you claim his watch was 5 minutes slow, you're speculating without any evidence to back it up, choosing to "explain what makes sense" instead of looking at the evidence to the contrary. There is overwhelming and corroborating evidence that the murder occurred before 1:15. Bowley's time of 1:10 pm for his arrival is corroborated by other evidence. Firstly, if the murder occured at or after 1:15, Helen Markham is not standing on the corner. She's on her bus and well on her way to work. Markham had been walking along Patton on her way to "catch the 1:15 bus" to work at the corner of Patton and East Jefferson, one block from the shooting. She told the Commission that she had left her house a little "after 1:00", walked one block to Tenth and Patton and placed the time of the shooting at 1:06 - 1:07 pm. Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1? Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1. Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you? Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15. Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15 ? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was. ( 3 H 306 ) The time of the shooting HAD to have been before 1:15, otherwise Mrs. Markham was never going to get her bus. Helen Markham had to walk two blocks to catch her bus. She had only walked one block when she witnessed the murder. The 1:15 time for the shooting is ridiculous for two reasons: it implies that either Mrs. Markham left her house too late to catch her bus, or that she would have taken over ten minutes to walk that one block. Markham's sworn affidavit put the time of the murder at "approximately" 1:06 pm: Markham's estimation that the shooting occurred at 1:06 is completely consistent with her walk to the bus stop taking a total of 10-12 minutes. This is supported by the schedule of the bus Mrs. Markham was trying to catch, which indicates that the time the bus would get to Patton and Jefferson was 1:12 pm. You can't have Markham on the corner at 1:15 AND the murder occurring at that time. Her bus arrives at Patton Ave and East Jefferson at 1:12 and leaves at 1:15. She can't be one block away at 1:15 and still catch her bus. Either you have the crime occurring after 1:15 pm and Markham is on her bus, or you have Markham on the corner witnessing the murder BEFORE 1:15. But you can't have it both ways. The evidence doesn't support it. Tippit's last radio broadcast ( Car 78 ) was at 1:08 pm. At that time, he was still alive. The evidence now indicates that the time of the murder was between the 1:08 of his last transmission and the 1:12 arrival of Mrs. Markham's bus. Secondly, there are the transcripts of the police log. Commission Document 1420 is the transcript of the Dallas police log for 11/22/63. It shows that T.F. Bowley made the original call on the radio at 1:16 ( page 52 ). BUT the ambulance WENT TO THE WRONG LOCATION before it arrived at the Tippit shooting scene. On page 54, The ambulance responding to the call ( 602 ) radioes that he's arrived at the scene, ( Code 6 ) the time is noted as 1:19. Then he asks, "what's that address on Jefferson ?" He's redirected by the dispatch to a second wrong address, "501 East Tenth". On the next page, the ambulance once again indicates a Code 6 ( out at destination ). On the following page, although the ambulance has already arrived, there is a second use of the police car radio by a civilian ( highlighted in blue ) to report the shooting. Why on earth would someone use the police radio to report the shooting a second time if the ambulance was already on the scene ? Is this evidence that the dictabelt has been tampered with ? Thirdly, witnesses in the neighborhood placed the time of the shooting closer to 1:00 pm, rather than after 1:15. Ted Callaway " about 1 pm" ( 24 H 204 ) Sam Guinyard "about 1pm" ( 24 H 210 ) Barbara Davis "a few minutes after 1pm" ( CD 87, pg. 556 ) Domingo Benavides " it was about 1 o'clock" ( 6 H 446 ) Francis Kinneth "approximately 1 pm" ( Oswald 201 file, Vol 25, part 2 of 2, pg. 119 ) Frank Cimino "around 1pm" ( Oswald 201 file, Vol. 8, pg. 239 ) Mrs. Higgins "heard the shots and ran out her front door to see Tippit lying in the street. She said it was 1:06. She knew that because she was watching TV and the announcer said it. So she automatically checked her clock when he said it and he was right." ( Barry Ernest interview with Mrs. Higgins from his book, "The Girl on the Stairs", 2010 ) Not one witness puts the murder later than 1:10 pm. Fourthly, Dallas Police Officers Davenport and Bardin escorted the ambulance with Tippit's body to Methodist Hospital. Their report indicates that Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15 pm. Not only was Tippit pronounced dead, he was pronounced "dead on arrival ". The term D.O.A. means that the victim was "dead on arrival" or "dead on admission" to the hospital. In the case of a D.O.A., doctors at the hospital have no way of knowing when a victim actually lost his life, so the time of pronunciation of death is based on the time of arrival at the hospital, hence dead-on-ARRIVAL. The report of the officers is corroborated by the "Permit for Autopsy" , which states that Tippit was indeed "dead on arrival" and that the time of his arrival was 1:15 pm. Tippit couldn't have been shot later than 1:15 as the Commission ( and you ) contend if his body was arriving D.O.A. at the hospital at 1:15. Fifthly, in his interview with the House Select Committee on Assassinations, in September 1977, ambulance driver Jasper Clayton Butler said that from the time the ambulance company got the call to the time Tippit was pronounced dead was "approximately four minutes." This puts the call from police to the ambulance company at 1:11, again, consistent with Bowley's arrival time of 1:10 and Tippit's last use of the radio at 1:08. This puts the killing in the 1:08-1:10 range, a physical impossibility for Oswald to have been in that location if he left his roominghouise a few minutes after 1:00. Sixthly, there is evidence that the FBI tampered with the written record. The FBI claimed that it interviewed Dr. Richard Liquori, who pronounced Tippit dead and that Liquori stated that he pronounced Tippit dead at 1:25 pm. But if you look closely at the time, the original time was handwritten over to read 1:25. And this wasn't the only document the FBI changed the time by hand to read "1:25". They did the same thing in their report on the records of the Dudley Hughes Funeral Home. Dr. Liquori was never called to testify. A homicide case where the doctor who pronounces the victim dead is never called to testify ? I suggest to the reader that these documents originally said "1:15" and the second "1" was altered by hand to a "2 ". Seventhly, and finally, more than one witness claimed to have seen Oswald BEFORE Tippit was murdered, more than 3/4 of a mile from the murder scene. Perhaps the most damaging evidence to an Oswald-killed-Tippit scenario comes from the man who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theater, Warren ( Butch ) Burroughs, who said he saw Oswald enter the Texas Theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm. Burroughs said that Oswald had purchased popcorn about 1:15 and then sat next to a pregnant woman who went to the bathroom and then disappeared. A second witness who puts Oswald inside the Texas Theater at the time of the Tippit killing was Jack Davis. Author Bill Simpich writes, "Burroughs’ story was corroborated by eighteen-year-old Jack Davis, never questioned by the Warren Commission, who remembered at 1:15 seeing Oswald squeeze in right next to him at the mostly deserted theater during the opening credits to the movie, then got up quickly and sat down next to someone else. Davis stated that Oswald sat next to him and then another patron before going out to the lobby." Documentation indicates that Tippit was pronounced dead on arrival at Methodist Hospital at 1:15. Given the four minute approximate that it took for the ambulance to respond to the call and transport the fallen officer, I believe that the timeline supports that Tippit was killed before 1:11. I believe he was killed between 1:08 and 1:10. Tippit's last broadcast was at 1:08 pm. He called dispatch twice and got no response. T.F. Bowley came upon Tippit lying in the street, looked at his watch and it said 1:10. If Tippit was killed AFTER 1:15, Helen Markham and T. F. Bowley would not have been witnesses. Markham would have been on her bus and Bowley would have already picked up his daughter at school. The documented evidence supports a shooting timeline prior to 1:15 pm, probably in the 1:08-1:10 range, too early for Oswald to have walked to the scene from his roominghouse, even if he left at 1:00 pm. When it comes to the time of the murder, you can believe the dictabelt or you can believe the mountain of corroborating evidence to the contrary. But the timing of the Tippit murder as proof for or aganist Oswald's guilt becomes insignificant when you consider that Oswald had an alibi. Two witnesses ( Burroughs and Davis ) saw Oswald in the Texas Theater at or before 1:15 pm and their corroborating accounts make it impossible for him to have been Tippit's killer. Learn the case.
  6. After reading his testimony, I came away with the impression that they ( ACLU ) were afraid of the Dallas Police. They certainly didn't want to lock horns with them and I'm not surprised. The level of corruption within the whole Dallas prosecutory system was enough to scare anyone from challenging them. You could end up dead.
  7. I notice that you neglected to add that her FBI statement said that her "fleeting glimpse" was of Oswald "standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse located on the first floor". Her detailed description of Oswald's exact location indicates more than a fleeting glimpse. She had to have seen him for at least a few seconds. You also failed to mention that it was in her sworn affidavit that she stated that she left the building at 12:25. The difference is obvious: an FBI report vs. a sworn statement hand-written by the attestee and given under the penalties of perjury. The affidavit is then typed out, read and signed by the attestee. Her affidavit indicates that she both read and signed the typewritten final version. But you Lone Nutters would rather give more weight to an FBI report over a sworn statement because it supports your narrative that Oswald was the assassin. So why would she write out by hand, read and attest to leaving the building at 12:25, when the truth was ( according to you people ) that she left "a few minutes before 12:15" ? Because she didn't leave at 12:15, she left at 12:25. The FBI altered her statement of 11/26 to reflect something less than the truth. They took a positive identification and reduced it to a "fleeting glimpse". They altered the time she said she left the building from 12:25 to "a few minutes before 12:15 ". The FBI did that. Why ? Because they needed Oswald in that window at 12:30. He couldn't be on the first floor after 12:25 and be the shooter. They knew that because both elevators were tied up on the fifth floor and there wasn't enough time to climb the stairway from the first to the sixth floor. So they altered her statement of 11/26/63 to reflect that she had "caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald" on the first floor "a few minutes before 12:15". That would have given Oswald plenty of time to get to the sixth floor. In order to find the true time she left the building, we have to ask the question: Did the witness ever confirm either time to other people ? And if so, which time did she confirm, 12:15, or 12:25 ? The evidence shows that she never confirmed 12:15 as the time she left the building, but DID confirm the 12:25 time. She confirmed that 12:25 time in an interview with reporter Earl Golz. ( Golz interview, 9/26/78 ) So if she left the building at 12:25 and she "caught a fleeting glimpse" of Oswald AFTER she was outside the building, she had to have seen him some time between 12:25 and 12:30. The FBI knew that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first floor after 12:25 and that's why she was left off the list of witnesses called to testify to the Warren Commission. It's not rocket science.
  8. Nonsense. For her "positive" identification, she chose Oswald even through she testified that she had never seen him before, including at the murder: "I had never seen none of these men, none of them." So why would Mrs. Markham identify Oswald if she had never seen him before ? Because she was being pressured by the Dallas Police to choose one of the men in the lineup. She testified that she was surrounded by policemen in the lineup room. ( 3 H 310 ) "..and they kept asking me, which one, which one." ( 3 H 311 ) Her own admission that she wasn't sure at first and the fact that police kept pressuring her to pick somebody indicates that her choice of Oswald came after a considerable amount of hesitation and was NOT a positive identification. "If a witness hesitates to pick someone out of a lineup or photo array, then the identification is likely less reliable." Epps Law Group This is verified by Police Chief Jesse Curry, who testified that Markham did not identify Oswald right away. Her hesitation in choosing Oswald was because she knew that the man she saw kill Tippit was NOT in the lineup. In testimony she confirms that. "No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men " ( 3 H 310 ) Markham picked Oswald because she felt pressured to pick SOMEBODY by police. The evidence is clear on that. She wasn't going to pick the fat guy in the grey sweater, she wasn't going to pick the dark skinned man in the brown sport coat and she wasn't going to pick the blond in the red vest. There was only one choice for her to make and when Fritz asked her if she saw the man she hesitated. That's not a positive identification. It wasn't until AFTER she picked Oswald that she "got weak" and "just kind of fell over" ( ibid. ). Why didn't she get weak when she first saw him ? She got weak because she knew she had identified an innocent man. Markham also testified that the number 2 man in the lineup "had on a LIGHT SHIRT and dark trousers". ( 3 H 311 ) This proves that Oswald was shown in his T-shirt and your statement that he wore his brown shirt for the Friday lineups is in error. Speaking of that brown shirt, Markham's refusal to identify the shirt in evidence as the same shirt worn by Tippit's killer adds doubt that the killer was Oswald. ( 3 H 312 ) Learn the case. ven though she testified under oath that she hadn’t seen him before, including at the murder scene. ( 3 H 310 )
  9. What's that got to do with the way the others were dressed ? 1. Perry was dark skinned ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a brown sport coat, no tie. ( 7 H 233 ) 2. Clark had blond hair, blue eyes ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a white short-sleeved shirt with a red vest. ( 7 H 236 ) 3. Ables was short, heavy and was wearing a grey woolen sweater. ( 7 H 240 ) What witness described Tippit's killer as any of the above three ?
  10. I don't think I'm going to get an answer to my original question. Not one Lone Nutter has answered it. They love it when the subject changes. It offers them an escape.
  11. Who said anything about the HSCA ? The question is why do you so passionately support the Warren Commission ? Answer the question, please. Now that you've brought it up, can we have a source for that DOJ investigation into the Kennedy assassination ? Thanks
  12. The Warren Commission's conclusions are not the official final word on the Kennedy Assassination. Why then do you so passionately support them ?
  13. There are several things Mr. Down fails to mention in his argument that Oswald's rights were not violated. The absence of a lawyer gave the Dallas Police free reign to question Oswald after he had asked for a lawyer. It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to hold Oswald incommunicado, not allowing him to see his family for almost 24 hours. This prevented Oswald from asking them for help getting an attorney. It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to conduct unfair lineups. It also gave the Dallas Police the freedom to arraign Oswald at the ungodly hour of 1:35 am on Saturday. And while Mr. Down and his allies commend the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to use the phone, they fail to mention that Oswald was not allowed to use the phone until 1:40 pm on Saturday the 23rd, 24 hours after his arrest. Police delayed his use of a phone until they were sure no New York lawyer would be in his office. Of course, Oswald was unable to reach Abt at his office. Satisfied that Oswald was unable to reach an attorney, Police then allowed him to use the phone twice more, at 4 pm ( when he called Ruth Paine and got no answer because they had gone shopping ) and 8 pm ( when he finally got a hold of Mrs. Paine ). The problem with the Lone Nut side is that they never tell you the whole story. While Mr. Down and his allies in the Lone Nut community reap praises on the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to speak to a lawyer, they don't tell you that that lawyer ( H. Louis Nichols ) did not practice criminal law. They don't tell you that there were TWO Bar Associations in Dallas, the Dallas Bar Association and the Dallas CRIMINAL Bar Association and that Nichols was President of the first one. They don't tell you that Nichols was a reluctant participant, pressured to go see Oswald by a professor at SMU school of law. They don't tell you that Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office and at the time of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city credit union. They don't tell you that having a lawyer who did not practice criminal law go in to question Oswald was a joke. A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions: Was he being beaten? Was he being starved? Was he being deprived of sleep? Was he being isolated from his friends and family? Was he being denied counsel? Finally, they don't tell you that Nichols had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 ) Even more shockingly, Mr Down and his allies never tell you that Oswald told Nichols he was being held incommunicado ( 7 H 328 ) and he wanted either John Abt from New York or the ACLU to represent him. ( ibid. pg. 329 ) Not only did Nichols testify to this fact, he told the press the same thing. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/abt-or-ACLU.mp4 But you'll never hear that from Mr. Down or his allies on the Lone Nut side. From the Dallas Police's standpoint, what a perfect lawyer to speak to Oswald. Nichols then gave in to Chief Curry's request that he give a statement to the press that Oswald did not want a lawyer. Nichols reluctance to get involved in this case and the fact that the city was a client of his, made him a shill for the Dallas authorities who were pushing a narrative that Oswald did not want legal counsel.
  14. By Texas law, Oswald was entitled to counsel the moment he was formally arraigned for ( charged with ) Tippit's murder. From the testimony of H. Louis Nichols: Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him……The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney--I am talking about a felony case now---or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those people. ( 7 H 331 ) So the judge was required by law to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one. But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz's office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said. The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 ) Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald said. ( 7 H 130 ) The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 4 H 217 ). Detective Richard Sims couldn't remember what either the judge or Oswald said. ( 7 H 171 ) "Can't remember" is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid telling the truth under oath. It was used quite frequently during the Watergate Hearings. So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz's tiny little office couldn't remember what the most important defendant in Dallas history said during his arraignment for the murder of one of their officers. ( 15 H 507 ) That's simply not credible. The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged by police from doing so.
  15. Absolutely not. The correct way: "I'm going to show you a lineup of (whatever number) men. If you DON'T see the man who shot the police officer, tell me he's not there. If you DO see him, tell me the number he's standing under." You don't tell the witness that the suspect is in the lineup. You let the witness tell YOU he's in the lineup. The absence of an attorney gave police the freedom to conduct lineups that were completely unfair, using fillers that did not match the witnesses descriptions or even resembled Oswald. Had a lawyer been present, he never would have allowed such lineups. The Dallas Police never produced photographs of the the fillers as they were dressed for the first two lineups. This is how the fillers were dressed. The Police instead produced photos of the "fillers" in clothes they were not wearing at the time of the lineups. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/wc-lineups.jpg The Police did not produce photographs of the "fillers" in lineups 3 and 4. This deceptive move by the Police, to suppress what the "fillers" looked like at the time of the lineups, allowed the Commission to conclude in its Report that, "The Dallas Police furnished the Commission with photographs of the men who appeared in the lineups with Oswald and the Commission has inquired into the general lineup procedures used by the Dallas police as well as the specific procedures in the lineups involving Oswald. The Commission is satisfied that the lineups were conducted fairly." ( Report, Chapter 4, pg. 169 ) Had Oswald been convicted, the conduct of these lineups would have been grounds for an appeal. These lineups would have been enough to have his conviction overturned and granted a new trial. And any witness identifications made from these lineups would have been inadmissable at re-trial.
×
×
  • Create New...