Gil Jesus

ok Thanks Steve

Thanks Steve I get it. But they didn't do the same thing with Guinyard's affidavits. The part where he identifies Oswald from the lineup is added to the written affidavit at the bottom in shorthand. I'm just puzzled why they didn't do the same thing with Callaway's. I'd expect them to handle the affidavits the same way but they didn't.

Here's another thing: His identification of Oswald in the lineup appears in the typewritten version of his affidavit ( red underline ), but NOT in his handwritten affidavit ( left ). I find it odd that it was added to the typewritten version but he did not write it out. If it were part of his affdavit, it should have been written out. I find it troubling that he did not write it out but it was added by police at the end of his affidavit.

Callaway WC testimony was Thursday, March 26, 1964 https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0156b.htm I think he was told before he viewed the lineups

Good Point Steve.

In this video from 1986's "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", Callaway confirms his testimony that he was told prior to viewing the lineup that Tippit's killer was in it. In a legitimate lineup, the police would NOT be telling the witness that the perp was in the lineup. The purpose of a lineup is for the witness to tell police whether or not the person they saw is in the lineup. This was just another way for the Dallas cops to try to influence the witnesses' identifcation, which Callaway tried to hide at first. SPENCE: They didn't say anything to you that would lead you to believe that the man that you saw was the man who supposedly killed the President, did they ? CALLAWAY: No sir. Then, when he's faced with his own WC testimony, he testifies to the exact opposite. At the end of the clip, Callaway says that Oswald and the fillers were all dressed, "about the same", which was a lie, because this is the lineup Callaway saw: Ted Callaway never saw Tippit's killer. His whole story is a bunch of BS. You hear what you believe are gunshots so you come out to the street and see a man with a gun heading your way. But you're unarmed. What do you do ? Confront him out in the open ? Let him know that you've seen him and that you can identify him ? I don't buy it. Then in another video I posted he claims to "faintly, vaguely" remember "the man in the doorway" of the TSBD because he thinks it's Oswald, questioning his cognitive skills. Callaway also stumbled in his testimony on the CE 150 shirt. He testified that, "when I saw him, he didn't have---I couldn't see this shirt. I saw----he had it open. That shirt was open and I could see his white t-shirt underneath." ( 3 H 356 ) How could Callaway know the shirt was open if he couldn't see it ? For that matter, how could he know the gunman was even wearing a shirt and not just a t-shirt under the jacket ? And the final nail in the coffin to his story is that when he arrived at the Tippit murder scene, he asked Domingo Benavides which way Tippit's killer went. Callaway would never have asked Benavides which way the killer went if he had seen which way the killer went. Reading his testimony, and listening to him in this mock trial, one gets the impression that Ted Callaway was a witness who was trying to please his masters. Stumbling and bumbling through his story and providing an account that belonged in a hollywood script. Not only am I convinced that Ted Callaway never saw Tippit's killer, I'm convinced that he ( like Helen Markham ) never saw Oswald. And he would have been destroyed by a competent defense lawyer at trial. https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-witnesses/

deleted and posted on another thread

He also said that he remembered the man in the doorway "faintly, vaguely." If not Oswald, who was he talking about ?

So here is Oswald publicly stating that he was in the building and worked in the building, but privately in the lineups he was giving a fictitious answer to the question of his occupation ? ROFLMAO. It makes no sense. Sounds like their argument that, "in private he refused a lawyer, but publicly he was asking for one." 🙂 Of course it's silliness but what do you expect them to say ? Do you see them posting any evidence to the contrary ? Any evidence at all ? No. They've got nothing. Just comments and opinions.

In this scene from, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", eagle-eyed witness Ted Callaway, cock-sure of his ability to identify Oswald, ( "I could make that identification if they were naked" ) says he recognizes "faintly/vaguely" a man standing in front of the TSBD, then misidentifies Billy Lovelady as Oswald.

The Lone Nutters are a little upset because I dare do what the Warren Commission didn't do: show the fillers dressed the way they were in the lineups. The graphic shows how ridiculously biased the lineups were against Oswald. Not one Tippit witness described the killer as mid thirties wearing a sport coat, or having blond hair and a red vest, or short and heavy with a grey knit sweater. NOT ONE. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the police were trying to influence the witnesses' choices. And it proves that Capt. Fritz committed perjury when he testified that the fillers, "fixed themselves where they would look like prisoners" and that they "looked pretty much like anyone else". ( 4 H 212 ) That was a lie. Since when do prisoners wear brown sport coats, red vests and grey sweaters ? A reasonable person might ask: why would they have to go to such an extreme to build a case against a GUILTY man ?

Perry testified he gave fictitous answers. ( 7 H 234 ) Clark testified he gave fictitious answers. ( 7 H 238, 239 ) Ables testified that Oswald was asked questions. ( 7 H 241 ) Does Mr. Brown believe that Oswald gave a fictitious answers as well ? What would be the purpose of Oswald giving fictitious answers ? NO, the police gave the fictitious answers to hide the fact they were detectives.

Thank You. Det. Clark testified that he and his partner Perry were handcuffed to Oswald and Don Ables was not handcuffed. As the late Larry Harris has said, this gave the witnesses the impression that Oswald was the suspect handcuffed between two detectives. The Dallas Police did everything they could to influence the witnesses' choices. In addition, all three fillers testified that they were asked questions during the lineup, including their names and places of employment. All three testified that they gave fictitious answers, while Lee Harvey Oswald gave his place of employment as the Texas School Book Depository. Three and a half hours after the assassination, at the time of the first lineup, it was well known via TV and radio throughout the world that the shots had come from the TSBD. The only way these lineups could have been any more biased against Oswald would be to have him shown with three uniformed officers while they were still in uniform. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Running-Scared-Police-Line-Up-1986.mp4 I just find it hard to believe that any professional law enforcement outfit, be it local police, a sheriff's department, state police, FBI, or whatever, would jeopardize a solid case against a suspect by using such tactics. I believe that the conduct of the police during the lineups is one piece of evidence that they were framing an innocent man. And I can't see how anybody, including the Warren Commission, could honestly conclude that these lineups were conducted fairly.

Denis' profile says he's from Canada so I was comparing the Canadian justice system with the American justice system. It has nothing to do with being "holier than thou" or being xenophobic. Might I suggest that it's YOU who should take your blind hatred for me somewhere else ? Maybe someplace where you can spew your hatred ?

"Looks like" is not a positive identification. Boone couldn't identify the rifle because he never marked it. I don't know the way you do it in Canada, but in the States we mark evidence for positive identification at a later time and date, like at a trial. We don't use logic and we don't take guesses. That's the way we identify evidence. We mark it ON DISCOVERY. And yeah, it IS a big deal when you're talking authenticating the evidence.

No, I'm saying that during his testimony, he was shown the CE 139 rifle and asked if it was the rifle he found and he could not positively identify it. The video corroborates his testimony. Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it. This includes the four Tippit shells, the three shells found on the sixth floor, the "stretcher bullet" CE 399, the "tannish-grey" jacket and the C 2766 rifle. Without these positive identifications, the prosecution's case is weakened because it cannot prove that the items currently in evidence are the same items the witnesses found. And the fact that all of these same items were also originally described as something else, not only makes positive identification by the finder imperative, it leaves open the possibility that there was evidence tampering by authorities and that the items in evidence may have been substituted for the items originally found. How do we explain five main pieces of evidence, found in different locations and at different times, and all originally described as something else, not positively identified by the people who found them ? A coincidence ? Five coincidences ? No. IMO this is prima facie evidence of tampering by police. If this case had gone to trial and I were the defense attorney, I'd make a motion to have this "evidence" dismissed, or at the very least, make the jury aware that the "evidence" could not be identified by the person who allegedly found it. "Don't believe the so-called evidence"---- Lee Harvey Oswald

From 1986's "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald". Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone admits that when he was shown the rifle in evidence, CE 139, during his WC testimony, he could not identify it as the rifle he found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

The Commission accepted so many things as exhibits that would have never been admitted as evidence in a court trial. For example: Commission Exhibit 35 is listed as, "an envelope from E. Dzhuganyan addressed to Marina Oswald, dated postmarked April 20, 1962"https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0091b.htmThen there's Commission exhibit 51, "A letter from Aunt Valya and Uncle Illya to Marina Oswald dated January 24, 1963."https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0105b.htmOr Commission Exhibit 84, "an unused envelope".https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0145b.htmAnd there's so many more.Can any of you Warren Commission supporters tell us what these items have to do with the assassination of JFK ?Can any of you tell us what the evidentiary value is on these items that warrant them being accepted as a Commission Exhibits ?

The Gemberling report of 11/30/63 contains an FBI interview of James Worrell dated 11/23/63. In that interview, the FBI claimed that Worrell said that he got a "profile view" of a man he saw running from the TSBD.During his testimony, however, Worrell was asked straight up about that interview and he denied ever saying it.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CD-5-pg-19-fbi-lies-worrell.pngIf you wanna believe the Warren Commission, you need to believe ALL of these witnesses told the FBI the truth and then lied to the Commission under oath and the penalties of perjury.

FBI report: Frazier, "stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the package he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." ( 24 H 410 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/frazier_no_id_bag.jpg This FBI lie was exposed during Frazier's testimony when he testified that when he was shown the CE 142 bag by the FBI, he told them that the length was "entirely too long." ( 2 H 240 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WC_Vol2_240-frazier-CE-142-too-long-634x1024.gif These type of tactics by authorities ( altering what the witness said ) do not occur during legitimate criminal investigations.

Chief Curry spills the beans that the rifle was NOT disassembled and the "gunsack" was large enough to hold the rifle "intact". This is what the Dallas Police THOUGHT when they made the "gunsack" for the 36" rifle, that they had made the "gunsack" two inches longer than it needed to be. But in reality, they made it two inches too short because they didn't realize that they had a 40.2" rifle. They had ordered a 36" rifle and assumed that that was what they received. They never measured the rifle after they received it. And that's what they made the "gunsack" for in the TSBD shipping room on the afternoon of November 22nd, a 36" rifle. And this response from the Chief that, "the package was large enough for the rifle to be intact" is proof that they thought the rifle was smaller than the 38 inch "package". The Chief states this, not as an opinion, but as a matter of fact. He could not have known this from measuring each, so he must have thought he knew the length of each pre-assassination.

This was a collection of evidence against one suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald. Any evidence that did not add to Oswald's guilt was destroyed. Any witnesses that did not add to Oswald's guilt were ignored. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/the-witnesses.mp4 Other witnesses were harrassed into providing a false statement for the record. https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/proof-fbi-lied.mp4 These types of things do not happen in a normal criminal investigation. The very first word on the very first page in the very first volume of the 26 volumes was a lie. This was no investigation.

Under the circumstances and with the history of violent attacks against his family members, they say no ? They need to can Mayorkas. First the border mess and now this.