Gil Jesus

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering

Chief Curry says he "doesn't know" what the results were of the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek, but the same report that said the hands were positive, also said the right cheek was negative and the left cheek wasn't tested. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217807#relPageId=577 How could the Chief know of the results of the hands without knowing the results of the cheek ? https://youtu.be/3c8_7gNwI8o He knew. He lyed to newsmen to hide the fact that the cheek test was negative.

What a joke. He was on the sixth floor 35 minutes before the shooting and he carried a package to the building. Yeah that proves he killed the President !!!!!

Ben, The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial and the memos prove THEY KNEW IT.

The case against Oswald for the Walker shooting was weak without Marina's testimony.

The NAA tests did not prove Oswald fired a rifle.

Joe, he knew what he was doing. When you don't keep a record you can say whatever you want to with regard to what was said and done during the interrogation, as long as everybody present gets their stories "right". To prove that point, FBI Inspector James Malley, the liason between the Bureau and the Commission, sends a memo to the Dallas FBI office on the timing of the Tippit murder, advising them to "make sure that our times jibe."

It seems that Fritz had a history of not releasing evidence, not only to other divisions within his own department, but to outside agencies as well. There's a reason for that: you can't tamper with evidence if someone else has it.

From 1949. Seems like Capt. Fritz wasn't the supercop they would have us believe. The bottom paragraph describes a bank robbery ( which is a Federal crime under the jurisdiction of the FBI ) where Fritz possessed evidence and refused to turn it over to the Bureau. In fact, at one point he was demoted by the Chief of Police ( Carl Hansson ). That's pretty bad when you get demoted.

Miranda was a 1963 case that took three years of appeals to make it to the Supreme Court. Police Departments used to get monthly bulletins from the FBI on updates of court cases "in the pipeline" that may have national implications. I'm sure the Dallas Police knew about Miranda. Even if they didn't, Fritz testified that Oswald had been "given his rights", including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Both by himself and the judge at the Tippit arraignment. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=224&search="his_rights" Then he went ahead and violated the guy's rights. The point is that once he "lawyered up" the questioning should have stopped. It didn't. That's a violation of the 5th and 6th amendments.

I wouldn't put too much stock in what Louis Nichols said. Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.The reason may have been because the Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases. Those were handled by the Criminal Bar Association. ( 7 H 331 ) In addition, Nichols had connections to the city. Nichols used to work for the city attorney’s office and at the time of Oswald’s incarceration, still represented the city credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 ) As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day, Chief Curry admitted that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.

Thanks Jim. I'm going to go back over the video and listen to what they have to say.

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been inadmissable at trial. Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation of him without an attorney present to represent and advise him. This blows away the Commission's lie that Oswald refused legal help and the nonsense perpetrated by some of its supporters that Oswald denied legal help to authorities but cried for it in front of reporters. It also calls into question the allegation of Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association, who told the press that Oswald refused his help, but failed to tell them about the complaints of his treatment Oswald had made to him.

Amen. This case would have never made it to trial in today's system for a few reasons. 1. Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated under the 5th and 6th amendments. He was denied legal counsel and police continued to question him after he'd "lawyered up". Anything he said after he requested a lawyer and was denied one, was NOT admissable as evidence. He did not refuse legal representation, that was a fairy tale made up by the Dallas authorities, as this video proves. Since Oswald requested a lawyer at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater, anything he said during his interrogation would not have been admissable as evidence. At the Tippit arraignment, Oswald protested bitterly about not having a lawyer. The judge ( David Johnston ) was obligated under Texas law to assign Oswald a lawyer. He refused to and when he and the police officers who were present at the arraignment were asked if Oswald said anything, every one of them "couldn't remember" what Oswald said. Amazing how all of these officials couldn't remember the same thing. 2. Witness identifications as a result of the police lineups would have been thrown out because of the unethical construct of the lineups, which made Oswald the only choice. Oswald was shown with police officers who were not the same age, not the same height or weight and were not dressed the same as either Oswald or the witnesses' descriptions of the killer. In the first two lineups, one of the fillers was blond. In the third lineup, two of the fillers were blond. In the last lineup, Oswald was shown with two teenagers and a Mexican. Those lineups were unfair and any witness identification of Oswald as a result of those lineups would have been inadmissable as evidence. 3. Take the fact that the people who originally found evidence and did not identify the items in evidence as the items they found, and add to that the fact that much of that same evidence ( on my list ) was originally identified as something else, and you have prima facie proof that evidence was tampered with. ( by substitution ) I don't understand why people can't see that. General Walker did.

I haven't read any books on evidence, but I've helped build cases against defendants before. And I can tell you that courts ( in my state anyways ) require the prosecution to authenticate evidence before it is admitted as an exhibit. Our courts don't admit evidence on faith that the prosecutor is honest. For example, during the Aaron Hernandez murder trial, the prosecution introduced the dead body as evidence by calling the kid who was jogging and found the body. They didn't rely on the cops or anyone else who showed up to the scene later to introduce the dead body as evidence. And the body HAD to be introduced as evidence in order for the details of the autopsy to be introduced later. Maybe in Texas its different, but in my experience in the court system authentication begins with the person who had first contact with the evidence, not the second, third or whatever. If I'm the defense lawyer in this case, I call the persons who found this evidence to the stand and the first question I ask them is if they can positively identify the evidence as the item they found.

I notice that you didn't cite any source for your information. Maybe in Denmark it might be bizarre, but in an American court, without the person who found the evidence positively identifying the item as the one he found, there's no proof that the evidence wasn't substituted. His mere presence for however long on the sixth floor isn't relevant in proving the rifle in evidence is the rifle he found. In fact, as I said, during his testimony he could not positively identify the CE 139 rifle as the rifle he found. Mr. BALL. I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor that day ? Mr. BOONE. It looks like the same rifle. I have no way of being positive. ( 3 H 294 )

In a normal criminal trial, the prosecution would be required to establish an item as evidence BEFORE a judge would allow it to be submitted as an exhibit. Before a chain of possession could be established, the item would have to be identified by the first witness who came in contact with it in order to establish its relevance to the case. After such identification, the prosecution would then ask the court to accept the evidence as an exhibit. But in this case, although the Warren Commission's agenda was to present the evidence in such a way that Oswald "would have been convicted at trial", it did not follow normal judicial protocol. Instead, it accepted items as exhibits without so much as an identification from the person who found them. This could not have been an oversight, because they did this time and time again. Among those items which were accepted WITHOUT identification from the people who found them were: Commission Exhibit 139 - the C2766 rifle was never identified by the person who found it ( Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone ) as the rifle he found on the sixth floor. Commission Exhibit 162 - the "tannish grey" jacket found under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene was never identified by the person who reported it found ( Off. J.T. Griffin ) as the jacket he reported. Commission Exhibit 399 - the alleged "stretcher bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( Darrell Tomlinson ) as the bullet he found. Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545 - the three 6.5 rifle shells were never identified by the person who found them ( Dallas Deputy Luke Mooney ) as the shells he found on the sixth floor. Commission Exhibit 573 - the "Walker Bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( B.G. Norvell ) as the bullet he found. Commission Exhibit 594 - the four shells found at the Tippit murder scene were never identified by the witnesses who found them ( Domingo Benavides and Barbara and Virginia Davis ) as the shells they found. All of these items were accepted by the Warren Commission as Exhibits without any positive identifcation from the people who found them. Had this case gone to criminal trial, without the positive identifcation from the people who found them, none of these items would have been admitted as evidence.

Au contraire, mon frere. All of this corroborating evidence ignored by your Warren Commission. The witness who showed where a man was located behind the fence and the witness who saw a man running behind the fence and was never called to testify. Why not ? Evidence of someone behind the fence, a man seen running behind the fence after the shots were fired and corroborating evidence that there was smoke from the picket fence. Not to mention the witnesses who said that at least one shot that hit Kennedy was fired from the front. Yeah there's no evidence of a gunman on the knoll.

That's true. In fact, there's evidence Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to make up for a fight he had over the phone with his wife the weekend before. https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

Since you want to mention the medical evidence... no evidence of a transiting bullet.

That's right. Originally, he wanted the case wrapped up by Tuesday, November 26th. Can you imagine that ? The assassination of the President of the United States and he wants the case wrapped up and an FBI report on his desk in FOUR DAYS ? He wanted to quell rumors of his involvement ASAP.

Mr. Brown. 🙂

I agree. The FBI used terms like "similar" to mask the fact that things they compared were not identical.

Apparently, they couldn't read either. They couldn't tell a 7.65 Mauser from a "6.5" "made in Italy". They couldn't tell a ".38 auto" shell from a ".38 spl" They couldn't tell a 38" package from one that was 27". Even the smartest people in the city, the doctors, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound. They should have changed the name of the city from Dallas to "Dumbass" because they could never get the facts right the first time. It's amazing how stupidity could reign supreme in that city and yet they got the right man on the first try. ROFLMAO Either they were the stupidest people who ever lived or they were LYers.