Gil Jesus

On 4/3/2024 at 8:21 AM, Gerry Down said:

It’s often said that Oswald was denied his rights in DPD custody by being questioned without a lawyer present. However in 1963, no such right existed. The right to have a lawyer present while being questioned by police only came into effect in June 1964 in the Escobedo v. Illinois case:

I don't know what country you live in, but in the US, your Constitutional Rights begin at birth, not when a court determines them.

They're inalienable rights which are granted by our Creator, not by any government or authority, including the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can only judge based on its interpretation of the Constitution, it does not grant rights.

At the time Oswald was questioned without a lawyer present, his right to assistance of counsel was denied in violation of the "assistance of counsel" clause of the 6th Amendment.

Without a lawyer present, his 5th Amendment right to protection against self-incrimination was also violated.

I see that you failed to mention that Escobedo was a 1960 case and Miranda was a 1963 case. Escobedo took four years to get to the Supreme Court and Miranda took three. But Oswald had the same Constitutional right to have a lawyer present as did Escobedo in 1960. The fact that the court didn't rule in favor of Escobedo until 1964 is irrelevent. The fact is both defendants' rights were violated, one in 1960 and the other in 1963.

And Oswald had the same Constitutional protection against self-incriminattion that Miranda did earlier that year.

So your theory that Constitutional rights are afforded by court decisions is flawed.

Whether you like it or not, that's the truth.

And by the way, the New York lawyer's name was John Abt, not Apt.

An excerpt from the "Willie O'Keefe" scene in the 1991 movie "JFK" where O'Keefe ( Kevin Bacon ) describes how Souherners felt about President Kennedy.

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE may not be suitable for all audiences.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/willie-okeefe.mp4

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Pretty Damning.  The FBI told them what to say, and they said it.  This is the speaker of the House, and he never did anything about it.

Powerful people in Washington can commit crimes and nothing is done about it, even today.

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'm sorry Gil, but I disagree with most of your post.

I believe that your hypothesis is based on two false premises. First, I think that Pat Speer got it right when he noticed a glass specimen jar in the Mystery Photo, which in my opinion (like his) proves that the photographer took that photo at an angle.

This is the mystery photo after adjusting for the angle:

 

 

The left 1/4th of the photo is lightened so that we can see the glass specimen jar on the left side, a little bit hidden by skull and reflected scalp. The top part of this photo is the inside of reflected scalp, which reveals the frontal bone near the forehead.

Your other faulty premise is that you belief that the large "triangular" fragment is parietal bone from the BACK of the head. No, it is parietal bone from the TOP of the head and was removed from the skull (after possibly being made by hitting the head with a hammer) in the pre-autopsy clandestine surgery of the head, as mentioned by Humes and reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. It and other such man-made fragments were introduced to the autopsy as if they'd been found in Dallas. Sibert and O'Neill makes no mention of those fragments being brought in.

However, Sibert and O'Neill DO mention a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment being brought in late. It was brought in so late that it could not be inserted back into Kennedy's skull. Humes kept it, but made it available for further study.

There is a ton of evidence that backs my contention.

 

 

 

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

Two things:

First, I can't see your link. It tells me that I don't have permission to observe the image --- error 403 "forbidden".

Second, if the large fragment with the bevel on the OUTSIDE of the bone is from the top of the head, that means the bullet exited the top of the head.

This exit damage to the top of the head is not mentioned in the autopsy report.

It is not evident in the autopsy photographs or x-rays.

It is not supported by the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who saw " the back of the President's head come off".

It is not supported by Clint Hill's description of the wound he saw on the way to Parkland Hospital.

It is not supported by the witnesses at Parkland who saw the gaping wound at the REAR of the head. 

It is not supported by the witness at Bethesda who saw that same gaping wound at the rear of the head.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion. But while you claim there is a "ton of evidence" to back your contention, I'm disappointed that you chose not to produce any of it.

I also have a ton of evidence to support my contention that the fatal shot was fired from in front of the limo and it's all here in this 35 minute compilation video I've put together from different sources:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/evidence of a frontal shot full.mp4

( BTW, tactics like this are not used in a normal criminal investigation )

Former House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill tells of a conversation he had with JFK aides Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers about their testimony.

On 3/29/2024 at 12:04 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Boswell to Dr. Aguilar, 1994:

“The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”     (Source)

 

Sandy, I believe that Humes and Boswell lied about the "shelving" ( beveling ) being on the inside of the skull. Their own autopsy report and the autopsy photographs contradict what they claimed.

The photographs show the bevelling was on the OUTSIDE of the bone, indicative of an exit wound.

The orientation of the F8 photograph is crucial. Some have argued that it shows the right side or the right front of the head. I believe that it shows the back of the head and the chrome "saddle" head rest is visible in the lower right. I believe that it shows the entrance wound at the right front and the massive exit wound at the right rear. This would be consistent with Dr. Clark's opinion that the head wound was "tangential" ( struck the head at an angle ).

John Hunt is correct. A massive wound at the right rear of the head indicates a shot from the front.

It appears that there was more than one piece of skull fragment missing from the autopsy.

In fact, their autopsy report notes that they "received as separtate specimens from Dallas" three "fragments". It said that the, "largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly circular wound presumably of EXIT which exhibits bevelling on the outer aspect of the bone......" Beveling on the fragment was on the OUTSIDE of the bone, indicative of an exit wound.

If what we're looking at in the F8 photo is the back of the head, that would make the largest fragment either parietal or temporal bone, not on the side of the head, but rather on the BACK of the head, behind the right ear. This is completely consistent with what the witnesses saw in Dealey Plaza, what the doctors saw at Parkland and what the autopsy witnesses described at Bethesda.

If this exit wound was half on the fragment and half on the skull, as Boswell claimed, it HAD to be the wound shown above ( F8 ), because there is no other indication of any such wound as he described it. The F8 photograph of the skull shows a bevel on the outside of the bone. The autopsy report's description of the bevel on the large fragment corroborates that. The conflict between the physical evidence ( bevel on outside ) and what the autopsists claimed ( bevel on inside ) proves that either the photographs are fake and the autopsy report is wrong or the autopsists lied.

And that doesn't count the Harper Fragment, that wasn't found until the next day.

Yes, there was at least one and possibly as many as four skull fragments missing from the autopsy, IMO.

A compilation video of JFK assassination witness Jean Hill, who claimed to have seen a man with a rifle shooting from behind the picket fence. Here she's telling what she saw and what she experienced in the aftermath.

deleted

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Good argument on this point Gil.

The argument has always been that it looks like a smoking-gun incrimination, too much to be coincidence, that of all TSBD employees, Oswald's is the only known TSBD employee fingerprint match found on those cartons in the location from which a shooter was seen and three shell hulls found.

But Gil Jesus has just shown a plausible explanation for why Oswald's, and not any other TSBD employee's, fingerprints might reasonably turn up on those cartons there, in a way not necessarily implicating Oswald in shooting: his work filling orders for Scott Foresman books (assuming that lettering on the side of that carton in the photo of the arrow in the illustration confirms Scott Foresman books; I cannot quite verify that from reading it myself).

To advocates of the Oswald LN interpretation, this is no problem because Oswald still could have done it. But it starts to go in circles when convicting someone on the basis that he could have done the crime, as distinguished from proof that he did.

 

Greg, if you look at WHERE Oswald's prints were located on the cartons, you'll see that Oswald's prints were ON TOP. It appears that CE 641 was lying on top of CE 648, so he picked it up from the bottom and rolled it over and placed it on top of the box under the window. That's how his prints ended up on the top of CE 641.

His right palm print wrapped around the top corner of CE 648 indicates that he lifted it up to read what was on the carton's inside.

Here's a better look at those Scott-Foresman book cartons in the so-called "Sniper's Nest". Courtesy ( believe it or not ) of David Von Pein's blog. Now you know why he's been silent on this issue. He knows it's fact. Cartons of Scott-Foresman books were stacked in the southeast corner, making up the "wall" that hid the "sniper's nest". Oswald was filling Scott-Foresman orders that day. A witness saw him at 11:55 coming from that area with a clipboard ( not a rifle ) in his hands. On the clipboard were the orders he was in the process of filling. The witness saw the orders. He testified to it.

Oswald's prints on the cartons are not evidence that he fired a rifle. You're correct that it's quite a leap that the Warren Commission and its apologists are willing to make. But the evidence indicates that Oswald was working in that area that day so his fingerprints on those cartons are worthless as evidence and NOT proof of his guilt.

Now, if Oswald had killed JFK by throwing cartons at him, I'd say there was proof there. If that sounds silly, that just tells you how silly the argument is that his fingerprints on the cartons are somehow proof that he fired a rifle.

I've offered a reasonable explanation of why Oswald's fingerprints were on the cartons in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. I've provided evidence in the form of photos and testimony to support that explanation. I challenge any of the Warren Commission supporters to refute anything on this subject that I've posted.

3 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation.

You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity.

Oswald feigning lack of interest?

I said sixth floor, not building, but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access.

Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22.

I rest my case.

Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation.

You didn't say that. You suggested that Oswald reassembled the rifle earlier that morning. Again, you have no evidence to support that. That's called speculation.

You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity.

Narrowing what window ? You've got him reassembling the rifle sometime between 8am and 12:25 pm. Isn't that YOUR window ? What evidence did you produce to support that ?

** Answer: NONE

Oswald feigning lack of interest?

You're speculating again. You have no evidence to support that either.

I said sixth floor, not building,

So now you have Oswald assembling the rifle on the sixth floor sometime that morning while the crew was present laying down a new floor ?

but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access.

As I pointed out, so did the rest of the world. What's your point ?

Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22.

With a crew present laying down a new floor and nobody saw him reassembling the rifle ?

Nobody knew he was even on the floor ?

I rest my case.

What case ? You haven't provided one stitch of evidence to prove anything you've said. No testimony, no documents, no exhibits, no photographs. Nothing. You've provided nothing but your own opinions without fact.

And you haven't addressed one point I've made or answered one single question that I've asked you.

Yeah, some case you've got there.

On 3/27/2024 at 7:02 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

But it doesn't matter how long it took if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. What allows you to rule that out? When do you think the "sniper's nest" was constructed?

But Zahm was talking about sighting in the rifle for the first time, not about needing to do it after each reassembly. 

It certainly does matter if the shooting was at 12:30 and Oswald is seen on the first floor at 12:25 and it takes six minutes to reassemble the rifle. That makes it impossible for him to have done the shooting at 12:30. Do the math.

And while you can speculate that he somehow assembled the rifle earlier in the day somewhere in the building without being seen, there's no evidence to support that. The lack of evidence  "allows" me to rule that out.

In fact, there's evidence that he didn't even know the motorcade was coming by his building until after 9:00 am, when he asked James Jarman why the people were gathering outside and which way the motorcade might come. ( 3 H 201 ) ( see also 24 H 213 )

To your argument that Oswald had access to the building prior to 12:25, the truth is ANYBODY had access to that building prior to 12:25. It was not locked up. There was no security. Access was not controlled. Anybody could have gotten into that building and used the elevators to get to the sixth floor after everyone had gone to lunch and/or were outside waiting for the motorcade.

So your argument that Oswald had access to the building is a moot point. It proves nothing.

The "sniper's nest" was nothing more than a row of boxes that had been moved into the southeast corner because they were laying down a new floor.

According to Oswald’s supervisor, William Shelley, that morning Oswald had been filling orders for Scott-Foresman Publishing, one of the tenants of the Texas School Book Depository building. In fact, Shelley testified that Oswald filled mostly Scott-Foresman orders. ( 6 H 332 )

Superintendent Roy Truly testified that overflow stock of Scott-Foresman books were kept on the sixth floor and that Oswald, “had occasion to go to the sixth floor quite a number of times every day, each day after books.” ( 3 H 215 )

Studebaker Exhibit A shows evidence that cartons of Scott-Foresman books were in the southeast corner of the sixth floor and made up part of the “wall” that was the “sniper’s nest”.

In fact, Charles Givens testified that he saw Oswald coming from the southeast corner at 11:55 pm  ( 6 H 349 ) and he had his, "board with his orders on it."

So we would expect to find Oswald's fingerprints on cartons in that area if he were moving cartons in his search for books to fill those orders.

Now, I've provided evidence that Oswald's prints on the cartons were part of his doing his job. Tell us how do you get from Oswald's prints being on the cartons, to him firing a rifle ?

And when did Zahm say the ten shots were for sighting in the rifle for the FIRST TIME ?

I can't find that in his testimony.

Please post your source for that.

50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It is not necessary to remove the scope when disassembling the rifle. It is inevitable, however, that during disassembly/reassembly, the precise alignment of the scope must be affected. This may be only minimal but nevertheless, it must have an effect." 

Exactly. And you can't sight a scope in without firing test shots. Period.

Deleted

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Whether or not the rifle's scope had to be "sighted in" after being reassembled is something that I don't think has been proven one way or the other. 

"Disassembling and reassembling a precision weapon will cause “zero shift”, that is a change in point of aim vs. point of impact." - Chris Everett, gun expert.

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

While I have your attention though, I wonder if you could comment on Gil Jesus's point about a broken-down rifle after reassembly would need to be sighted-in anew, involving shooting the rifle, in order to be useful with accuracy in the assassination. Gil Jesus cited expert testimony that multiple shots would be required to accomplish that.

But Oswald did not fire target shooting in the TSBD on the morning of Nov 22--did not sight the rifle in in the TSBD that morning after a reassembly--before, according to the Warren Commission, being the shooter using that rifle to fire at and accurately hit the president using a rifle that had to have been sighted-in. 

Does it not appear that the Mannlicher-Carcano had to have been infiltrated into the TSBD intact so as to be sighted-in, i.e. not in broken-down form on the morning of Nov 22 and then reassembled in the building that morning and used without any mechanism for having it sighted-in? 

But if the rifle was infiltrated into the building intact and sighted-in, not in broken-down condition, then it was not infiltrated into the building by Oswald on the morning of Nov 22 but through some other mechanism which could even have been on an earlier day than Nov 22.  

Since you are knowledgeable of and advocate the LN view, what is the LN-view response to this? I am unable to find in Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, either from memory of prior reading or in the index just now, anywhere where Bugliosi addresses this. Do you know if Bugliosi addresses this? Do you address it on your website? 

Thank you for expressing that Greg. Either the 40" rifle was brought into the building in the 38-inch "paper gunsack" disassembled and had to be sighted-in by firing ten shots, or the rifle was brought into the building intact and the "gunsack" is a fake that never contained the rifle. They can take their pick, but they can't have it both ways. They can't have a 40" rifle in a 38" package. Let's see them squirm out of this one. Don't hold your breath waiting for any answers to your questions.

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But even if Oswald had said he ate lunch before the assassination occurred, that too would have been a lie, of course, because LHO didn't eat lunch at all on 11/22. He was much too busy upstairs on the sixth floor.

 

There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that Oswald ate his lunch in the first floor "Domino Room" on November 22nd.

He didn't eat his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. Mrs. Robert Reid testified that she was in the second floor lunchroom between Noon and 12:30. ( 3 H 271 ) She never mentioned Oswald being there.

Oswald said he had lunch with a co-worker he knew as "Junior" and another Negro whose name he did not know. James "Junior" Jarman testified that he had his lunch on the first floor and Harold Norman testified that the had his lunch in the first floor Domino Room. ( 3 H 188 )

How did Oswald know the specific whereabouts of these two men if he was on the 6th floor, as you claim ?

Jarman testified that Oswald typically ate his lunch either in the Domino Room or at the coffee table on the first floor. ( 3 H 200 ) Charles Givens testified that Oswald "always" ate lunch in the Domino Room. ( 6 H 354 )

Victoria Adams came down the rear stairway from the fourth floor after the shooting and saw no one on the second floor. ( 6 H 389 ) Not only did she not see Oswald on the second floor, she  testified that she saw neither Off. Baker nor Roy Truly on the stairway. ( ibid., pg. 390 )

Oswald had his lunch on the first floor as he always did and remained on the first floor where he was seen by Carolyn Arnold, "between the front doors and the double doors on the FIRST floor" ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) when she left the building, "at about 12:25 PM".  ( CD 706, pg. 7 )

If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:25, he could NOT have been the shooter on the sixth floor at 12:30.

Because when the FBI tried to assemble the rifle using a dime, it took them SIX minutes to do so. ( 2 H 252 )

In addition, any rifleman will tell you that once a rifle is disassembled, the scope has to be readjusted because you lose "Zero" ( the POI or Point of Impact ). The Commission's own expert on the scope, Sgt. James Zahm, testified that in order to scope the rifle in, Oswald would have had to have fired ten rounds through the weapon.  ( 11 H 308 )

The first was not possible if Oswald was on the first floor at 12:25. The second was not possible once Oswald had the weapon in the building, as you claim. There's no way he could have fired off ten rounds without anyone knowing and scoped that rifle in once he reassembled it.

Now, I've given you chapter and verse on why Oswald was not the shooter on the sixth floor at 12:30.

Name one witness who puts Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hands at that time.

BTW, you still haven't answered my OTHER question:

Baker testified that he saw Oswald being interrogated while he was writing out his affidavit in a back room in the Homicide Bureau. ( 3 H 257-258 )

Why didn't Baker put in his written affidavit that the man they had in custody ( Oswald ) was the man he encountered in the building ?

On 3/24/2024 at 6:44 AM, David Von Pein said:

Why are you ignoring Roy Truly's observations? Mr. Truly was right there alongside Baker and Oswald.

Do you really think Truly lied when he said it was Oswald in the lunchroom?

 

Who said anything about Truly ? The subject here is Baker.

YOU said Baker mentioned his encounter with Oswald in his affidavit of 11/22.

He did not. He mentioned an encounter with a man whose description he gave did NOT match Oswald.

Baker gave his affidavit sometime between 3pm and 2am on the 23rd. We know that because it was Detective Marvin Johnson who took that affidavit. And Johnson wrote in his report that he didn't arrive at police headquarters that day until 3pm and stayed until 2 am. ( 24 H 307 )

Baker gave his affidavit AFTER Oswald was in police custody and police had in their possession "his tan jacket".

In his testimony, he admitted that he saw Oswald, "when I went to give the affidavit." ( 3 H 257 )

So why doesn't his affidavit say that he recognized the man he saw in the police station as the man he encountered in the building ?

Because the man he encountered on the "third or fourth floor" wearing a "light brown jacket" WASN'T Oswald.

Baker's description of the jacket matches that of JOHN POWELL, a prisoner in the county jail who claimed to see two men adjusting the scope of a rifle. They were darker skinned than whites and appeared to be wearing "brownish or duller clothes like work clothes." ( Dallas Norning News, 12/19/78 )

Baker encountered a man on the third or fourth floor wearing a light brown ( work ) jacket. And the Commission didn't ask him ONE QUESTION about his SWORN affidavit. Even though at the time of his testimony ( 3/25/64 ), he was still saying the man he encountered was wearing a light brown jacket. ( 3 H 257 )

**But since you wanna change the subject to Roy Truly, consider this:

If that man was one of the men John Powell saw and was involved in the shooting and Roy Truly vouched for him, then Roy Truly was involved in the President's assassination as well.

Oswald was one of two men Truly hired and it was Truly who assigned Oswald to the Depository building. The other man was sent to the warehouse down the street. ( FBI file # 105-82555, Sec A-3, pg. 58 ). It was Truly who put Oswald in the building. It was Truly who let Oswald leave the building ( James Jarman Testimony to HSCA, 9-25-77, pgs. 2-3 ). And it was Truly who then turned the police on to him. Consider also that it was Truly who allowed two rifles to be brought into the building the day after the motorcade route was publicized as going in front of the TSBD.

In addition, Truly "disapproved strongly" of Kennedy's policies abroad and considered him a "race-mixer" at home. ( Manchester, The Death of a President, pg. 49 )

For all we know, it was Truly who put that C2766 rifle in the building.

In a normal criminal investigation, your star witness Mr. Truly, would have been given closer scutiny.

But because he cooperated with the framing of Oswald and the subsequent coverup, he wasn't.

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Marrion Baker did, of course, mention his encounter with Lee Oswald in his first-day affidavit.

 

That's not true.

Nowhere in that affidavit does he identify the man he saw as Oswald.

In fact, his description of the man does NOT match Oswald.

YOU identify the man as Oswald, not Baker.

Another hero in the search for the truth has passed. RIP Jim G.

In a January 11, 1964 memo, "For the Members of the Commission", Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin outlined the areas of the Commission's "work". In this memo, he used the phrases, "Lee Harvey Oswald as the Assassin of President Kennedy", "Evidence Demonstrating Oswald's Guilt", "Evidence Identifying Oswald as the Assassin of President Kennedy", the "Permissable Inferences of Oswald's Murder of Tippit", "Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible Motives" and "Lee H. Oswald as the Assassin".

Keep in mind that this memo naming Oswald as the President's lone assassin, was written almost one month BEFORE the Commission heard its first witness or saw its first piece of evidence.

This was NOT a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect who had been deemed guilty by his accusers. If this were a court case, you could say that the verdict was in before the trial had even begun.

And there'd be no defense.

Oswald would not have been interrogated after he asked for a lawyer.

The interrogation sessions would have been recorded or transcribed.

No lineups would have been conducted without defense counsel present.

The lineups would have been conducted fairly, not using "fillers" that did not resemble witnesses' descriptions, like blonds, teenagers or a Mexican.

Oswald would have been assigned counsel at the Tippit arraignment, as required by Texas law.

The paper "gunsack" would have been in the crime scene photographs.

Witnesses who saw the "package" he allegedly brought to work that morning would have identified the 38 inch "gunsack" as the package he had.

Jack Dougherty would have seen the package when Oswald entered the building.

The shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene would have matched the bullets removed from Tippit's body.

The autopsy photographs would have matched the autopsy x-rays and the autopsy report.

A solid "chain of custody" would have been established for ALL of the evidence.

Oswald's receipt of the weapons would have been established by identifying the persons who handed him the weapons at the Dallas Post Office and at REA Express.

Witnesses who found items would have positively identified the evidence in the government's possession as the items they found.

Every effort would have been made to protect the prisoner after death threats were received by police and the FBI. This included transferring the prisoner under the cover of darkness.

16 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Reminds you of the big smiling, congratulatory wink Texas Republican Congressman Albert Thomas gave LBJ when LBJ turned away toward him right after his swearing in on Air Force 1.

Thomas's smiling wink was so happy-minded animated, it was as if LBJ had just kicked the last second winning field goal for their beloved Texas U. football team over Oklahoma! 

ATTA BOY LYNDON ... YOU DID IT BABY!

AHA...YIPPEE KI YAY!

That Thomas celebratory wink and smile was so contrary to the otherwise somber mood scene it was perverse.

Like someone leaping about and laughing during a grieving family funeral service.

Talk about entering a den of venomous and hateful snakes.

Especially when it was the testimonial dinner for Thomas in Houston the night before that lured Kennedy to Texas. According to Wikipedia, Thomas was a protégé of Texas Senator (later President) Lyndon B. Johnson but maintained a generally conservative voting record. Thomas was planning not to run for another term in Congress because he had cancer. The dinner was to convince him to stay on. After the assassination, he decided to stay on, dying of cancer while in office on Feb. 15, 1966.

There are FBI reports that said that as early as 1961, people who visited Dallas, upon returning home, were commenting that if Kennedy ever went to Dallas, they would kill him. And Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't even in the country at that time.

A look at the atmosphere in the city of Dallas leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/nut-country.mp4

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But the killer is this:

He uses two forms of public transportation to escape the scene of the crime?

And he was willing to give up the cab to an old lady? 

Some planning.

And yet in the Tippit killing, he flees on foot, even though he has $13.87 in his pocket.

He has the money to hail a taxi or jump on a bus when he gets to Jefferson Ave., but he flees on foot.

Different M.O.

He discards his jacket, but keeps the gun that ties him to the murder.

Then he beats the Texas Theater out of 90 cents to hide inside.

I agree, some planning. A criminal mastermind.

Dallas DA Henry Wade attempts to portray Oswald as a calculating, blood thirsty murderer who planned the assassination well in advance, while the facts show that that was a lie.