Gil Jesus

I am deeply saddened and shocked to hear of the passing of Jack White. He was always friendly and gracious to me and helpful in putting me in touch with other researchers. A real class act who will be sorely missed. Thank You so much for all your help and my most heartfelt condolences go out to Jack's family.

The bullets were reloads with low powder charges.

David, exactly what was the reenactment attempting to prove, that it was POSSIIBLE or that it was fact ? You take MASTER riflemen Positioned at a different distance Have them firing at stationary targets With a weapon other than the alleged murder weapon What the hell do you think you're PROVING ? None of the controls that existed at the time of the crime are being used. IOW, YOU'RE NOT RE-ENACTING ANYTHING !!! ROFL

The Commission predetermined Oswald's guilt. Its outlines from January 1964 prove that it determined Oswald to be guilty before it heard from its first witness or saw its first piece of evidence. http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/outlines.htm That's not opinion, conjecture or interpretation, that's documented FACT. The Commission emphasized evidence that pointed to Oswald's guilt, while ignoring evidence that pointed towards his innocence. A whole series of conclusions were based on carefully selected evidence, while the full body of evidence did not point to those conclusions. They chose to ignore a great deal of evidence which not only didn't prove their case, but actually disproved it. In addition, there was evidence that the Commission never saw, evidence the FBI never brought to its attention and evidence the Commission did not think worth hearing. One purpose of the due process of law is to protect the rights of the accused. A second purpose is to ascertain the truth. Each one insures the other: the rights of the accused are guaranteed by the fair presentation of all of the pertinent evidence. Some rules of evidence do not pertain to the truth alone. For example, a wife cannot testify against her husband in most jurisdictions. In this case, the Commission overlooked this rule. It is generally improper during the examination of a witness in an ordinary trial for counsel to pose leading questions. But Commission counsel regularly and persistently asked leading questions in order to develop a favorable record consistent with Oswald's guilt. Some witnesses were intimidated while others were prepared by the FBI, Secret Service, Commission counsel or all three. A rule against hearsay evidence, that which a witness has heard and repeats without knowing it to be true, exists in every jurisdiction. Yet nearly all of the 552 witnesses who gave testimony to the Commissioners and their counsel contained hearsay, not to mention the thousands of FBI and Secret Service reports which were entirely comprised of hearsay. There is no more serious threat to the truth than an attempt to tamper with a witness. The integrity of any judicial or administrative proceeding is predicated on the ability of a witness to testify freely. Powerful influences from local police, the FBI, Secret Service and Commission counsel tended to discourage testimony that did not conform to the accepted conclusion. The Commission ignored witnesses who had unique evidence to offer, like Walter Kirk Coleman, the 14 year old neighbor of General Walker, who said that he heard a shot and ran outside to see two men in the church parking lot next to Walker's house and neither man resembled Oswald. Reasons of relevance and/or economy alone cannot account for this type of omission. The Commission called and took testimony from Dr. Revilo P. Oliver, a right wing author and speaker. Dr. Oliver had no relevant information about the assassination to give the Commission, yet his testimony covers 35 pages ----- more than the combined testimonies of Jacqueline Kennedy, Gov. Connally and Mrs. Connally !!!!! The witness list, the list of those witnesses who would give testimony for the record, was completely controlled by the FBI. Witnesses were often available to the Commission only after they had been questioned, sometimes repeatedly, by the Dallas Police, FBI or the Secret Service. As a result, hearsay evidence was admitted, while crucial eyewitness testimony was excluded. Opinions were sought and published, while important facts were rejected, distorted or ignored. Friendly witnesses gave testimony without fear of cross-examination and were led through their paces by lawyers who helped to prepare their testimony in advance and asked them leading questions, while those who challenged the government's case were often harassed. Important witnesses with invaluable evidence to give, like those who stood on the overpass, were never called. Not only was the FBI's selection of witnesses slanted towards Oswald's guilt, the Commission ignored evidence that indicated that witnesses had signed affidavits identifying Oswald from a police lineup before they had even seen the lineup !!! This didn't happen once, but three times !!! ( Whaley, Guinyard and Callaway ) How did the Commission handle the affidavit issue ? It concluded in its Report: "Guinyard and Callaway viewed the same lineup of four men from which Mrs. Markham had earlier made her identification of Lee Harvey Oswald. Both men picked Oswald as the man who had run south on Patton with a gun in his hand." ( Report, pg. 169 ) What the Commission did not report was that the three other men in those two lineups with Oswald were police employees. Unlike Oswald, none of them were battered and bruised. The Commission's approach to physical evidence was also unsatisfactory. Federal authorities mutilated, destroyed, suppressed and reconstructed evidence. The Commission ignored it. An example of mutilated evidence was the brown paper "gunsack" allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It was chemically discolored by the FBI before any of the witnesses could see it and was ruined as evidence. An example of reconstructed evidence was the brown paper gunsack the FBI constructed in its place, which was the bag shown to witnesses. An example of destroyed evidence included the original Kennedy autopsy notes first prepared and then burned by Commander Humes. Another example is the premature destruction by the Dallas Post Office of the third part of Oswald's post office box application. An example of suppressed evidence included the X-rays and photographs of the President's autopsy. It is shocking to note that although medical evidence of such importance was not published in the 26 volumes or in its Report, the Commission found the room to include a dental chart for Jack Ruby's mother revealing the condition of her teeth in 1938. The Commission ignored the testimony of its own witnesses, some of them experts, in order to conclude that Oswald was guilty as charged. Tests conducted at the Commission's request were often inconclusive, irrelevant or proved the opposite of the Commission's position. In addition, the Commission flat out lied in its Report about what the witnesses said. Can any of the Commission's supporters give an innocent explanation to all of these ?

They could not have ever proved any of the above in court. Therefore he had to die. That's pretty much the answer as to Ruby's motive for killing Oswald. It wasn't to keep Oswald from talking, it was because they didn't have a case against him and a trial would have revealed the corruption of the Dallas County presecutory system. They framed people for crimes they did not commit and that was the deep, dark secret an Oswald trial would have exposed. That's why Ruby couldn't tell the truth in Dallas.

I just doesn't make sense to me that Walker would be involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK, a conspiracy that included the selection of a patsy, then claim that the only type of bullet that the patsy's rifle could fire was not the bullet recovered from his house. I would agree that Walker may have had foreknowledge of a plot to kill JFK, but his objection to CE 573 being the bullet leaves a question in my mind of how much involvement he had in the details of the plot. IMO, it just seems to me that we can't have it both ways...we can't have Walker setting up Oswald on the one hand, then arguing against the evidence "proving" Oswald's guilt on the other. I have no doubt that this was a Dallas-based plot to kill the President that had logistical support from elements of the Federal Government. Part of that logistical support included the FBI's foreknowledge of a plot and allowing the murder to happen and the SS removing the President's protection. This is the secret IMO that Hoover was trying to hide......they let it happen. Gil Does the so-called Walker bullet still exist? and where is it? As far as I know, it's in the National Archives. I have problems with the Oswald-shot-at-Walker story. First, Marina's lack of credibility. Second, the note wasn't dated. Third, it was left in a place Oswald told Marina to keep away from. Fourth, a witness saw two men fleeing the scene and neither was Oswald. Fifth, the lead alloy in the Walker bullet did not match the lead alloy in the fragments allegedly removed from the limousine, meaning it was different ammo. Sixth, when the FBI finally got around to investigating the shooting, they could not determine whether or not Oswald was the shooter. Seventh, the recovered bullet could not be match to the depository rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. Eighth, the police report described the recovered bullet as steel jacketed and the Oswald ammo was copper jacketed. Ninth, the newspapers quoted a police source as describing the bullet as a 30.06. That's NINE reasons why I don't believe Oswald was involved in this shooting. I agree that there is a paradox with Walker setting up Oswald then arguing against the ammunition, and his involvement in the JFK assassination. But that's only if you believe that the incidents are connected. What if they weren't ? Could Walker have been involved and yet not known the details of the assassination ? If Walker was setting up Oswald, he had to have known who Oswald was. Why wasn't Oswald considered a suspect in the shooting ? Why didn't he point the DPD in Oswald's direction ? Instead, he conducted his own investigation into his own suspect. His investigators were able to retrieve .30 caliber cartridges from the home of Walker's suspect. When the FBI canvassed the gun shops around Dallas after the assassination to ascertain which shops sold ammo for the 6.5 M-C rifle, it found that only two shops sold it. The DPD could have taken that mutilated bullet to shops, shown it, got an ID on the ammo, then traced back through gun shops and the post office if any 6.5 rifles had been sold to anyone. My goodness. They had from April to November to find someone who would have used that type of ammunition. But they didn't do that. Because ( IMO ) the bullet they recovered was the more common and harder to trace 30.06.

Makes you wonder if all that talk of a "second" version of the Zapruder film is real, doesn't it ?

I recently saw a video where FBI agent James Hosty attempted to explain away the destruction of the note Oswald allegely left for him by saying that once Oswald was dead and they didn't know a commission would be created, that technically, the note was not evidence. This of course is BS. Oswald had been charged with two counts of murder by Texas authorities before the note was destroyed. The note should have been turned over to the Dallas District Attorney's office even before the charges were brought. Commission or no commission, there was still a case against Oswald and the FBI had no reason to think there wouldn't have been a trial. That note WAS in fact evidence and the FBI withheld it, then destroyed it.

"Four Days in November" has the video of Oswald being paraded past Lovelady. As one can tell, Lovelady was NOT wearing a red and white striped shirt that day. http://i45.tinypic.com/33m2b1v.jpg

I am reading where there were 70 or 75 armed police officers in the basement of the DPD at the time of the Oswald transfer. I am completely blown away trying to understand why these officers were not actively involved in the security of the transfer. ".......Captain Jones explained to us that, when they brought the prisoner out, that he wanted two lines formed and we were to keep these two lines formed, you know, a barrier on either side of them, kind of an aisle. We were kind of to make an aisle for them to walk through, and when they came down this aisle, we were to keep this line intact and move along with them until the man was placed in the car." ( Testimony of Det. Thomas Donald McMillon in 13 H 43 ) So why weren't these lines formed on either side of the prisoner ? Why wasn't the car in position ? Why was the "all clear" given to move the prisoner when NEITHER of the above security precautions were yet in place ?

Not true. For example, Arnold Rowland claimed to have seen a man with a rifle in the sixth floor window at 12:15 or 12:16. He remembered hearing the location of the motorcade broadcast via a nearby police radio. The transcript of the Dallas Police radio traffic shows that the location Rowland described was broadcast at 12:16. So, some of the witnesses were pretty accurate with their times. All of this arguing of Oswald's location is moot. Oswald was in the Domino Room at noontime and was still on the first floor as seen by 4 witnesses between 11:45am and 12:25pm. Carolyn Arnold left the building to watch the motorcade at 12:25pm and saw Oswald on the first floor. http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/alibi.htm

Which is why the DPD and Jack Ruby conspired to kill Oswald before custody was transferred to the Sheriff's Dept. Oswald was never going to have his day in court. Ruby was part of the corruption of the whole prosecutory system in Dallas. An Oswald trial would have exposed the extensive corruption of officialdom, including the framing of individuals for crimes they did not commit.

You mean: The Mauser that became a Mannlicher-Carcano ? The pointed bullet found on the stretcher that became CE 399 ? The "steel-jacketed" 30.06 bullet recovered from Walker's home that became CE 573 ? The white jacket that became greyish tan ? The invisible paper bag in the crime scene photos ? The same paper bag whose paper and tape could only be matched to the paper and tape that was in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22/63 ? The .38 shells/ bullets that didn't match ? The .38 auto shell that became a .38 special ? Putting Oswald in a lineup with two teenagers and a Mexican ? How could anyone believe all of this was falsified ? ROFLMAO Of course it was.

I don't believe that I ever said that the bullet was planted on the stretcher. When I use the term "planted", I'm referring to it being planted as evidence. Maybe I should have used the term "swapped" instead. I agree with you. CE 399 was not the bullet found on the stretcher. All 4 of the people who handled the stetcher bullet refused to identfy CE 399 as the bullet they handled, destroying it's chain of custody. But the point I'm trying to make in proving that the bullet was "swapped" is that there is no physical evidence linking CE 399 with either victim.

My guess is # 3. It's difficult to believe that the FBI would have cleaned the bullet and destroyed evidence. Standard procedure would have been to examine the residue that remained on the bullet to identify it. One reason NOT to examine it would have been if no residue had existed. It's also possible that they DID examine it, that it WASN'T human matter and to hide that fact they lied and said that they never checked it.

Thanks. I find it unbelievable that the FBI would have received bullets and bullet fragments for examination, then not properly examine them. Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise? Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary. Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was? Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials. ( 3 H 437 ) Wasn't this supposed to be be part of the examination ? They receive a bullet with a foreign substance on it, and they don't test it to find out what it was ? They don't try to determine what it is, they just wipe it off ? LOL The troubling part of this is that while this was going on, Oswald was still alive. He was going to have his day in court. Wouldn't they be interested in building a case against him ? Wasn't the only way to do that by determining what was on the bullet ? At the very least, it was their responsibility to identify what that substance was.

For many years now I've argued in forums and newsgroups that there was NOTHING that connected the bullet allegedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, Commission Exhibit 399, with the shooting in Dealey Plaza. I base this opinion on the fact that no blood, no bones particles, no clothing fibers and no tissue particles from either victim were on the bullet when the FBI received it. Now I find confirmation of this in a parallel case involving the court-martial of a Marine Corporal during the Vietnam War. In this case, a Vietnamese civilian had been shot to death, Lance Corporal Douglas R. Collard was seen to have fired a rifle from a truck in which he and others were riding, seemingly drunk and in high spirits. He acknowledged firing a shot, but recalled it as having been fired in the air. The prosecution presented an expended bullet that matched the rifle Collard was allegedly holding at the time of the killing. The bullet was found on the floor inside the dead man's house. The prosecution contended that this was the bullet that killed the man. But Leland Jones, who at the time was the former head of the Los Angeles Police Crime Lab ( retired ), testified that the bullet could not possibly have entered a human body, because during his examination he found no blood or tissue particles on it. The significance of the absence of both of these substances left no doubt, because according to Jones, blood and tissue residue would have remained on the bullet for years. Collard was acquitted. Compare this with the condition of CE 399 when it was received at the FBI lab for examination: Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it? Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way. ( Testimony of Robert Frazier in 3 H 428 ) Keep in mind that Frazier received the bullet from agent Elmer Todd on November 22, 1963, the same day of the assassination ( ibid.) and the bullet was clean !!!! This wasn't years afer the assassination, this was the same day !!!!

THE most important fact in the dismantling of the Single Bullet theory is the lack of a bullet track through the body. Without the bullet track, there is no proof of a transiting bullet. The evidence indicates that the prosectors attempted to probe the back wound during the autopsy, but that the probe only went in to a depth of 3 inches. The probe did not exit the body in the front of the throat, and therefore, the throat wound was not a wound of exit. It's not rocket science, folks, FBI agents Siebert and O'Neill noted in their report on the autopsy that there was "no exit" for the back wound. The attempted probing proved it. The back and throat wounds were not connected, except in the minds of those who believe the BS published by the Warren Commission.

How did Roscoe White end up with a "backyard" photo ?

"....the idea that Dallas has some right or prerogative to control free speech flies straight in the face of an over-arching global reality." http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-03-15/news/the-sixth-s-floor-s-message-to-history-just-hush-now/

I knew someone would use the word "license" in his argument against. Somehow I knew it would be you. You seem to have a problem with a lot of what I post. "A few states require the obtaining of a permit to purchase, or the possession of a license to carry, as a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm. Along this line, Texas requires a certificate of good character from the judge of the county of residence....." http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FJK.htm Do you understand that the certificate of good character in Texas was a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm ? As a prerequisite requirement to purchase, it WAS the permit/license and as such was required by Federal law. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. Because if I'm wrong, I would like someone to prove it to me rather than play on the semantics of words.

That's bullxxxx. Federal law required copies of documents necessary for state purchases to be sent to sellers for interstate purchases. Maybe you should find yourself an "expert" other than Gary Mack. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 prohibited the sale of handguns to criminals. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Ascione1.html The Texas "certificate of character" was necessary to satisfy that condition. The Act also required a copy of a permit or license in states where such documents ( such as the certificate ) were required. Manufacturer or dealer: "This group is forbidden to ship, transport, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm or ammunition unless licensed to do so and even if licensed, anyone within the group cannot ship or transport any firearm to any person in any state which requires a license for the purchase of a firearm, unless such license is exhibited to the manufacturer or dealer by the prospective purchaser, or unless the purchaser is another dealer or manufacturer licensed under the Act. " There's no such thing as the certificate only being required in Texas. If the certificate was required in Texas, a copy of it would have had to have been produced to the out-of-state sellers under the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. That's not my opinion, that was THE LAW. And Federal Law always supercedes state law. Now go and run to Gary Mack and tell him that.

Please show us the evidence of this.

No I can't because the Subcommittee never published a report. It also never made any recommendations. It's work was never released to the public, although it remains in the public record. But I do have evidence that a "certificate of good character" was needed for a handgun purchase in Texas in 1963. The support comes from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which did a law review in 1950 on gun control. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FJK.htm Part way down the page, you'll read: Permit to Purchase. A few states require the obtaining of a permit to purchase, or the possession of a license to carry, as a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm. Along this line, Texas requires a certificate of good character from the judge of the county of residence, and New Hampshire a permit only for felons and aliens.[ 39 ] The # 39 footnote references TEX. PENAL CODE, art. 489a (Vernon, 1925) And no, I don't have that book either. But the point is that until the Federal Firearms Act of 1968, the states determined how its citizens obtained handguns. In Texas, the requirement was clear: a handgun purchase had to be approved by a judge in the county where you lived. And that was the law from at least 1925. Since no evidence exists that the law was changed between 1950 and 1963, and since the Subcommittee cited the same Texas requirement in 1963 as the U of P Law Review did in 1950, we must conclude that what was the law in 1925 and 1950 was the law in 1963 as well. Absent evidence to the contrary, of that there can be no doubt.

Jim, here's something else to consider: Anytime you require a document from a JUDGE, you have to provide him with information. In order to have received a "certificate of good character" from a judge in the county where you reside, the required piece of information would have been proof of identity, with which he would have reviewed court documents to find out if you had a record of a violent past or were a convicted felon. If he found evidence of that, the request for the certificate would have been denied. More importantly, the proof of identity requirement would have made it impossible for someone to have obtained such a certificate using an alias. That's probbably why no copy of any such "certificate of good character" exists.