Gil Jesus

I didn't know Rich for as long as some of you folks did. I didn't even know he was sick. My correspondence with him was only through the internet. But even in that short period, I could tell that there was something special about him. He captivated me with his talk of having seen another version of the Z-film. http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...Wv2kk#PPA464,M1 The news of his passing has come to me, as it has to many of you, as a great shock and a deep personal loss. Reading the posts here I can see how much this man meant to the research community. We have lost a giant, my friends. My deepest and most heartfelt prayers and condolences for his family.

http://i46.tinypic.com/ngyk9h.jpg

I'm just curious, but does anyone know how mud got on the front tires of the limo ?

John I beleive that the interior lights worked on cars back then when the doors opened. We had a 1953 Oldsmobile 88 whose interior lights would go on when the door was open or ajar. Whether or not the interior light on Frazier's car worked or not I guess is speculative. Added info: On some of those old 4-door cars, the interior lights only worked with the front doors. Whether or not that was true with the '54 Chevy, I don't remember. I'm in the process of trying to find that out. Our '53 Olds was a 2-door.

John I beleive that the interior lights worked on cars back then when the doors opened. We had a 1953 Oldsmobile 88 whose interior lights would go on when the door was open or ajar. Whether or not the interior light on Frazier's car worked or not I guess is speculative.

In CE 446 and 447 it looks like there is are windows on that far wall with some sort of shades. If so, perhaps they were open that day or in a position where she could still see what was going on. Nonsense. There's no windows in the outer wall of the carport. Sunrise and sunset conventionally refer to the times when the upper edge of the disk of the Sun is on the horizon. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.php Sunrise on the morning of November 22, 1963 occurred at 7:03 AM, about 15 minutes before Oswald showed up at the Frazier home.. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astr...l=-11&day=1 Most states require drivers to have their headlights on from 1/2 hour after sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset, especially on days where the weather is bad. On the morning of November 22, 1963 it was rainy. AND IT WAS DARK. So dark that Frazier had to use his headlights on the way to work. And because he had an old car with an old battery, he had to charge his battery when he got to the parking lot of the TSBD: Mr. FRAZIER. I was letting my engine run and getting to charge up my battery,.... ( 2 H 227-228 ) Frazier monitored his Generator gauge for a few minutes before turning the engine off: Mr. FRAZIER. ....I was watching the gages and watched the car for a few minutes before I cut it off. ( 2 H 228 ) This is all evidence that Frazier used his headlights on the way to work and because of the voltage draw on the battery, he needed to charge the battery when he got to work. Frazier needed to use his headlights because it was DARK outside. The combination of the late sunrise and the dismal weather conditions made it unlikely that he saw any package on the back seat of his car. It also explains why he could be so wrong in his description of HOW Oswald carried the package into the building, something that has been debunked time and time again. Not only is Frazier's description not supported by the physical evidence, it was physically impossible. I believe that it was too dark that morning for Randle to have seen Oswald put a package in the car.

I believe that the "Lamb Chop" doll was given to Mrs. Kennedy by a family during the motorcade. The procession stopped when it reached a family holding a sign that said, "Mr. President, please stop and shake our hands". Kennedy had the limo stop and did just that. The stop and the elation of the family can be seen in the motorcade video produced by Bob Groden.

Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway. Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car. Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor but I just know he put it in the back. ( 2 H 248-249 ) Randle "didn't recognize", "wondered" and "assumed" because the outer wall of the carport prevented her from seeing what was going on on the other side of it. (CE 446 , CE 447 ) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0097a.htm Mrs. RANDLE. .....Wesley's car was on the other side of the carport ..... ( 2 H 251 ) It was actually on the other side of the outer wall of the carport.

I find this all very interesting. But am confused by the big picture. Are you speculating that those framing Oswald obtained a 40 inch M/C rifle in 62, and then somehow arranged for Oswald to buy a 36 inch in 63 with the same number, so they could later switch them? And that the 40 inch, not even sighted in, was used in the assassination? I mean, why go to the trouble? Why not just use Oswald's rifle, ignored for months in an unlocked garage? Or are you trying to claim neither rifle was used in the assassination, but that the 40 inch was planted, since they couldn't find Oswald's rifle or a 36 inch model with the same number as the rifle Oswald had purchased? I suspect you're onto something, but I just can't put it together in a way that makes sense. I'll give you my opinion: Neither rifle was used in the assassination. The 40" rifle was planted. It was seen on the morning of the assassination being unloaded from a truck by Julia Ann Mercer. The records for the 40" rifle were turned over to the FBI and disappeared. The FBI then used the records for the 36" rifle, which had the same serial number as the 40" rifle as the "official" record. The reason why the 36" rifle wasn't planted may have been that they either couldn't get Oswald to take it into the building or that it was not Oswald's at the time of the murder. Pat, it wasn't necessary for them to arrange for Oswald to buy a rifle in 1963 with the same SN as the 1962 rifle. There were different rifles with the same SN. When the FBI requested that Crescent Firearms provide them with the records of C2766, Crescent gave them the records of the 1962 rifle. That rifle could have been sold by Klein's anytime from June 1962 until the assassination. Thanks to the FBI, we'll never know when or to whom it was sold. Klein's did a lot of mail order firearm business. They were also under investigation by the US Government at about the time Oswald allegedly ordered his rifle. After Oswald's purchase was made, could a Federal Investigator walk into Klein's under the pretense of that investigation and "confiscate" a 40" C2766 rifle and it's records ? It seems to me that obtaining a rifle with the same SN as the one allegedly ordered by Oswald would have been easy for anyone in officialdom either before or after the assassination. On the condition that they knew the serial number. Where they screwed up was that they planted a weapon that was different.

Hi, Jack, If you have the inclination, you can read the entire thread referenced above, titled "The Rifle," for Mr. Purvis's take on the sling mount (and other things -- including the conclusion, reiterated here by Mr. Jesus, that there are numerous Carcanos with C2766 stamped on the barrell). But since my guess is that you've probably got better things to do, let me summarize: Mr. Purvis discovered that the sling mount is adjustable and can mount in different ways. With the sling mounted on the right side of the weapon and with the weapon held at the angle in which it is held in the backyard photos, this leads to the impression in those backyard photos that the sling is mounted on the bottom of the weapon. Mr. Purvis demonstrated this effect (pursuasively in my opinion) in the original post using his own photographs of his own 91/38 weapon. Unfortunately, those photos are no longer part of the thread, having been deleted, I would presume, for Mr. Purvis to create space for himself to post other attachments in other threads. You contemporaneously posted your disagreements with Mr. Purvis in the original thread. So I seriously doubt that my summary here will sway you now. Again, I point this out to Mr. Jesus not to contradict his overall conclusion, for I believe there is ample other evidence that the Carcano in evidence is not the weapon ordered by "Hidell." ALF Contrary to Purvis, photos show that the sling rings CANNOT be mounted different ways. I do not have time right not to show you photos that show that side mounts and bottom mounts are completely DIFFERENT, but you can research it yourself like I did. Thanks for your opinion. Jack Jack, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.....but the side mounts are on the LEFT side of the rifle, meaning that if Oswald were holding the rifle in such a position as to allow the side mount to appear to be on the bottom of the rifle, the front sight at the end of the barrel would have to be facing toward Oswald's rear and thus would not visible to the camera. Yet we see the front sight in CE 133-A and CE 134 . http://i47.tinypic.com/2dux9pu.jpg Also, the relationship between the rifle and Oswald's hand indicates that Oswald is holding the rifle with the wide side toward the camera, rather than "sideways" as he would have to do in order for the side mount ring to hang below the rifle. I agree with you, the mounts are COMPLETELY different. http://i49.tinypic.com/205qlbq.jpg Even in CE 133-B we see the rope sling attached to a bottom sling mount: http://i31.tinypic.com/ohrb4m.jpg

Yes I am very suspicious in the role that the Dallas Post Office played in the framing of Oswald. When Holmes presented the "ad" to the Warren Commission, he presented the ad for the 40" rifle that was displayed in the November 1963 issue of Guns & Ammo ( Holmes Ex. 2, 20H 174 ) . http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol20_0097b.htm And he presented it as a "replica" ad, something it was clearly not. It was a different length and carried a different catalog number. Notice also that Oswald uses the wrong address for his application for PO Box 6225 on November 1, 1963: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol20_0096b.htm I believe that Oswald may have suspected that he was being stalked through the Post Office.

Hi, Jack, If you have the inclination, you can read the entire thread referenced above, titled "The Rifle," for Mr. Purvis's take on the sling mount (and other things -- including the conclusion, reiterated here by Mr. Jesus, that there are numerous Carcanos with C2766 stamped on the barrell). But since my guess is that you've probably got better things to do, let me summarize: Mr. Purvis discovered that the sling mount is adjustable and can mount in different ways. With the sling mounted on the right side of the weapon and with the weapon held at the angle in which it is held in the backyard photos, this leads to the impression in those backyard photos that the sling is mounted on the bottom of the weapon. Mr. Purvis demonstrated this effect (pursuasively in my opinion) in the original post using his own photographs of his own 91/38 weapon. Unfortunately, those photos are no longer part of the thread, having been deleted, I would presume, for Mr. Purvis to create space for himself to post other attachments in other threads. You contemporaneously posted your disagreements with Mr. Purvis in the original thread. So I seriously doubt that my summary here will sway you now. Again, I point this out to Mr. Jesus not to contradict his overall conclusion, for I believe there is ample other evidence that the Carcano in evidence is not the weapon ordered by "Hidell." ALF I would respectfully disagree. I don't know what photographs Purvis used to "prove" the mount was adjustable. The rifles with bottom sling mounts had the sling mounts on the bottom front and rear. The rifles with the side sling mounts had the mounts on the side front and rear. The is obvious in comparing the Depsoitory Carcano with the below photo of a MC with bottom mounts. Did Purvis adjust the front mount or both the front and rear mounts ? Here is a comparison of the front mount, one on the bottom and one on the side. Note also that the rifle with the front bottom mount has a bottom mount in the rear, unlike the Depository Carcano, which has the rear mount on the side. http://i49.tinypic.com/205qlbq.jpg The front mounts don't even match, no matter how much you turn them. In one, the ring would go through a hole, in the other, the ring is permanently attached to the mount. IMO, they're not the same mount.

And that site contributed to my conclusion. Jerry McLeer displays TWO Mannlicher Carcanos with serial number C2766 and PROVES they are different rifles by examining the script of the Letter "C" and the number "2". It's obvious tot he naked eye that the "C" on one rifle has a serif while the "C" in the other does not. Also, the WC requested that the FBI trace the shipping records for a 6.5 M-C bearing serial number 2766. The FBI did so and the results are in CE 2562. That means that there were at least FOUR rifles with the serial number 2766 in existance: Lattimer's rifle, the 2766 rifle and two sold to Klein's. And three of them had the "C" prefix. Now ask yourself this: How many more 2766 rifles were out there and how difficult would it have been to add a C to the front of any of those 2766 serial numbers ? That COULD explain the difference in script.

By Gil Jesus ( 2010 ) Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE 6.5 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766 The 40" rifle currently in evidence is not the only 6.5 Mannlicher- Carcano with the serial number of C2766. On page 250 of his book, Kennedy and Lincoln, the late Dr. John K. Lattimer said the following: "In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, model 91-38, serial number C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company four power telescope exactly like Oswald's." http://i45.tinypic.com/2hmingh.jpg But Lattimer's wasn't the only 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano with serial number C2766. Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE 6.5 ITALIAN RIFLE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766 In volume 11, page 205 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Louis Feldsott, president of Crescent Firearms, in a sworn affidavit to the Commission, claimed that he was contacted by the FBI on the evening of November 22, 1963. They requested that he check his files to see if he had any records concerning the sale of an Italian-made 6.5 mm. rifle with the serial number C2766. When he checked, he found that he had records indicating the rifle was sold to Klein's Sporting Goods on June 18, 1962. This information of the 6.5 rifle with the serial number C2766, he said, was conveyed to the FBI on the evening of November 22, 1963 and all records of the purchase, sale and transportation of the weapon were given to the FBI. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol11_0108a.htm In their tracing of the shipping records of the C 2766 rifle, however, the FBI makes no mention of the June 1962 sale. They cite, instead, the February, 1963 sale of 100 rifles from the same dealer, Crescent Firearms, to Klein's. In that shipment is a list of the rifles' serial numbers. Included in the list is a 6.5 rifle serial number C 2766. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0361b.htm But thanks to the affidavit of Louis Feldsott, we have evidence that Klein's bought two C 2766 rifles from Crescent Firearms: one in June 1962 and the other in February 1963. I'll get back to the June 1962 rifle later. Right now I'd like to concentrate on the February, 1963 rifle. Reason #3. THE FEBRUARY 1963 RIFLE SHIPMENT WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE, NOT THE 40" RIFLE. The FBI traced the sale of the 40" C2766 rifle backward and claimed that it was a part of a shipment of 100 rifles weighing 750 lbs. that was sent to Klein's from Crescent Firearms in February, 1963. But one researcher found evidence that the shipment was for 36" rifles ONLY. In researching for her excellent article on the Oswald rifle, JFK assassination researcher Martha Moyer checked on wooden shipping containers used in transporting weapons, and found that all the containers weighed between 16 and 20 pounds. The 36-inch weapon allegedly ordered by "Hidell" was advertised as weighing 5 1/2 pounds. The total weight of 100 such weapons would be 550 pounds. Added to the weight range of ten wooden shipping containers the result would be a total of between 710 and 750 pounds. The delivery receipt from Lifschultz Fast Freight listed the freight as 10 crates/cartons of guns/rifles and listed the weight at 750 lbs. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0359a.htm Had the shipment been of the 40" rifles, at 7 lbs. each, the total weight including 160-200 lbs. for the crates would have been in the 860-900 lb. range. Instead, the 750 lbs. consisted of 10 crates at 20 lbs each ( 200 ) and 100 rifles at 5.5 lbs. each ( 550 ) In other words, the shipment received by Klein's in February, 1963 was indeed a shipment of 36-inch weapons. http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf Reason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE Waldman Exhibit 8 is a copy of the order blank used by "A.Hidell " to order the rifle from Klein's. On that order form, taken from the February, 1963 edition of American Rifleman, one can see that Oswald ordered catalog # C20-T750, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0364b.htm which is the 36" rifle as advertised. http://i46.tinypic.com/15p0k7k.jpg One can also see that the 40" rifle had a different catalog number, C20-750. http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE 36" RIFLE Waldman Exhibit 7 is the copy of the shipping manifest that accompanies the rifle when shipped. It clearly states that the catalog number of the shipped item is C20-T750 and not C20-750. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0364a.htm The ONLY difference in the catalog numbers is the difference between the 36" rifle and the 40" rifle. http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg How important was the catalog number to the folks doing the shipping ? William Waldman, VP of Klein's Sporting Goods, told the WC that the catalog numbers for rifles ordered with scopes were different than for the same rifle without a scope and that the different number described "the rifle, scope and mount". ( 7 H 362-363 ) Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE. The shipping cost is noted in two places, where it says "PP=1.50" for the cost of Parcel Post, and again in the handwritten column where it says 150. This is exactly the amount sent by "Hidell" to ship the 36 " rifle. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0364a.htm Reason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1963 Klein's 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962 through November, 1963. http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf Which means, folks, that Klein's hadn't run out of them at the time of the "Hidell" order. Reason # 8. KLEIN'S DIDN'T START SELLING THE 40" RIFLE UNTIL APRIL, 1963 No 40" Italian rifle was advertised by Klein's in The American Rifleman magazine from October 1962 through February 1963. According to assassination researcher/author and former detective Ian Griggs, the 40" "carbine" began to be advertised in The American Rifleman in April, 1963. Field and Stream did not begin advertising the 40-inch Italian weapon until September, 1963. It was from the November issue that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes submitted his exhibit # 2 as a "duplicate" to the ad "Hidell" ordered from . ( 20 H 174 ) Many of the Warren Commission apologists contend that Klein's shipped a 40" rifle in lieu of the advertised rifle because they had run out of the 36's. But the evidence so far indicates otherwise. In order to believe that the 40" rifle was shipped to "A. Hidell", you must believe ALL of the following: a.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle without notifying the customer that the rifle he ordered was out of stock. b.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered without giving the customer the option of a refund. c.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered and used the wrong catalog number. d.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that was 40% heavier for the same price as the rifle ordered and absorbed any additional shipping charges and e.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that had not yet been advertised yet for sale and continued to advertise a rifle that they no longer had. In my opinion, that's quite a stretch. Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLE The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78) The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp, their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the package deal with the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78) http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html In addition, FBI expert Robert Frazier testified to the WC that in order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted the scope on the rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle with a scope and then had to tell Klein's where on the frame to mount the scope. Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination. In this connection, WE DID INFORM THEM THAT THE SCOPE SHOULD BE IN APPROXIMATELY THIS POSITION ON THE FRAME OF THE WEAPON. Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you-- Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring. ( 3 H 396 ) So the FBI told Klein's what "position on the frame" "the scope should be in". Information that Klein's would not have needed had they normally mounted "scopes of this type on these rifles". It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted "in-house". Reason #10. THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY CARCANO If the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs" is the rifle that "A.Hidell" ordered, then the rifle removed from the Texas School Book Depository is not. The reason is that the rifle in CE 134 ( an enlargement of CE 133-A ) shows a rifle with a front bottom sling mount, whereas the rifle removed from the Depository is a rifle with side sling mounts. http://i42.tinypic.com/25z4g3k.jpg http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html The subject is covered on my youtube channel in a video entitled, "One Rifle or Two ?" CONCLUSIONS: There was more than one 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano with serial number C2766. Besides John Lattimer's rifle, there's evidence that Klein's bought two C2766's from Crescent Firearms, one in June 1962 and the other in February, 1963. I've discussed fully the February 1963 rifle. It is my conclusion that the February 1963 shipment of rifles to Klein's was of the 36" rifle and that one of those, serial number C2766 was shipped to "A.Hidell". I base this on the evidence of the weight of the rifles and their crates and the list of the serial numbers in the shipment. I also conclude that "A.Hidell" ordered a 36" rifle and that he was shipped a 36" rifle. I base that conclusion on the fact that the catalog number "Hidell" ordered was the same as the catalog number of the 36" rifle with the scope, that the shipping manifest indicated that the catalog number shipped was the same as the 36" rifle with the scope, and that the cost of the shipping was the same as the 36" rifle. I have found no evidence in the shipping documentation or in the testimony that would lead me to conclude that "Hidell" was ever shipped a 40" rifle or a rifle that weighed 7 lbs, 11 1/4 oz. In fact, I have found no evidence that any other rifle was shipped to "Hidell" than the rifle he ordered. And now for the June 1962 C2766. What follows next is my own opinion, it is speculative because the evidence that would prove or disprove what I have to say no longer exists. I believe that the 40" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano now in evidence is a stage prop. I believe that this is the C2766 rifle that was sold to Klein's in June, 1962, the rifle whose records were turned over to the FBI on November 22, 1963, only to disappear (like much of the evidence that didn't support the offical version disappeared ) into thin air. I believe that the records of this weapon would have indicated who purchased it and as such, would have revealed the identity of the person or persons who framed Oswald. And because of this, these records would never see the light of day. In my opinion, the person or persons who were responsible for framing Oswald would have had to know where he was living, his political views, his weapons purchases and other pertinent information.

Because of the overwhelming success of my current Youtube Channel and its need to expand, I am taking the following action: Over the next few months, I am going to be moving the assassination- related videos to a new channel. I will maintain the old channel for the speeches, historical videos, newsreels and the like. http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude But the new channel will be devoted ENTIRELY to the assassination. http://www.youtube.com/user/JFK63Conspiracy Until I can get all of the current assassination videos over onto the new channel, they will remain intact on the old one. Thanks for your patience. Gil Jesus

You're welcome. ( smile)

More info on Vaughan at the Rossley website: http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm

If the witnesses truly saw Oswald kill Tippit, then no "extreme measures" were necessary, including lying to the WC about the physical appearances of the fillers. We shall agree to disagree then.

Was the Conduct of the Police Lineups PROOF of Oswald's innocence ? by Gil Jesus ( 2009 ) WHAT IS A POLICE LINEUP ? A police lineup is a process by which a crime victim or witness's putative identification of a suspect is confirmed to a level that can count as evidence at trial. The suspect, along with several other individuals ( which I will be referring to as "fillers" ) of similar height, complexion and build stand both facing and in profile. This is sometimes done in a special room which includes details like a height measurement grade on the wall to aid identifying the person's height. The person making the identification views from behind a one-way mirror or similar protection to guarantee the suspect identified by the witness cannot know the identity of the witness. If the victim or witness successfully identifies the suspect from among the fillers, the identification is considered valid. For evidence from a lineup to be admissible in court, the lineup itself must be conducted fairly. The police may not say or do anything that persuades the witness to identify the suspect that they prefer. This includes loading the lineup with people who look very dissimilar to the suspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_lineup There are two common types of lineups: simultaneous and sequential. In a simultaneous lineup, the eyewitness views all the people or photos at the same time. In a sequential lineup, people or photographs are presented to the witness one at a time. The Dallas Police used a simultaneous type for the live lineups in this case. Typically, the law enforcement official or lineup administrator knows who the suspect is. Experts suggest that lineup administrators might—whether purposefully or inadvertently—give the witness verbal or nonverbal cues as to the identity of the suspect. For instance, if an eyewitness utters the number of a filler, the lineup administrator may say to the witness, “Take your time . . . . Make sure you look at all of them.” Such a statement may effectively lead the witness away from the filler. According to the National Institute of Justice, which is the research and development agency of the US Department of Justice, several variables might effect the validity of police lineups. 1. Whether the person administering the lineup knows which person in the lineup is the suspect. 2. Instructions given to the witness, including saying or implying that the suspect will be present. 3. Use of lineup "fillers" who do not resemble the suspect, thus making the suspect stand out. For example, the suspect has dark hair, but only one of five people in the lineup has dark hair. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/258/...ce-lineups.html And finally, multiple witnesses viewing the same lineup must do so separately----not together. Were the Dallas Police Department's lineups valid ? POLICE EMPLOYEES WERE USED IN THE FIRST TWO LINEUPS The three other participants in the first two lineups were Dallas Police employees. William Perry and Richard Clark were detectives in the Vice Division and Don Ables was a clerk in the jail. Detective L. C. Graves told the Warren Commission that the way "fillers" were selected for lineups was that the homicide division would call down to the jail office, tell them which prisoner they wanted to show and ask them to provide two, three or four other prisoners who were the approximate age and size as the prisoner they were showing. ( 7 H 253 ) But this is not the way that the "fillers" were selected for the first two lineups in this case. William Perry testified that Capt. Fritz called the vice unit, not the jail, and requested two officers ( 7 H 233 ) Perry's partner Clark confirmed it was Fritz who made the request ( 7 H 236 ) Detective Jim Leavelle testified that the Dallas Police "didn't normally" use police officers in lineups ( 7 H 262 ) Fritz testified that he "borrowed those officers" because he feared other prisoners would harm Oswald and that "we didn't have an officer in my office the right size to show with him so I asked two of the special service officers if they would help me". ( 4 H 212 ) Less than 4 hours later, however, at the 7:55 pm lineup, Oswald was handcuffed to two other prisoners. In Saturday's lineup, ALL of the fillers were prisoners. So much for Fritz's fear for Oswald's safety. THE "FILLERS" WERE NOT DRESSED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO OSWALD " I know in all cases we usually try to have them dressed as alike as possible, the same as each other." --- Sgt. James Leavelle ( 7 H 265 ) Capt. Fritz testified that the three police "fillers" "took off their coats and neckties and fixed themselves where they would look like prisoners" and were not dressed any better than Oswald. ( 4 H 212 ) But when questioned by the WC, "filler" William Perry testified that he put on a brown sports coat for both lineups. ( 7 H 233 ) "Filler" RL Clark testified that he was wearing a white short sleeved shirt and a red vest for both lineups. He also testified that he got the red vest and Perry got the brown sports coat FROM THE HOMICIDE OFFICE. ( 7 H 236 ) Don Ables testified that he had on a white shirt and a grey knit sweater for both lineups. ( 7 H 240 ) But Oswald was wearing Commission Exhibit 150 for both lineups, the shirt that has a frayed hole in the elbow. ( 4 H 73 ) Detective Elmer Boyd admitted under oath that the three police employees WERE dressed better than Oswald. ( 7 H 127 ) Fritz lied to the Commission when he testified that the police officers "fixed themselves where they would look like prisoners" . Prisoners don't wear red vests or brown sport coats. And it's not a mistake that Fritz could have made unintentionally because Fritz testified that he was present at the first lineup for Helen Markham ( 4 H 212 ) and Det. Clark testified that those items of clothing were taken from the homicide office. THE PERSON ADMINISTERING THE LINEUP KNEW WHICH PERSON IN THE LINEUP WAS THE SUSPECT Jim Leavelle conducted lineup #'s 1,3 and 4 and spoke to the witnesses prior to lineup 2. Leavelle indicated in testimony that he knew that two officers from the Vice Unit and a jail clerk had been used for the first lineup. ( 7 H 263-264 ) Leavelle also testified that he had seen Oswald, " the first day he was arrested and when they brought him in and out of the office taking him to and from the jail, and of course, I had saw him at the lineups, what-have-you ". ( 7 H 268 ) So Leavelle, by his own admission, was more than aware that Oswald was the suspect. He knew it. Detective Sims conducted lineup # 2 at 6:30 pm on Friday. According to Capt. Fritz, Sims was present at the first interrogation session between 2:15 and 4:05 ( 4 H 209 ) and thus knew that Oswald was the suspect prior to his conducting the 6:30 lineup. In addition, Sims testified that he KNEW ALL THREE OF THE POLICE FILLERS that were used in the lineup he conducted. ( 7 H 179 ) IT WAS INDICATED TO THE WITNESSES THAT THE PERPERTRATOR WAS PRESENT IN THE LINEUP In his testimony, Callaway quoted what Detective Jim Leavelle told himself, Guinyard and McWatters before they viewed lineup # 2 : Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself......and Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification.........We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." ( 3 H 355 ) Leavelle was telling them that the suspect in Tippit's killing was in the lineup they were about to see. THE "FILLERS" DID NOT RESEMBLE EITHER THE PERPERTRATOR OR THE SUSPECT "Let me say this, that it would be very unusual if we had a showup and .........if they put anything other than men that fit their approximate size and age in there with them......because we just don't operate that way." --- Dallas Detective L. C. Graves ( 7 H 253 ) Mrs. Markham's description of the Tippit killer as given to Officer J.M. Poe was a white male, about 25, about 5 feet 8, brown hair, medium build . ( 7 H 68 ) She also testified that the man who she saw shoot Tippit "wasn't too heavy." ( 3 H 317-318 ) And she gave a completely different description of the killer to FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum. She told him that the killer was a white male, about 18, black hair, red complexion ( 3 H 318 ) Ted Callaway, who viewed the exact same lineup as Mrs. Markham about two hours later, described the killer as a man with dark hair and a fair complexion ( 3 H 356 ) Howard Brennan described the Kennedy killer as early 30's , fair complexion, slender. So how did the physical attributes of the "fillers" in the first two lineups compare to the descriptions given by the witnesses who viewed them ? Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair dark complexion ( 7 H 235, 7 H 168 ) Clark was 31 yo 5-11 177 blond hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 239, 7 H 168 ) Ables was 26 yo 5-9 165 dark hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 242-243, 7 H 168 ) Elmer Boyd told the Commission that they "always tell them to get the same color". ( 7 H 131 ) But Sam Guinyard testified that the men in the second lineup ( who were the same men as was in the first ) were NOT the same color ( 7 H 399 ) Markham, Guinyard, Callaway and even Brennan all viewed the exact same lineup, with the exact same "fillers" in the exact same positions, dressed exactly the same. The fillers were all too dark, too blond and too heavy with the completely wrong complexion to match the descriptions of the witnesses. As if having one blond in the first two lineups was not enough, the Dallas Police put TWO blonds in the lineup with Oswald and Ables for lineup # 3. ( 7 H 179 ) In this lineup, the witnesses, Barbara and Virginia Davis described the man they saw running across their lawn as a white male, slender, light complexion, with either light brown or black hair ( 3 H 349 ) ( 6 H 457 ). But both fillers Richard Walter Borchgardt and Ellis Carl Brazel had blond hair, and a ruddy complexion. ( 7 H 179 ) And Ables also had a ruddy complexion ( 7 H 242-243, 7 H 168 ) In his testimony, taxicab driver William Scoggins described the murderer of Tippit as a white male, light complexion, 25-26, medium height and weight, with either medium brown or dark hair ( 3 H 333 ) But Lineup # 4 "filler" John Thurman Horne was 17 and "filler" David Edmond Knapp was 18. ( 7 H 200 ) The final "filler" for the fourth lineup was Daniel Lujan, a 26 year old Mexican who was on the heavy side at 5-8 and 170. ( 7 H 245 ) This is what the NIJ says about providing fillers for police lineups : "Fillers who do not resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator may cause a suspect to stand out." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/258/...ce-lineups.html THE WITNESSES DID NOT VIEW THE LINEUP SEPARATELY In the second, third and fourth lineups, the witnesses were allowed to view the lineups as a group, rather than separately. Sam Guinyard testified that during the second lineup he and Ted Callaway sat only 3-4 feet apart from one another. ( 7 H 400 ) Virginia Davis testified that during the third lineup, Barbara was sitting right next to her. ( 6 H 462 ) Whaley and Scoggins viewed the fourth lineup together. ( 3 H 337 ) THE WITNESSES KNEW WHICH MAN WAS THE SUSPECT BEFORE THEY WITNESSED THE LINEUP Scoggins testified that he saw Oswald's picture in the morning paper. ( 3 H 334-335 ) Brennan testified that he saw Oswald on TV. ( 3 H 155 ) ALL OF THE MEN WERE NOT HANDCUFFED TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST LINEUP Detective Clark testified that Don Ables was NOT handcuffed to him for the first lineup. ( 7 H 237 ) As soon as he says that, they immediately go off the record for a "discussion". Joseph Ball asked Ables if he were ever handcuffed to Oswald. ( 7 H 242 ) But he already knew that Ables wasn't handcuffed to Oswald because three days previously both detectives Boyd and Sims had told him in testimony that Oswald was # 2 and Ables was # 4. And detective Clark had just appeared before Ball prior to Ables and confirmed that fact. So Ball asked Ables a question he already knew the answer to, but he never asked Ables if he was handcuffed to Clark. Instead, he asked Capt. Fritz, and detectives Boyd and Sims, Fritz, who was present for the first lineup, said he "didn't remember for sure". ( 4 H 212 ) Then Boyd was asked if it was usual to have all the participants handcuffed with the suspect. His response was that it was. When he was asked if he knew why it wasn't done in this case his response was that he did not know. ( 7 H 125 ) But two pages later, Boyd is again asked if they were all handcuffed together. He takes the cue from Ball and says they were. His partner, Richard Sims said that all the participants were handcuffed together. ( 7 H 167 ) By not having Ables handcuffed to Clark, the authorities created the image of BEATEN AND BATTERED prisoner Oswald being handcuffed to a police officer on either side, rather than the image of four prisoners handcuffed together. WITNESSES WERE INFLUENCED BY PHYSICAL APPEARANCES OF THE "FILLERS" Dr. Gary Wells, an Iowa State University psychologist who has researched identifications by witnesses since the mid-1970s describes what a witness sees in a lineup. He says, "The tendency is to pick the one who looks most like the person you saw. It becomes more about reasoning than memory." "...... the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men ........The only one I could identify at all would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come near fitting the description." ---- Cecil McWatters ( 2 H 281 ) When Howard Brennan viewed the second lineup on November 22nd, he chose Oswald as the one who "most resembled" the man he saw. ( 3 H 154-155 ) This phenomena of choosing the one who "looks like" rather than one who "is" is supported by research published in 1998 by a Wells-led team. In that research, subjects were shown a grainy film of a staged crime, then handed six photos. They weren't told whether the "criminal" they had seen was in the group of pictures. He wasn't, but nearly all of the subjects chose a picture anyway. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-1...over-usat_x.htm WITNESSES WERE INTIMIDATED BY THE AUTHORITIES Helen Markham testified to the pressure she was receiving at the first lineup: "When I saw this man I wasn't sure....and they kept asking me, 'which one, which one ? '...." ( 3 H 311 ) THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN DALLAS COUNTY HAD A REPUTATION FOR FRAMING INNOCENT PEOPLE They did it at least 19 other times that we know of. The proof of that has been the 19 convictions, 17 of those having occurred under former DA Henry Wade's regime, which have been overturned by DNA evidence since the 1980's . Wade's justice system in Dallas County was more interested in closing cases than it was in bringing the true perpetrators of crimes to justice. "Now in hindsight, we're finding lots of places where detectives in those cases, they kind of trimmed the corners to just get the case done," said Michelle Moore, a Dallas County public defender and president of the Innocence Project of Texas. "Whether that's the fault of the detectives or the DA's, I don't know." Typical Wade cases "were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark". John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blames a culture of "win at all costs." "When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys." http://www.ctka.net/2008/wade.html It didn't matter that there were killers out there still at large. As far as the authorities were concerned, once they made an arrest for a crime, they had the right man. CONCLUSION Most law enforcement officers and prosecutors are honest and trustworthy. But criminal justice is a human endeavor and the possibility for corruption always exists. The testimony from the hearings indicate that the Dallas Police had a procedure for the selection of "fillers" in their lineups. The testimony also shows that the police deviated from that procedure for the first two lineups because there was no one "the right size" to show with Oswald. The police then solved this dilemma by putting "fillers" in the lineups who, not only weren't even close to the descriptions given by the witnesses, they didn't even come close to resembling Oswald. They put guys in there who were darker skinned, heavier, had the wrong hair color, the wrong complexion, younger and older than either the witness descriptions of the killer, or the suspect Oswald. They put teenagers in the lineups. They put blonds in the lineups. They even put a minority in the last lineup. The purpose for such "selections" of "Fillers" was to insure that Oswald was the only one who even came close to matching the description of the killer and thus making him the only choice POSSIBLE. In the first lineup, the men were not all handcuffed together, only numbers 1-3 were handcuffed and since Oswald was # 2, this presented the mental image of prisoner Oswald between two better dressed detectives. Before the second lineup, Leavelle tipped off Callaway, Guinyard and McWatters that the Tippit killer was in the lineup. In the second, third and fourth lineups, the witnesses were allowed to view the lineup together, rather than separately. Both Davis women each claimed to have identified Oswald first, ( 3 H 350 ) ( 6 H 462 ) and since they were seated next to each other, it is a strong indication that they identified Oswald together. The Dallas Police did everything they possibly could do to influence the selection of Oswald, short of hanging a sign on him that said, "pick me" or showing him with three officers in uniform. That's how ridiculously biased these lineups were. Nowhere are the authorities efforts to lead the witnesses more blatant and obvious than on pages 310-311 of Volume 3 of the Hearings. Joseph Ball is trying to get Helen Markham to say that the # 2 man in the lineup was the one she saw kill Tippit. But Markham is not cooperating, insisting that she didn't recognize any of the men in the lineup "by their face". Frustrated, Ball asks the following leading question: "Was there a # 2 man in there ? " This seemingly ridiculous question ( of course there'd be a number 2 man in a four man lineup ) was used to lead witness Markham right to Oswald, and proves my point that not only did the authorities influence, but they even LED the witnesses in their identifications. If Oswald WAS guilty, the Dallas Police didn't NEED to put into the lineups men and boys who matched neither the description of the killer, nor Oswald. They didn't NEED to lie about how the lineup participants were similar or similarly dressed when in fact they were not. They didn't NEED to tip the witnesses that the suspect was in the lineup before they viewed it. They didn't NEED to have the witnesses view the lineups as a group. They didn't NEED to influence witness identifications or to lead witnesses in testimony. If Oswald WAS guilty, then none of these extremes were necessary and because they WERE taken, they can only lead us to one conclusion: Oswald was innocent of both murders. When the lineups are not valid, the identifications made from those lineups are likewise not valid. Therefore, the identifications made by Markham, Callaway, Guinyard, the Davises and Scoggins cannot be accepted as "positive identifications". I believe that all of these extreme steps, collectively, were not a series of coincidences nor were they the result of "good police work", but rather are the proof that Lee Harvey Oswald killed no one and that he was being framed for the murders of Jefferson Davis Tippit and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. What did the Commission say in its Report about the police lineups ? "The Commission is satisfied that the lineups were conducted fairly." ( Chap. 4 pg. 169 ) The evidence and testimony, however, does NOT support that conclusion.

Oswald "protested" that he didn't have a lawyer at the Tippit arraignment. By Texas law, he should have had one appointed for him at that time. It didn't happen. Those authorities present could not remember if he asked for one or not. They delayed his use of the phone until saturday afternoon, when his chances for securing counsel would have been greatly reduced. In the meantime, they lied to those who came forward offering legal assistance by telling them that Oswald had not asked for any. This is not normal procedure. In Part 2 of my examination of Oswald and the Dallas Police, I'll be looking at the police lineups. I believe that this is where the evidence is strong that the lineups were "stacked" against Oswald. That will be my next presentation on BlackOp. I'll let folks know ahead of time when that will be.

WAS OSWALD DENIED COUNSEL BY THE DALLAS AUTHORITIES ? By Gil Jesus ( 2009 ) Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald? Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on. ( 2 H 392 ) Lee Harvey Oswald claimed that the Dallas Police would not let him have a lawyer. He repeatedly asked for "someone to come forward and give me legal assistance". Nearly every single time he appeared before reporters, he lamented about not having counsel on his behalf. At the same time, the Dallas authorities were telling different stories to those who came forward in response to Oswald's pleas. One version was that Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. A second version was that Oswald had declined any and all legal assistance, save for one attorney named John Abt from New York. While Oswald did express a preference for Abt, he also requested a second choice --- any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged from doing so. OSWALD REQUESTS A LAWYER DURING THE FIRST INTERROGATION SESSION According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 1 ) Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 2 ) THE ACLU TO THE RESCUE....OR MAYBE NOT Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberites Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald's being denied counsel. According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323: He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests. This of course was a lie, because as I just mentioned, Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his "second choice" of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session, some 6-8 hours previously. ( 3 ) After deliberation, Olds and three others headed for Dallas Police Headquarters. Olds and his party arrived on the fourth floor, where they met Charles Webster, a lawyer and professor of law at SMU, who took them in to see Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that "Captain King ......assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel." Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: "Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was...... he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry." ( 4 ) So here we have two different stories: On the one hand the police say that Oswald was given the opportunity to request counsel and he didn't, and the judge saying that he declined counsel. And of course, we know that both of these accounts are lies because in his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 5 ) Later in his testimony, Hill reiterates: Mr. HILL .........he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his attorney. Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre? Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights. ( 6 ) Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference", where Oswald AGAIN publicly requested that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance". Having been discouraged by the police, the law professor and the judge from contacting Oswald, Olds was left to choose whom to believe....them or Oswald. It was a choice he'd later regret. He testified that... "......I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald, because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not." Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him? Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part. ( 7 ) We now know today that many of Wade's convictions in criminal court have been overturned. ( 8 ) Olds then told the Commission that the visit of Dallas Bar Association President H. Louis Nichols to speak with Oswald on Saturday went a long way in reasurring Olds' questions about suspected denial of counsel to Oswald: Mr. OLDS. Mr. Nichols went down late this afternoon, I think around 5:30, and he reported after that that he had seen Oswald in respect to the same reasons that we had for going down there Saturday night, to see if he wanted some sort of legal representation, and to make sure whether or not he was denied---being denied it, and he said that he was satisfied that--in essence, Oswald told Nichols he was satisfied with the situation. ( 9 ) BEFORE THE JUDGE At the midnight press conference, Oswald told reporters that he had appeared before a judge and had protested that he was not allowed a lawyer: " I was questioned by a judge. I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing." ---Lee Harvey Oswald In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request. Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases? 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. (10 ) None of the authorities who were present at Oswald's arraignment for the murder of JD Tippit, and who testified under oath before the Warren Commission, could recall what Oswald said during that hearing. The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 11 ) Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald said (12 ) The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 13 ) and Detective Richard Sims couldn't remember what either the judge or Oswald said. ( 14 ) What are the chances that every official who was called to give testimony on what Oswald said during the Tippit arraignment is going to have a total loss of memory ? OSWALD & THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers regarding the treatment of Oswald. One of the issues was Oswald's repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal representation. In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association. On saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal representation, wanted legal representation,or wanted it but had been denied of it. Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an inquiry. ( 15 ) Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer,so Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade said he'd pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him. ( 16 ) Of course, the reason why Wade's response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the evening before during the "Midnight Press Conference". After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald. But according to Nichols, he couldn't get a member of the criminal bar to go with him. When he contacted Henry Wade, Wade told him to go visit Oswald alone and to "tell him you will get him a lawyer". ( 17 ) To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone 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 ? In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was "connected" to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas. 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. ( 18 ) Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer: "Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him---" ( 19 ) Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday, the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for "someone to come forward to give me legal assistance" and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William Whaley, who testified: "He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer." ( 20) Nichols attempts to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to deliver a message to Oswald: I said, "Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one." ( 21 ) Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols "didn't know whether I wanted to or not at this point". I didn't know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer, and I didn't anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don't practice criminal law. ( 22 ) However, Nichols was pressured into going by a law professor from SMU. I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had transpired, what I had done, and I hadn't decided what should be done at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association. He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadn't been able to get one, and I told him that I had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done. It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon. ( 23 ) The law professor, in a sense, twists his arm as if saying, "It's been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn't asked for an attorney yet ?" When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief's office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to Oswald's cell himself. ( 24 ) When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment: Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he really didn't know what it was all about, that he was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I understand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague. ( 25 ) Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of President Kennedy, and he can't remember what was said in the exchange. Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word "incommunicado" to describe---- Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word. Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any---or indicate to you that he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of his choice? Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything. Just didn't elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN'T ASK HIM at that point. MY INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a lawyer and been refused..... I didn't go into the other questions, or whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn't been permitted. I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one. ( 26 ) In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the American Civil Liberites Union, Nichols told him that he didn't know Abt and he didn't know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but admitted under oath that "as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know ARE members". ( 27 ) According to Nichols' testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald: NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?" Oswald. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me. Nichols. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now. Oswald. No. ( 28 ) As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the press: "....As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a statement to the press, and I said, "Well, I don't know whether I do or not. I don't know whether it is the thing to do or not." And he said, "Well, they are going to be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We don't want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer. As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one." ( 29 ) Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his offer for help: "He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently--at least the conversation was that if he didn't get somebody to represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not appear to be irrational. He appeared to be calm. He turned down my offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn't get a lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that's all I know about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald." ( 30 ) Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald's request for John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. He never mentioned to the press Oswald's complaint of being held "incommunicado". CONFUSED CHIEF CURRY Chief Curry, the only witness to the exchange between Oswald and Nichols, could not remember which day it occurred, testifying that Nichols' visit was on Friday ( 31 ). Later in his testimony, Curry is told that Nichols' visit was on Saturday, not Friday. Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information that he came there on the Saturday afternoon. Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on Saturday. Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are. (Discussion off the record.) At that point, a "discussion off the record" is conducted and when the discussion comes back on the record, Curry's memory has improved. He tells the Commission that Nichols offered to provide counsel to Oswald, but Oswald "didn't care to at this time" but in the event he couldn't secure counsel for himself, he would "call on you later". Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question: Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another ? ( 32 ) THE SATURDAY CALL FBI agent James Bookhout testified that he attended two interrogation sessions of Oswald on November 23rd ( Saturday ). One was at 10:30 am and the second was at 6:30 pm. In the first one he attended, he said that Fritz gave Oswald directions on how to make a collect call. In the second Oswald thanked him for allowing him to make the call. Mr. BOOKHOUT. Yes, it was in this interview that he mentioned he wanted to contact Attorney Abt [spelling] A-b-t, New York City. I recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know what his address was, but he was in New York. I recall that Captain Fritz explained to him that he would allow him to place a long distance call for Abt, and he explained to Oswald how to ask the long distance operator to trace him down and locate him, even though Oswald didn't even know his address or telephone number. Mr. STERN. Did he actually make the call in your presence? Mr. BOOKHOUT. No; he didn't make the call in my presence. The next interview that we had with him, I recall that Captain Fritz asked him if he had been able to contact Mr. Abt. Oswald stated that he had made the telephone call and thanked Captain Fritz for allowing him to make the call, but actually he had not been able to talk to Abt. He wasn't available. Wasn't in his office or something---- ( 33 ) Bookhout's account is supported by Forrest Sorrels. ( 34 ) So Bookhout puts the time of Oswald's use of the phone between 11:30 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. William Whaley testified that Oswald was still screaming for his lawyer at the 2:30 lineup he viewed: Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer. ( 35 ) Ruth Paine testified that Oswald called her about 3:30 or 4 pm and asked her to contact John Abt after 6 pm. ( 36 ) Marguerite Oswald testified that she didn't see her son until sometime after 4:30 pm and that he told her that he'd already requested to get in touch with attorney Abt. (37 ) From the time of his arrest, the longer the wait for Oswald to contact an attorney, the less chance that that contact was going to be made. Try contacting a lawyer long distance in his New York office on a Saturday evening in 1963. Good luck. And the police knew this, which is why Oswald was held incommunicado through Friday and up until Saturday noon. The authorities could not allow him to come in contact with either counsel directly or family and friends, who would have sought counsel on his behalf. Once they were satisfied that his chances of securing counsel were next to nil, they allowed him to make the call. When Oswald couldn't contact Abt, because it was a collect call and there was no one there to accept the charges, he turned to Ruth Paine for help. Mrs. Paine testified that she called both numbers, home and office that Oswald had given her, but was unsuccessful in contacting Abt. When Oswald called back at 9:30 pm, she said that she "couldn't recall" whether she reported to him that she was unable to contact Abt. She could only tell the Commission that "something was said but I do not recall it specifically" ( 38 ) Mrs. Paine further told the Commission that "I am of the impression I again tried the home telephone of John Abt on Sunday morning, but I am not certain, and there was no answer. That I certainly remember." ( 39 ) When the Commission inquired if Mrs. Paine had ever attempted to report to Oswald that she was unable to contact attorney Abt, she was forced to admit that she "made no effort" to call the police station and speak with him. ( 40 ) The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls on Oswald's behalf ? And if she did, why didn't she keep Oswald informed of her progress ? John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut and on Saturday, the press "began to call me up there" and that "these calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning". ( 41 ) How could all of these reporters reach Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not ? Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn't Mrs. Paine, as a member of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so ? Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son. Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was doing nothing about it: "I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, "Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you." I said to myself 'but when ?' Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then ? So I wasn't too happy about that. ( 42 ) CONCLUSION The testimony presented in this narrative has shown that Lee Harvey Oswald requested a lawyer from the time of his arrest until late Saturday afternoon, when he contacted Ruth Paine for help. The testimony has also shown that Oswald was held incommunicado until after noon on Saturday. During that period between his arrest and the visit of his family, Oswald repeatedly pled for legal assistance and when the ACLU responded to that plea, they were lied to by the Dallas Police and chose to believe that lie. The Dallas Police were successful in keeping Oswald "incommunicado" until Saturday afternoon, at a time when the likelihood of Oswald's securing counsel before Monday had diminished. It was at this time that the Dallas Police allowed his family to see him and allowed him to make his phone call. The importance of the timing of Oswald's access to a telephone can be summed up in this way: Attorney Abt testified that he and his wife didn't leave for the cabin until Friday evening. ( 43 ) Had Oswald been allowed to make that phone call at the time of his arrest, he would have made contact with Abt before they left for Connecticut. The authorities were eager to put the "denial of counsel" issue to rest, so they agreed to allow a civil lawyer with connections to the city and its police department and the president of the Dallas Bar Association, to "question" Oswald about the denial of counsel issue in private. After that interview, the lawyer faced the press and declared that Oswald had refused his offer for help. It's difficult to imagine, given the press coverage of that weekend, that Nichols never saw on TV, never heard on radio or never read in the newspapers, Oswald's pleas for assistance and instead was forced to rely on "what I had been told". The purpose of his "intentionally very limited" interview of Oswald seems to have been to take the pressure off of the authorities in Dallas rather than to insure that Oswald had counsel. By his own admission, his "concern" was not for how Oswald was being treated. When Oswald complained, Nichols admitted that he "didn't ask any questions". His testimony that Oswald told him to "come back next week" defies logic and common sense and is contrary to documented video showing Oswald repeatedly asking for "someone to come forward". Not John Abt........someone..............ANYONE. I find it hard to believe that Nichols could have been impartial and not have mentioned that Oswald HAD requested the name of John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. I also find it hard to believe that an impartial party would not mention Oswald's complaint about his treatment. In the end, Nichols served the interests of the Dallas authorities better than he served the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps that was the plan all along. The proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence is documented in the way in which the Dallas Police conducted the police lineups, tampered with the evidence and held him incommunicado for over 24 hours, effectively delaying his contacting counsel. When you have a guilty suspect, you don't need to do those things because the evidence will always stand on its own merit. The fact that they DID do those things is a testament, IMO to his innocence. NOTES OSWALD REQUESTS A LAWYER DURING THE FIRST INTERROGATION SESSION 1. ( 7 H 123, 7 H 165 ) 2. ( 4 H 214-215 ) THE ACLU TO THE RESCUE....OR MAYBE NOT 3. ( 4 H 214-215 ) 4. ( 7 H 323 ) 5. ( 7 H 52 ) 6. ( 7 H 61 ) 7. ( 7 H 324 ) 8. www.ctka.net/2008/Wade.html 9. ( 7 H 325 ) BEFORE THE JUDGE 10. ( 7 H 331 ) 11. ( 15 H 507 ) 12. ( 7 H 130 ) 13. ( 4 H 217 ) 14. ( 7 H 171 ) OSWALD & THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION 15. ( 7 H 327 ) 16. ( ibid. ) 17. ( 5 H 240 ) 18. ( 7 H 327 ) 19. ( ibid. ) 20. ( 2 H 261 ) 21. ( 7 H 327 ) 22. ( 7 H 331 ) 23. ( 7 H 327-328 ) 24. ( 7 H 328 ) 25. ( ibid. ) 26. ( 7 H 330 ) 27. ( 7 H 329 ) 28. ( ibid. ) 29. ( ibid. ) 30. ( 7 H 330 ) CONFUSED CHIEF CURRY 31. ( 4 H 155 ) 32. ( 4 H 158 ) THE SATURDAY CALL 33. ( 7 H 314 ) 34. ( 7 H 356 ) 35. ( 2 H 261 ) 36. ( 3 H 85 ) 37. ( 1 H 149 ) 38. ( 3 H 88 ) 39. ( 3 H 89 ) 40. ( ibid. ) 41. ( 10 H 116 ) 42. ( 1 H 146 ) CONCLUSION 43. ( 10 H 116 )

I'm hoping to present Part 1 of a series I'm writing that will provide evidence taken exclusively from the 26 volumes of Warren Commission testimony that will show that the Dallas Police attempted to frame Oswald for both murders and that attempt to frame him IS the proof that he was innocent. It's about a 30 minute presentation, so I'm hoping I have enough time for it. www.blackopradio.com 9PM EDT

At the 43:10 mark of the below link: www.blackopradio.com/black442b.ram Professor McAdams states: "There's really no evidence linking Lee Oswald to David Ferrie or Guy Bannister." LINK TO FERRIE http://i35.tinypic.com/1ikimx.jpg LINK TO BANNISTER http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnKHsBaWTJw

I was shocked to hear Professor McAdams state a "factoid" ( as he likes to call them ) during part one of the debate on BlackOp radio regarding Oswald threatening Eisenhower. (CE 1386 ) The FBI found that Oswald was in the Marines at Atsugi during the time that Palmer McBride claimed that Oswald made the threat at McBride's home in New Orleans. ( CE 1961 ) http://i36.tinypic.com/357edjc.jpg Apparently, Professor McAdams didn't know that this "factoid" about Oswald threatening Eisenhower had been "debunked" a long time ago.

Very good point. Market forces at work. Message from Gary Mack: Comments like yours and Gil's show appalling ignorance. The Museum would benefit dramatically if a conspiracy were proven, for its 330,000+ annual visitors would be asking for more information about what happened. The Discovery test could have proven conspiracy, but since the tests conclusively showed the fatal shot came from behind, not from the knoll, that's what we reported. John: Next time you speak with Mr. Mack, ask him how many conspiracy-based books are on sale at the Sixth Floor Museum.