Jump to content
The Education Forum

Strongest piece of evidence


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't believe anyone here will have any trouble conceding that the evidence amassed against Oswald was sufficient to bring him to trial.

Include me out, Duke.

There are two separate and very distinct murders here, involving different witnesses, and different medical and ballistic evidence.

I think Henry Wade once said that the Tippit murder would be tried first, but I am unable to find the reference for that. (if anyone can point me to the source for Wade's statement, I will be extremely grateful). THere may have been a prima facie case against Lee Oswald in the Tippit murder (prima facie only, as Duke well knows) but the case against him in the JFK murder amounted to Almost NOTHING. I defy you Duke, and I defy David Von Pein, to make out a prima facie case against Lee Oswald for the murder of JFK, leaving aside all evidence relating to the Tippit murder. He had no motive, he was not insane, and he was on the first floor of the TSBD when the shooting went down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe anyone here will have any trouble conceding that the evidence amassed against Oswald was sufficient to bring him to trial.

Include me out, Duke.

There are two separate and very distinct murders here, involving different witnesses, and different medical and ballistic evidence.

I think Henry Wade once said that the Tippit murder would be tried first, but I am unable to find the reference for that. (if anyone can point me to the source for Wade's statement, I will be extremely grateful). THere may have been a prima facie case against Lee Oswald in the Tippit murder (prima facie only, as Duke well knows) but the case against him in the JFK murder amounted to Almost NOTHING. I defy you Duke, and I defy David Von Pein, to make out a prima facie case against Lee Oswald for the murder of JFK, leaving aside all evidence relating to the Tippit murder. He had no motive, he was not insane, and he was on the first floor of the TSBD when the shooting went down.

Mr. Carroll... I don't believe Duke said "and find him guilty" but that there is more than enough evidence to allow a trial to have gone ahead... and given what was allowed to be known at the time... his fate based on the circumstantial evidence and the strong (at the time) physical evidence - getting Oswald off may have been difficult if not impossible.

But it sure would have opened up all sorts of interesting investigations and lines of questioning... Tough part now would be to use what was general knowledge and available in 1964... Innocence wasn't the point.... History was.

I too believe, 100% that Oswald was not at that window with a rifle or in any way involved with the actual assassination as we now know it. But I too don't believe that Oswald was a complete innocent bystander, caught up in extraordinaty circumstances. and I will gratiously allow for us to differ on that point. I also believe he was nowhere near Tippit at any point that day.

The fact that JACK RUBY killed him, of all the people who might have done so or wanted to - opens the doors to the strongest pieces of evidence... so one may say that Jack Ruby is the stongest piece of evidence for a conspiracy to kill JFK that had nothing at all to do with Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

DL: The WC, of course, wasn't an open-ended judicial proceeding where facts from both perspectives compete, but a "fact-finding panel" that was not wholly unlike a grand jury except that the "true bill" found by it was not subject to further contest. In effect, Mark (and others of similar mind) are saying that an indictment is the same as a finding of guilt, and that it is ridiculous to bring it to trial: anyone who doesn't accept what the prosecutor convinced the grand jury with is clearly a fool, and the adversarial process is a stupid farce.

I disagree with this.

The WC was not a fact finding panel. It was a one sided prosecution which knew it could get away with anything since there was no adversary proceeding and no judge and no appeals process.

It was a kangaroo court in every way. This is why:

1.) When the junior lawyers had pangs of professional ethics, and objected to using the likes of Marina Oswald, Helen Markham, and Brennan, they were overruled by Rankin, who was the relay man for the Troika--McCloy, Dulles and Ford.

2.) Its also why Russell conducted his own inquiry after he prepared a letter of resignation to LBJ, but failed to mail it. His inquiry came to opposite conclusions than the Troika. And its why he had to be tricked into signing the report. I should add that the Southern Wing--Russell, Boggs, and Cooper--might have done a good job on their own. Just take a look at the going over they gave Marina in VOlume 5 when the Troika was absent.

The WC was not a fact finding commission or a legal proceeding. It was a joke from the beginning; after LBJ intimidated Warren into abdicating his legal responsibilities with appeals to nuclear war and millions killed.

I agree 100% with Jim's comments. The Warren Commission was a kangaroo court. It was the equivalent of the showtrials that occurred in Stalinist Russia. The Allen Dulles Commission was ultimately run by the murderers of John Kennedy - LBJ, CIA and perhaps Hoover himself - so of course one should expect kangaroo court results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DL: The WC, of course, wasn't an open-ended judicial proceeding where facts from both perspectives compete, but a "fact-finding panel" that was not wholly unlike a grand jury except that the "true bill" found by it was not subject to further contest. In effect, Mark (and others of similar mind) are saying that an indictment is the same as a finding of guilt, and that it is ridiculous to bring it to trial: anyone who doesn't accept what the prosecutor convinced the grand jury with is clearly a fool, and the adversarial process is a stupid farce.

I disagree with this.

The WC was not a fact finding panel. It was a one sided prosecution which knew it could get away with anything since there was no adversary proceeding and no judge and no appeals process.

It was a kangaroo court in every way. ...

What it was and what it did may be two completely different things, but the WC was only chartered to "gather and report on the facts" of the assassination. Whether it did so or not, does not affect what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Lee: "I just cant fathom how Michael and Ruth Paine walked away from this (and all the other things they did) scot-free."

That Michael Paine phone call to Ruth - where he assumes Oswald killed JFK at 1PM and says he and Ruth both know who did it - is BLOCKBUSTER.

But there are a 1,000 other things like that in the JFK assassination. Another good example would be Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers being suborned to perjure themselves before the Warren Commission by the FBI. Both lied and perjured themselves when they did NOT say they HEARD SHOTS from the Grassy Knoll. And these were 2 of Kennedy's closest friends ... so CLOSE in fact that he used to have sex orgies with them.

Ruth and Michael Paine got away scot free because it was a full blown LBJ/CIA/military coup d'etat. Those folks had just murdered the president.

A handful of ruthless killers at the top had intimidated the bureaucracies of Dallas police, Secret Service, FBI, CIA and later the Warren Commission.

Wesley Liebeler was just one of many professionals who acted cowardly and criminal and demeaned themselves in the JFK case. There were hundreds.

Of course Ruth and Michael Paine got away scot free. They were chump change because the Big Killers got away scot free. And in Mike's word's "We both know who is responsible."

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

And these were 2 of Kennedy's closest friends ... so CLOSE in fact that he used to have sex orgies with them.

Prove that

Talk to Seymour Hersh who wrote the Dark Side of Camelot and who interviewed numerous Secret Service agents disgusted with JFK's over the top sexual exploits.

You have GOT to read this link about what an out-of-control sex freak John Kennedy was. I think it was one of the reasons the Kennedy-haters were able to justify in their minds why they killed him: http://www.cwporter.com/jfksex.htm

" 'What they saw', [according to Secret Service agent Larry Newman], 'was [JFK personal aide] Powers banging a girl on the edge of the pool. The president is sitting across the pool, having a drink and talking to some broads. Everybody was buckass naked.' "

- Hersch, p. 245, The Dark Side of Camelot

("Secret Service agent Larry Newman said:) 'You were on the most elite assignment in the Secret Service, and you were there watching an elevator or a door because the president was inside with two hookers. Your neighbours and everybody thought you were risking your life, and actually you were out there to see that he's not disturbed in the shower with two gals from Twelfth Avenue...Other times when we were in hotels around the country and Powers would bring these girls that we didn't know, we often said we would draw the black bean to see who got to testify before the House subcommittee (...) if the president received harm or was killed in the room by these two women. This was the President of the United States, and you felt impotent and you couldn't do your job. It was frustrating.' " - Hersch, p.230

"(...) 'You're going to see a lot of xxxx around here. Stuff with the president. Just forget about it. Keep it to yourself. Don't even talk to your wife.' Over the next few days, McIntyre said, he saw 'girls coming in -- hookers.' (...) McIntyre recalled with a laugh, 'How the hell do you know what's going on? He could be hurt in there. What if one bites him' in a sensitive area? Despite such fears, McIntyre said, 'we would never stop them from going in if [JFK personal aide] Powers or [JFK personal aide] O'Donnell was with them. We wouldn't check them over.' " - Hersch, p. 246

("According to Secret Service agent Tony Sherman:) 'It was just not once every six months, not every New Year's Eve, but was a regular thing (...) I'm serious in my job. I didn't want a part of it. It's difficult to talk morally about other people, but we aren't talking about other people. We're talking about the President of the United States. We're talking about my country. And we're talking about people my age with wives and children who were willing to give their lives.' " - Hersch, p. 241

"At one point Peter Lawford brought along some amyl nitrate to the White House. Knowing that the drug, called 'Poppers', was supposed to increase the sexual experience, Jack wanted to try some. Lawford refused, citing the extreme danger involved and warning the president not to take the risk. So Jack gave the drug to Fiddle or Faddle, and both men watched with interest as the young woman fell under the drug's powerful influence, appearing for a time to be hyperventilating. Neither Kennedy nor Lawford worried about the health of the recipient; the experiment satisfied their curiosity." - Reeves, p. 242

There were 2 White House secretaries, nicknamed Fiddle and Faddle, who JFK and his inner circle used to have sex with in the White House swimming pool area. That is the same White House swimming pool you can see in the movie The Seven Days of May, which was partially filmed in the White House (JFK sending a message to the military regarding a military coup. The movie came out in 1964.)

1) http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Camelot-Seymour-Hersh/dp/0316360678/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292373856&sr=1-1 The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post, Lee. When one thinks immediately of David's question, it seems an easy thing to post the most glaring piece of "proof" we have.

But when one does some careful, untainted re-reading (I've been flicking through Harvey and Lee again for info on Robert Webster), it's amazing all the detail Armstrong has given, that is hidden away to be bought into play again. Kudos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good example would be Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers being suborned to perjure themselves before the Warren Commission by the FBI. Both lied and perjured themselves when they did NOT say they HEARD SHOTS from the Grassy Knoll. And these were 2 of Kennedy's closest friends

Email from Gary Mack:

Dave Powers never testified to the Warren Commission, despite what Morrow says, but he did do an affidavit saying he thought at least one of the shots came from the right front: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/powers1.htm

And while Kenny O’Donnell did testify, he said in his own words that the shots came from the right rear: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good example would be Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers being suborned to perjure themselves before the Warren Commission by the FBI. Both lied and perjured themselves when they did NOT say they HEARD SHOTS from the Grassy Knoll. And these were 2 of Kennedy's closest friends

Email from Gary Mack:

Dave Powers never testified to the Warren Commission, despite what Morrow says, but he did do an affidavit saying he thought at least one of the shots came from the right front: http://jfkassassinat...ony/powers1.htm

And while Kenny O'Donnell did testify, he said in his own words that the shots came from the right rear: http://jfkassassinat...ny/odonnell.htm

Gary

Yes but as Gary well knows O'Donnell gave this testimony after the FBI pressured him to change his story.

FROM MAN OF THE HOUSE, by Tip O'Neill, Random House: 1987. page 178:

I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission's report on the President's death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O'Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy's Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.

I was surprised to hear O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.

"That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.

"You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.*""I can't believe it," I said. "I wouldn't have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth."

"Tip, you have to understand. The family—everybody wanted this thing behind them."

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's.

Maybe Gary thinks Tip O'Neil was a xxxx?

How rep .er.. thoughtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

The Allen Dulles Commission was, of course, a farce and a kangaroo court. And look at what we learn from that statement by Tip O'Neil: 1) Kenny O'Donnell (an extremely close aide to JFK) is admitting that he perjured himself in front of the Warren Commission and that the FBI suborned perjury 2) Dave Powers - a very material witness was never called before the Allen Dulles Commission - because he contradicted their bizarre, counterfeit lone nutter cover story. 3) and Kenny O'Donnell says "Tip, you have to understand. The family—everybody wanted this thing behind them." which tells us that Robert Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy were going along with the coverup, probably for both personal and political reasons. They were probably in fear of the murderers of JFK (and they certainly suspected Lyndon Johnson and the CIA early on). Just look at what Evelyn Lincoln was writing down in REAL TIME on the day of the assassination: Lyndon Johnson was at the TOP of the list.)

The Kennedys helped cover up the JFK assassination by publicly going along with the official propaganda of the government, the CIA assets in the media, and the Warren Commission. The Kennedys were firm believers that John Kennedy had been murdered by an domestic conspiray - and told the Russians through back channels in December, 1963. See the book Brothers by David Talbot for more on that.

I think that this unwillingness to confront this great evil head on cost Robert Kennedy his life in 1968.

And, by the way, would someone please find and POST Robert Kennedy's very strong statement in SUPPORT of the Warren Commission in September, 1964? I looking for it as a prime example of what Robert Kennedy did NOT believe.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RFK's global activities belie such a generalisation. His alliance with Reuther and MLK, and him continuing undaunted after MLK's death, with Charles Evers at hus side, he was ready for a full frontal assault.

Hardly cowering in the wings..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...