NEW GIL JESUS WEBSITE

[David Von Pein]

Good post, Lance. Thanks.

Regarding Oswald's "bizarre" actions on Nov. 22.....

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

So Dave,

Why do you think Oswald had Whaley drive him FIVE blocks past his rooming house, so then he had to walk back?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Simple, Bill. The reason was very likely two-fold on Oswald's part:

LHO didn't want the cab driver to know exactly where he lived. And #2 (which is even a better reason IMO), he wanted to see if any police or strangers were lurking near 1026 Beckley. After all, he had just killed the President, and he had to know that the cops would be hot on his trail very soon.

Yes, he could, of course, have checked the immediate area around his roominghouse for cop cars and "strangers", etc., and then have Whaley let him out just a few yards beyond the roominghouse, which would have made the walk back to his room much shorter. But he didn't do that. And since nobody can read his mind on this issue, we'll never know for sure exactly why Oswald did all of the things he did on November 22. But we know he DID do them.

And: Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).

I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking).

But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan.

Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate.

BTW, Oswald was driven only THREE blocks past his roominghouse, Bill. Not five. LHO had Whaley drop him off in the 700 block of N. Beckley, instead of travelling all the way to the 500 block, which LHO originally told Whaley was his destination.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1208.html

[Ray Mitcham]

19 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

But you do make a fair point.  Conspiracy Theorists do indeed treat the assassination as though they were dissecting a frog in high school biology class and examining his innards with a microscope, without regard to the reality that Mr. Frog was once a living creature.  

Frogs are not dissected in biology classes to see if it was once a living creature. It is dissected to show how it is constructed. Much like Conspiracy Theorist who dissect statements which don't match up, to find out the truth. Only by examining in great detail can you expect to find out what really happened on the 22nd November 1963. And we shall continue so to do until we have shown that the Assassination was indeed a conspiracy.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

DVP

"Mr. BELIN. Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir."

FBI say he did.

Who do you believe,Dave, the FBI or a vulnerable back guy?

 

 

(See how detail matters, Lance?)

Edited January 9, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Frogs are not dissected in biology classes to see if it was once a living creature. It is dissected to show how it is constructed. Much like Conspiracy Theorist who dissect statements which don't match up, to find out the truth. Only by examining in great detail can you expect to find out what really happened on the 22nd November 1963. And we shall continue so to do until we have shown that the Assassination was indeed a conspiracy.

There is, however, such a thing as losing sight of the forest for the trees.  Surely the fact that there have been - what? - at least ten seemingly well-researched but largely contradictory conspiracy theories, each of which has generated wild enthusiasm in its day, has to be a pretty good clue that this is not the route to truth.  What you are describing is precisely what a good defense attorney, who knows the prosecution has a watertight case, does in an effort to create reasonable doubt (not "arrive at the truth," but "confuse the jury").  It does seem to me that when we rely on the best evidence, we arrive at a Lone Nut conclusion with some definite loose ends like LHO's bizarre attempt at escape.  Those loose ends which have a solid basis in evidence, as well as a pretty thorough analysis of who LHO was (not, it seems to me, a likely Lone Nut), are what keep me willing to accept a Larry Hancock-type scenario.  Not that my opinion matters or should matter, and your mileage certainly may vary, but as I've said before for five solid decades I have seen fringe theories come and go across the entire spectrum of anomalous phenomena - and they are inevitably based not on the best real evidence but on supposed gaps in the evidence, wild speculation and the like, and they inevitably fall by the wayside in favor of some new theory.  But whatever, I'm not a fan of mystery novels either, but I know many people go thorough them like popcorn.  I probably spend more time obsessing about my golf game than anyone here spends obsessing about JFK.

[David Von Pein]

10 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir."

FBI say he did.

Who do you believe, Dave, the FBI or a vulnerable b[l]ack guy?

Again, already answered in my previous Post #341159 on Page 5. But since you refuse to read that post, I'll say it all again....

-------------

"I do feel, however, that Givens, by the time he testified in front of the Warren Commission, had merely forgotten that he said those things about Oswald to the FBI men.

But the WC wasn't hiding the "11:50" incident from anyone. The Commission published Mr. Belin's question about the incident in WC volume 6 for everybody to read [at 6 H 354].

And Charlie Givens could have answered "Yes" to that question asked by David Belin about Givens seeing Oswald downstairs at 11:50, couldn't he?

Let me guess---conspiracy theorists believe that David Belin had Charles D. Givens wrapped around his little finger when Givens testified in front of the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, right? So Belin knew what was coming, and maybe Belin even instructed Givens to answer "No" to this question....

"Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?"

Well, if some CTers want to believe that someone told Givens to answer "No" to the above question, I certainly cannot do anything to persuade those CTers to think otherwise. And such CTers also no doubt think that Givens lied through his teeth when he said he went back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then saw Oswald. (Did David Belin put those words in Givens' mouth too?)"

Edited January 9, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

 DVP

"Well, if some CTers want to believe that someone told Givens to answer "No" to the above question, I certainly cannot do anything to persuade those CTers to think otherwise. And such CTers also no doubt think that Givens lied through his teeth when he said he went back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then saw Oswald. (Did David Belin put those words in Givens' mouth too?)"

 

Not Belin, but who knows who prepped him? Givens "forgot" what he had told the DPD in the first day affidavit and to the FBI the following day. As I said, Liars have to have a good memory.

So Lovelady, Arce, and Jarman all saw Oswald 'around" 11.50, and Givens saw Oswald in the domino room "about 11.50"

No reply re the non existent jacket that Givens supposedly went back upstairs to retrieve his cigarettes.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[David Von Pein]

Ray Mitcham said:

So Lovelady, Arce, and Jarman all saw Oswald "around" 11:50, and Givens saw Oswald in the domino room "about 11:50".

Yeah, that discrepancy right there should tell you something about the reliability of the times supplied by witnesses.

But since we've got FOUR different TSBD employees hearing Oswald shouting down the elevator shaft at about 11:45 or so, then I think that fact should cast just a tad bit of doubt on Givens' account of seeing Oswald sitting in the Domino Room reading a newspaper at 11:50. (Shouldn't it, Ray?)

 

Ray Mitcham said:

No reply re the non existent jacket that Givens supposedly went back upstairs to retrieve his cigarettes.

I don't know why you're insisting that Givens' jacket was "non-existent", Ray.

You don't allow any room for the possibility that Givens' memory could have been a little inaccurate as to what kind of "jacket" or "coat" he wore to work on November 22nd? He HAD to be lying in your view, right Ray? No other explanation is even possible, is that it?

Plus, to believe Givens was lying about a "non-existent" jacket, you'd have to also necessarily believe that Mr. Givens had a very short memory. Because just minutes before telling David Belin that he had retrieved his jacket from the sixth floor, Charlie Givens had already told Belin that he had probably worn a raincoat to work on the morning of November 22.

Another possibility is that Givens' jacket could have conceivably been left there in the Depository by Givens on some previous day. Hence, perhaps he had both a "jacket" and a "raincoat" in the TSBD on 11/22/63. Who can know for sure? I don't. But to think that Givens was lying his ass off about his jacket just in order to say he saw Oswald with a clipboard (not a rifle) on the sixth floor at 11:55 AM (35 minutes before the assassination) is akin to believing someone would be willing to lie about his whereabouts just in order to claim he saw the sun rise in the east one morning. In other words, such an alleged lie by Givens would be completely superfluous, given the fact we already KNOW (from other witnesses) that Lee Oswald was shouting down the elevator shaft from an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository just a very few minutes before Givens said he made his jacket/cigarette trip back up to the sixth floor.

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

Just a couple of "lawyerly" observations, which may not be worth the usual $0.02.  I reviewed the entire sequence of supposed discrepancies in Givens' version of events.  I would place zero faith in typed-up affidavits or reports.  I prepare affidavits for witnesses all the time (typically to support a motion for summary judgment that I am filing).  Often I have never even spoken with these folks.  I have a general understanding of what their version of events is (from my partner or their own emails), and I essentially put words in their mouths.  They review the draft affidavit and then sign it unless it contains howling errors, in which case they have me make corrections.  The affidavit has a limited purpose, to support whatever argument I'm making in the motion.  It is nothing more than a small fraction of what the same witness would testify to at a deposition or at trial.  Ditto, I would think, for the early typed "affidavits" and reports - they were primarily, I would think, to establish that the witness wasn't part of the assassination and hadn't seen anything directly relevant to the assassination.  A Black guy with an 11th grade education and a criminal record like Givens would probably be completely overwhelmed at being caught up in these events and pretty much in a daze.

Givens' testimony, however, struck me as extraordinarily credible - far better than what I would have expected of someone with his background.  There is no way, IMHO, he could have been coached to give testimony this good.  If you have a witness whom you know is potential trouble, or who is likely to trip over his own past lies, you get him on and off the stand as quickly as possible.  You do not stay with him as long as Belin stayed with Givens.  (Of course, Givens was not subject to cross-examination, which is a big difference.)

So, while recognizing the discrepancies, my gratuitous answer to the question "Who do you believe, the FBI or a vulnerable Black guy?" would be:  The vulnerable Black guy, when he finally got a chance to testify.  Which doesn't mean I think the FBI were lying SOBs, merely that they too were overwhelmed by the events.  I can also tell you, having spent 15 years in a county attorney's office, that one of the most maddening things about law enforcement reports is how often they will drone on for pages with every conceivable detail except those that are critical to establishing the elements of the crime.  Again and again, we either had to decline prosecution or send the reports back for extensive follow-up.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I don't know why you're insisting that Givens' jacket was "non-existent", Ray.

Yes, what is the deal with that?  Having just re-read the testimony, my guess would be that Givens wore a raincoat over his usual work attire (because, as he testified, it was misting that morning), hung it up in the lunchroom when he arrived at work, kept on whatever lightweight jacket he typically wore (were the storage floors of the TSBD heated?), and removed that jacket when he and the others were working on the 6th floor flooring.  I don't find Givens' testimony even vaguely suspicious.  This is almost a perfect example of examining testimony with a microscope and seeing "lies" where there is no reason to see any.  My version is not a certainty, but it's far more likely than Givens telling clumsy lies after just testifying he had hung up his raincoat in the lunchroom.

[Ray Mitcham]

I wonder why the FBI would write that Givens said he saw Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino room if Givens didn't say it.

In his W.C. testimony he said the following

"Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day? 
Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning."

Note not a raincoat over a jacket"

IMO he was a vulnerable guy who was leant on by the authorities under duress, and he changed his story to suit.

Unfortunately little slips like the raincoat comment above show how liars slip up.

 

[David Von Pein]

Just for Ray....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi

After dueling a lot of CTers during the last fifteen years, all I can say about Vincent's quote above is:

Amen, brother!

 

[Ray Mitcham]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Just for Ray....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi

After dueling a lot of CTers during the last fifteen years, all I can say about Vincent's quote above is:

Amen, brother!

 

No surprise that you  quote your hero, Bugliosi. The expert at twisting comments to suit his story.

[David Von Pein]

9 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

No surprise that you quote your hero, Bugliosi. [Nonsense about VB snipped...]

Naturally. Why not quote the best? That's my philosophy.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

20 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Naturally. Why not quote the best? That's my philosophy.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

 

 

But you didn't, David, you quoted Bugliosi.

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org

Edited January 10, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I wonder why the FBI would write that Givens said he saw Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino room if Givens didn't say it.

In his W.C. testimony he said the following

"Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day? 
Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning."

Note not a raincoat over a jacket"

IMO he was a vulnerable guy who was leant on by the authorities under duress, and he changed his story to suit.

Unfortunately little slips like the raincoat comment above show how liars slip up.

 

Yes, but attorneys who are guiding a witness through prearranged testimony don't slip up that badly.  They rehabilitate the testimony by asking things like, "By 'jacket', you of course mean the raincoat you testified about 8 minutes ago?" or "Now, when you say 'jacket,' are you referring to the raincoat you testified previously you had hung in the lunchroom?" or at least "By 'jacket', are you referring to a garment different from the raincoat you had hung in the lunchroom?"  Belin apparently saw no need for rehabilitation.  People, including me, may refer to a variety of garments, including overshirts, as "jackets."  They seldom refer to raincoats as "jackets."  So by far the more plausible interpretation (to me anyway) is that we are talking about two different garments.

Givens did say he often saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the lunchroom.  Yes, there is a discrepancy regarding the day of the assassination, but I could easily see how what Givens said might have become garbled in translation.  Is it possible all of your suspicions are legitimate?  Sure, it's possible.  But the suspicions would be more plausible if there were some external evidence of Givens actually being pressured.  The statement in the one FBI document that it had been reported that Givens "would change his story for money" - would you put (or leave) that in a report concerning a witness you were actually going to try to get to change his story?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest