NEW GIL JESUS WEBSITE

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

...the typed affidavit...are not his [Charles Givens'] actual words but what he was reported to have said...

Dead wrong (again). The typed version is identical to the version that was handwritten by Givens.

Ergo, the typed version has "Givens' own words" in it. Why you think otherwise is the mystery.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Dead wrong (again). The typed version is identical to the version that was handwritten by Givens.

Ergo, the typed version has "Givens' own words" in it. Why you think otherwise is the mystery.

 

 

Please supply a link to the typed version you believe is identical to that written by Givens.

[Ray Mitcham]

In replying to This post

"8-line affidavits typed up by someone else, one-page FBI reports, CBS interviews three years later, etc., etc. - such things just carry no weight.  I am struck by how often the 8-line affidavit and one-page FBI report are magnified into vastly important "testimony" by Givens, as though he had said these very words and forever locked himself into a position."

 

I confused the 8 line affidavit with the FBI report. This is the FBI report I meant.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=334

 

These are not Givens "own" words but words typed up when interviewed.

 

The bottom of the Report says that Givens saw Oswald in the domino room about  11.50 A.M.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[James DiEugenio]

The object of a trial in the eyes of any good judge is to follow the most accurate procedure, allowing the rules of evidence to present the maximum amount of material for the jury to make their determination through each side's presentation.

In an administrative hearing the presention is wider since the rules of evidence are more lax.

One of the rules in either arena is to assure the rights of the accused. That he has his fair day in court. After generations of proceedings we have arrived at those rules in order to assure that the accused is not ramrodded by a rogue court.   Which the WC poses as the paramount example.  If there is no defense, then there is no protection of the accused. It becomes like a grand jury proceeding.  And as many lawyers have said, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

 Marguerite wanted Mark Lane  to defend Oswald.  Rankin refused.

As per Pat Speer and his "raw speculation": 

1.) Pat adduces, with proof, that Givens changed his story again for CBS in 1967

2.) Pat adduces with the HSCA testimony of Edward Shields questions about where Givens was at the alleged time he said he saw Oswald.  So now Givens is not just impeached by his previous statements, but by another witness.  

3.) Adduced evidence:  The HSCA did not buy Givens.  

4.) He produces a sworn affidavit and admissions by Secret Service agents that Givens was ready to say he saw Oswald fire the shots.

5.) Givens changed his story for Life Magazine, and they printed it.  

How is any of this "raw speculation" by "wild-eyed conspiracy theorists"? It is all based on testimony and interviews, so I think it would all be admissible.  The only one that would pose  a problem is the Life article.  There, you would have to speak to the writer and ask him who gave him the info.  Pretty easy I think.

But this is what the DVP/LP axis has become: John McAdams style smears, invectives and hand waving, all to distract from the actual record, which they know little about and care less. And at the same time, enshrining the "testimony" in the WC as probative when in fact, it was a dog and pony show all the way.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But this is what the DVP/LP axis has become: John McAdams style smears, invectives and hand waving, all to distract from the actual record, which they know little about and care less. And at the same time, enshrining the "testimony" in the WC as probative when in fact, it was a dog and pony show all the way.

The "DVP/LP axis"??? Gee, I'm flattered, I think, but DVP may not be too happy.  From what I can see, DVP has put 10,000 hours into the assassination for every hour I have.  To suggest DVP knows little about the actual record is preposterous - he's a walking encyclopedia and his site is a goldmine, regardless of whether one agrees with him.  I'm just a JFK dilettante in comparison.

"4.) He produces a sworn affidavit and admissions by Secret Service agents that Givens was ready to say he saw Oswald fire the shots."  What?  Are we perhaps overstating the evidence just a bit?

There is just no point in attempting a discussion when emotions override rational thought.  I have no - zero, nada, zilch - investment in the Warren Commission or any particular conspiracy theory.  I am merely trying to approach the subject in a rational manner.  But rational thought appears to be like waving a red flag in front of a bull around here.

Harvey and Lee could be true.  The most elaborate, complex Deep Politics theory could be true.  A Larry Hancock-type theory, to which I am currently inclined, could be true.  But the Lone Nut theory likewise could be true - and, in my opinion, is far more likely to be true than either of the first two alternatives.  And it truly makes no difference to me, except as a point of historical interest, which one is true.  My ego isn't invested in the assassination or any particular theory of it.

[Gerry Simone]

On 1/12/2017 at 8:08 AM, Lance Payette said:

Givens lived until 1982 - did someone keep him in a locked box for 18 years?

The WC proceedings were not, of course, a trial or even an adversarial administrative hearing.  One can legitimately criticize the adequacy of the proceedings - but to complain that trial procedures weren't followed is to mix apples and oranges.  To borrow from Gary Murr's above post, it is a "naïve assumption" to think that truth is the objective of a trial.  Winning is the objective of a trial.  If anyone thinks that a team of defense lawyers would have aided in the quest for truth, one is delusional (you apparently were not glued to the TV during the OJ trial like the rest of us).  A team of defense lawyers would have had pretty much the same objective as conspiracy theorists - to sow as much confusion as possible.  Approximately 95% of the "evidence" and speculation on which conspiracy theorists rely would never be allowed at a trial because the rules of evidence likewise focus more on reliability than truth; the rules are generally more relaxed for an administrative hearing, but it is hardly "anything goes."  In an adversarial proceeding LHO would probably have been acquitted on the basis of "reasonable doubt," not on the basis that "he didn't kill JFK."  Sure, there would likewise have been reasonable doubt as to where Givens actually was and what he saw - but his actual testimony would be given heavy weight, the FBI reports would be demonstrated to be generally unreliable, and speculation would not be allowed.  What you apparently think would happen if Mark Lane had been defending LHO is just a layman's fantasy.

I didn't "score" Pat Speer.  I merely pointed out that what you deem to be "compelling evidence" is actually raw speculation.  It can only be pointed out ad nauseam that what wild-eyed conspiracy theorists do is precisely what criminal defense attorneys do - de-emphasize the prosecution's actual evidence, emphasize gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence, and rely heavily on speculation and innuendo.  Any criminal defense attorney would tell you that truth is the least of his concerns.

Hello Lance,

Evidence used against Oswald would probably NOT be admitted at a trial (i.e., lack of chain of possession for CE 399 as one example but Barry Krusch is more exhaustive in his 3 volume series Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald), due to those same rules of evidence you allude to.

The intent of Conspiracy Theorists in this case (I believe the late John Judge called himself a Conspiracy Realist; I also say that conspiracy is not merely a theory but a serious and strong allegation) is NOT to sow confusion, but to call the evidence or facts into question, which is what defense lawyers are supposed to do.  If that causes confusion, then we have reasonable doubt because the guilt of the accused cannot be established beyond the legal threshold.

It is also proper to criticize the WC and its conclusions from not having an adversarial setting* because without it, you cannot conclude that Oswald is guilty when this case is a murder trial. 

*P.S.  Walter E. Craig was the President of the ABA who was appointed by the WC to participate and advise whether the proceedings "conformed to the basic principles of American justice" but apparently, that was just a symbolic gesture in that whole public relations exercise called the Warren Commission.