PROOF OSWALD DIDN'T KNOW MOTORCADE ROUTE

[Gil Jesus]

No, the testimony by Jarman of what he says Oswald said is NOT proof of anything. It's classic hearsay, and not allowed in a normal criminal investigation.

That's incorrect. It's not hearsay evidence, classic or otherwise.

If Jarman were relating what a third party told him Oswald said, THAT would be hearsay evidence.

For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B told me that he heard the defendant admit to killing the victim."

Witness "A"'s testimony is hearsay because he didn't hear the defendant admit it, he was told by "B" of the admission.

But witness "B"'s testimony is NOT hearsay because he heard the defendant make the admission firsthand.

Likewise, Jarman was present when Oswald said it. He heard it firsthand. He didn't hear it from a third party.

It isn't hearsay by definition and it would have been admissible for Oswald's defense attorney to use it in a trial.

If you had a full understanding of what the passive voice is you would not fall for a lot of Warren Commission nonsense.

Jarman's testimony cannot be used to tell us anything about what Oswald knew or did not know.

You're making a lot of assumptions. That Oswald is a shooter, that there is a rifle in the TSBD and Oswald knows where it is because he brought it in.

This is all hypothetical crapola.

And if you had a full understanding of what hearsay evidence is, you'd never discount the testimony of a witness who was present when something was said.

I'm not making any assumptions at all.

ME saying Oswald was a shooter ?

ME saying that Oswald knew where the rifle was ?

ROFLMAO

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF FROM ? WHERE DID I SAY THAT ?

I'm the guy saying Oswald was INNOCENT !!!!

I'm the guy saying that Oswald DIDN'T know the motorcade route and thus COULDN'T have retrieved the rifle.

And I NEVER said that Oswald knew where the rifle was.

We can't ask Oswald about it because he's dead. Jarman, or anyone else can say absolutely anything in reference to a conversation with Oswald once Oswald is dead because then there's no way to corroborate it.

Unless you have evidence that Jarman lied, your argument is dead.

In evaluating uncorroborated evidence it's all about the credibility of the witness and any supporting facts. For example, there's no evidence that Oswald brought a 38" package to work that day. There's no evidence that Oswald brought a 38" package into the building.

We've demonstrated that the purchase of the rifle was a fraud. We've demonstrated that the "bag" was made on 11/22. We've demonstrated that Oswald could not have gotten to the second floor lunchroom from the sixth floor in less time than it took Truly and Baker.

We've proven that the lineups were slanted toward Oswald and that affidavits were altered.

It's all here:

http://www.giljesus.com

In addition, we've supplied evidence that the FBI LIED in their reports regarding what the witnesses told them:

NOW YOU HAVE ME SUPPORTING OSWALD'S GUILT ?

Tell me you're not serious !!!

To suggest that I, of all people, am a WC supporter, or that I am somehow advocating Oswald's guilt, after all of the writings I've done in support of his innocence over the years, indicates to me that you are either clueless when it comes to my research, you have a problem with me personally, or YOU believe Oswald pulled the trigger.

Otherwise, I have no idea why you'd misrepresent what I am saying or suggest I have a lack of understanding when it comes to criminal procedure.

I come from a family of police officers and ex-police officers, myself included. I have a degree in criminal justice and I count among my many friends members of police departments, ex-investgators and prosecutors. I've given testimony in criminal cases.

I KNOW what hearsay evidence is.

There's no evidence that Jarman lied about this encounter, in spite of your suggestion that he could "say whatever he wanted" once Oswald was dead. Why would he lie in defense of Oswald ?

IMO, it just doesn't make sense.

I believe Jarman's account in accordance with the supporting facts regarding the rifle, the bag and the "escape" and I believe that it is proof that Oswald did not know the motorcade route and thus never brought the rifle into the building and fired at the motorcade.

Another point I'd like to make is whether or not it was possible for Oswald to NOT know that the motorcade was coming through Dealey plaza.

Jarman testified that he didn't know the President was coming by until the morning of the 22nd.

Representative FORD. When did you first learn of the President's motorcade route?

Mr. JARMAN. That morning.

Representative FORD. Friday morning, November 22d?

Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. How did you find out about it?

Mr. JARMAN. The foreman of the employees on the first floor.

Representative FORD. What is his name?

Mr. JARMAN. William Shelley was standing up talking to Mrs. Lee.

Representative FORD. To Mrs. Lee?

Mr. JARMAN. Miss Lee, or Mrs. Lee, I think, and he was discussing to her about the President coming, asked her was she going to stand out there and see him pass.

Representative FORD. About what time Friday morning was this?

Mr. JARMAN. I imagine it would be about--I think it was between 8:30 and 9:00. I am not sure.

Representative FORD. You hadn't read about it in the papers the night before or that morning?

Mr. JARMAN. No, sir.

( 3 H 209 )

BTW, any comments made about me personally are just nonsense.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Joseph Backes]

No, the testimony by Jarman of what he says Oswald said is NOT proof of anything. It's classic hearsay, and not allowed in a normal criminal investigation.

That's incorrect. It's not hearsay evidence, classic or otherwise.

If Jarman were relating what a third party told him Oswald said, THAT would be hearsay evidence.

For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B told me that he heard the defendant admit to killing the victim."

Witness "A"'s testimony is hearsay because he didn't hear the defendant admit it, he was told by "B" of the admission.

But witness "B"'s testimony is NOT hearsay because he heard the defendant make the admission firsthand.

Likewise, Jarman was present when Oswald said it. He heard it firsthand. He didn't hear it from a third party.

It isn't hearsay by definition and it would have been admissible for Oswald's defense attorney to use it in a trial.

If you had a full understanding of what the passive voice is you would not fall for a lot of Warren Commission nonsense.

Jarman's testimony cannot be used to tell us anything about what Oswald knew or did not know.

You're making a lot of assumptions. That Oswald is a shooter, that there is a rifle in the TSBD and Oswald knows where it is because he brought it in.

This is all hypothetical crapola.

And if you had a full understanding of what hearsay evidence is, you'd never discount the testimony of a witness who was present when something was said.

I'm not making any assumptions at all.

ME saying Oswald was a shooter ?

ME saying that Oswald knew where the rifle was ?

ROFLMAO

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF FROM ? WHERE DID I SAY THAT ?

I'm the guy saying Oswald was INNOCENT !!!!

I'm the guy saying that Oswald DIDN'T know the motorcade route and thus COULDN'T have retrieved the rifle.

And I NEVER said that Oswald knew where the rifle was.

We can't ask Oswald about it because he's dead. Jarman, or anyone else can say absolutely anything in reference to a conversation with Oswald once Oswald is dead because then there's no way to corroborate it.

Unless you have evidence that Jarman lied, your argument is dead.

In evaluating uncorroborated evidence it's all about the credibility of the witness and any supporting facts. For example, there's no evidence that Oswald brought a 38" package to work that day. There's no evidence that Oswald brought a 38" package into the building.

We've demonstrated that the purchase of the rifle was a fraud. We've demonstrated that the "bag" was made on 11/22. We've demonstrated that Oswald could not have gotten to the second floor lunchroom from the sixth floor in less time than it took Truly and Baker.

We've proven that the lineups were slanted toward Oswald and that affidavits were altered.

It's all here:

http://www.giljesus.com

In addition, we've supplied evidence that the FBI LIED in their reports regarding what the witnesses told them:

NOW YOU HAVE ME SUPPORTING OSWALD'S GUILT ?

Tell me you're not serious !!!

To suggest that I, of all people, am a WC supporter, or that I am somehow advocating Oswald's guilt, after all of the writings I've done in support of his innocence over the years, indicates to me that you are either clueless when it comes to my research, you have a problem with me personally, or YOU believe Oswald pulled the trigger.

Otherwise, I have no idea why you'd misrepresent what I am saying or suggest I have a lack of understanding when it comes to criminal procedure.

I come from a family of police officers and ex-police officers, myself included. I have a degree in criminal justice and I count among my many friends members of police departments, ex-investgators and prosecutors. I've given testimony in criminal cases.

I KNOW what hearsay evidence is.

There's no evidence that Jarman lied about this encounter, in spite of your suggestion that he could "say whatever he wanted" once Oswald was dead. Why would he lie in defense of Oswald ?

IMO, it just doesn't make sense.

I believe Jarman's account in accordance with the supporting facts regarding the rifle, the bag and the "escape" and I believe that it is proof that Oswald did not know the motorcade route and thus never brought the rifle into the building and fired at the motorcade.

Another point I'd like to make is whether or not it was possible for Oswald to NOT know that the motorcade was coming through Dealey plaza.

Jarman testified that he didn't know the President was coming by until the morning of the 22nd.

Representative FORD. When did you first learn of the President's motorcade route?

Mr. JARMAN. That morning.

Representative FORD. Friday morning, November 22d?

Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. How did you find out about it?

Mr. JARMAN. The foreman of the employees on the first floor.

Representative FORD. What is his name?

Mr. JARMAN. William Shelley was standing up talking to Mrs. Lee.

Representative FORD. To Mrs. Lee?

Mr. JARMAN. Miss Lee, or Mrs. Lee, I think, and he was discussing to her about the President coming, asked her was she going to stand out there and see him pass.

Representative FORD. About what time Friday morning was this?

Mr. JARMAN. I imagine it would be about--I think it was between 8:30 and 9:00. I am not sure.

Representative FORD. You hadn't read about it in the papers the night before or that morning?

Mr. JARMAN. No, sir.

( 3 H 209 )

BTW, any comments made about me personally are just nonsense.

The title of this thread is ridiculous. You claim to have proof that Oswald didn't know the route of the motorcade.

And you cite only one thing, the testimony of Jarman. It's not proof of anything.

I said and repeat there is no real proof that such a conversation actually occurred or that the words you attribute as

coming from the conversation were exactly what Jarman and Oswald actually said. You think you can dismiss such

criticism with circular logic, "I would suggest that the proof the conversation DID occur is in the sworn testimony of James Jarman..."

You don't understand what the word "proof," means. You don't understand circular logic.

Within the construct of your argument that Oswald didn't know the route of the motorcade you wrote,

"Without this information, there's simply NO MOTIVE for him to retrieve the rifle." So, that would have to

mean he has a rifle and he is a shooter. There's no other interpretation. We're in a hypothetical argument

that he is a shooter within a discussion of the value you give to Jarman's testimony.

So, don't give me this "ROFLMAO, WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF FROM ? WHERE DID I SAY THAT ?"

I'm staying within the parameters of this thread/discussion started by you.

You're conflating criticism of your argument that you have proof that Oswald didn't know the motorcade route

with whatever your opinions or conclusions, and/or any thoughts you have on the entire JFK assassination case.

I don't give a damn whether you believe in a conspiracy or if you're a lone nut.

You have failed to provide sufficient proof that Oswald didn't know the motorcade route. And I stand by

that criticism.

Jim DiEugenio remarked at his presentation at last year's JFK conference, "you know, the old Carl Sagan line,

“extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence,” if not, it’s just a claim. And in it’s worst state it’s

just cheap sensationalism." So far this thread is just cheap sensationalism.

Joe Backes

Edited September 5, 2011 by Joseph Backes

[William Kelly]

Hearsay evidence is not permitted in an American court of law at a trial.

Hearsay is permitted as evidence in court at a grand jury that considers indictment.

Hearsay is also valid evidence to know as part of all the facts of the case.

Proof is a subjective term - as proof for one person is not proof to another.

Some people consider the facts that indicate Oswald owned the rifle found at the TSBD as proof that he killed the President.

Others consider the position of the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket as proof that he didn't.

The conversation in question certainly seems to indicate that Oswald didn't know the President would be passing the TSBD

shortly before he was killed, and supports the general consensus of public opinion that Oswald didn't shoot him and was framed.

[Gil Jesus]

The conversation in question certainly seems to indicate that Oswald didn't know the President would be passing the TSBD shortly before he was killed, and supports the general consensus of public opinion that Oswald didn't shoot him and was framed.

Absolutely. And Jarman's testimony is NOT hearsay evidence.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hearsay+evidence

Another way of putting it:

Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Hearsay.aspx

Jarman KNEW HIMSELF that Oswald said it because he was present when it was said.

He had direct knowledge of the conversation.

Which is why it is not hearsay. He wasn't relating what someone told him Oswald said.

My goodness, if police were prevented from testifying that a defendant confessed to a murder and supplied them with information that resulted in the recovery of the victim's body, because the police testimony was hearsay, a lot of murderers would be walking out of courtrooms free.

Uncorroborated ? Absolutely. But not hearsay.

Jarman's testimony of the conversation is what is called first hand evidence.

Hearsay evidence is also referred to as second-hand evidence or as rumor or even gossip.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[William Kelly]

The conversation in question certainly seems to indicate that Oswald didn't know the President would be passing the TSBD shortly before he was killed, and supports the general consensus of public opinion that Oswald didn't shoot him and was framed.

Absolutely. And Jarman's testimony is NOT hearsay evidence.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.

http://legal-diction...earsay+evidence

Another way of putting it:

Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

http://www.duhaime.o.../H/Hearsay.aspx

Jarman KNEW HIMSELF that Oswald said it because he was present when it was said.

He had direct knowledge of the conversation.

Which is why it is not hearsay. He wasn't relating what someone told him Oswald said.

My goodness, if police were prevented from testifying that a defendant confessed to a murder and supplied them with information that resulted in the recovery of the victim's body, because the police testimony was hearsay, a lot of murderers would be walking out of courtrooms free.

Uncorroborated ? Absolutely. But not hearsay.

Jarman's testimony of the conversation is what is called first hand evidence.

Hearsay evidence is also referred to as second-hand evidence or as rumor or even gossip.

I agree, but if it ever did get to the level of a grand jury, it would become hearsay because the jurors would have to believe what Jarman said Oswald told him.

I believe that Jarman would be a very strong witness who they would believe.

Today we are left with the question of whether we believe what Jarman quoted Oswald said, and I believe most people would.

Keep it up Gil, you are getting somewhere,

BK

[Karl Kinaski]

Interesting quote from JEOSTEN: ASS. OR FALL GUY?

quote:

The fact is that a mere three blocks beyond the underpass is the

broad Industrial Boulevard that leads directly to the Freeway. The

logical route, the most convenient, and, emphatically, the safest route

for the President, was not to take any car-slowing detour, but to stay

on Main Street through the underpass and then to use Industrial

Boulevard onto the Freeway.

Further, as I took the trouble to check, there are no signs on

Main before the underpass, to direct traffic via Houston and Elm

onto the Freeway.

To make quite sure that I (JOESTEN HIMSELF)could not be mistaken about this

point, I made the trip twice by taxi. First I went down Main Street,

as the motorcade had done, then straight ahead through the under­

pass. It was not until just before (in one case) and immediately

past (the other time) the trestle that I directed the cab drivers to

turn right into Stemmons Freeway. Both did so, unhampered by any

lane markings or roadblocks. If I could travel that way, surely the

President could.

close quote

Edited October 2, 2012 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

quote Joesten:

There was no plausible excuse, then, for detouring the motorcade

from the comparative safety of the straight center lane into the deadly

shadow of the Book Depository

.

[Dawn Meredith]

Todd, the allegation isn't that Oswald left a wallet at the Tippit murder scene, the allegation is that someone else planted a wallet with Oswald's ID in it at the scene after killing Tippit.

Get it?

Bill Kelly

JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com

Bill,

I'm well aware of the allegastion.

Now, what does what you wrote have to do with the B.S from Backes?

Todd

Bill: This question was never answered. Maybe that is the explanation for these replies.

Below his bio you posted:

Hi Todd,

Welcome to the Ed Forum's JFK Assassination Debate.

Thanks for the work you did at the Ford library.

There hasn't been much debate going on around here.

Maybe you can stimulate things a bit.

I see you are listed among those with Dr. Rahn's "Non conspiracists united"

Do you subscribe to his "chance, not conspiracy" coincidentalists theory of the assassination?

Bill Kelly

[David Josephs]

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman:

Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.

( 3 H 201 )

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.

Mr. BALL - About what time?

Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.

Just to put the timing into perspective Gil... This conversation takes place earlier in the morning. Wouldn't one think that there'd be a paper around showing the route? The "quiet reader" doesn't read the newspaper?

and this discussion dovetails into some thoughts of mine about how Oswald would even know when to be at the window... even IF he knew the details from the newspaper AND had seen some of the VIP invitations, if he was to be involved, he had to KNOW when to be at the window so he did not miss the motorcade...

I find it UNREALISTIC to assume that Oswald did not know when and where the motorcade was doing its thing, or that the motorcade was coming at all... Since we do not know the manner in which Oswald spoke these words... he could just as easily been making simple conversation (or Jarman was fed the words)... Knowing the president is coming LATER IN THE DAY and seeing people gathering at 9-10am, there may not be a connection. Additionally - all we ever has are 2nd hand accounts of what he said... there are no interrogation transcripts, just poor notes. Trusting one of the Three Men who claim to be able to hear at all after experiencing 3 150dB rifle shots within 10-15 feet of their heads, is a big leap of faith imo.... I believe, in a very simple way, Jarman is trying to help incriminate Oswald by showing his interest in the motorcade and the direction... when in reality it adds the question of what Oswald really did know about the motorcade.

Add to this his affidavit:

AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James Earl Jarman, Jr., c/m 33, 3942 Atlanta Street, Dallas, Texas HA8-1837 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22, 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. (DJ: If he read this in the paper - why "probably"... and doesn't his answer strike you as supplied - unless he saw the map there would be no reason for Jarman to assume the turn onto Elm) He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade.

/s/ James Earl Jarman, Jr.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/ Patsy Collins

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Let's remember the discussion about Worrell and how it was questioned whether people would be coming to the area so early... or whether Worrell was there at all...

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.

Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?

Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half.

Bottom line Gil is this is evidence of what Oswald MIGHT HAVE SAID as relayed to us by someone with very questionable statements. How a "backfire" (a street level noise) becomes 3 rifle blasts 10 feet from their heads and then a THIRD SHOT finally comvinces these men that the shots are RIGHT ABOVE THEIR HEADS???? is beyond me... and then it's only NORMAN who figures out where the shots come from while he hears the "tink" of the hull and the working of the bolt... please.

Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.

Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?

Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.

Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President.

"NORMAN: Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor."

Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?

Mr. NORMAN. Three.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember whether or not you said anything to the men then as to whether or not you heard anything from above you?

Mr. NORMAN. Only I think I remember saying that I thought I could hear the shell hulls and the ejection of the rifle. I didn't tell I think I hear anybody moving, you know.

Mr. BALL. But you thought, do you remember you told the men then that you thought you heard the ejection of the rifle?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And shells on the floor?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Falling?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything as to where they thought the shots came from?

Mr. NORMAN. Well, I don't recall of either one of them saying they thought where it came from.