Basic facts that seem like conspiracy-killers to me

[Pat Speer]

23 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

No, this is badly misinterpreted. Oswald said they (the Dallas Police) were taking him in because he used to live in the Soviet Union, I'm just a Patsy. Meaning they rounded him off the streets because the DPD thought he was a Commie. One of Oswald's many lies, he was arrested for murdering Tippit, they had no idea at the time of his arrest he had been to Russia. 

 

I suspect there's more to it. He was stating that that was why he was brought in, sure, but implicit in this is that that is why the evidence led to him. A patsy is someone who's been made to be a fall guy, by design. This suggests there is evidence against this person. So I read Oswald's statement as an acknowledgement there is evidence against him, and that he has been framed. He was not asserting he was just an innocent walking down the street. And that all the evidence against him was being made up afterwards. He was stating he was framed as part of a plot--because of his background. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Since Pat chimed in, I think he wrote about one other aspect of the Arizona drug advisor's alleged "conspiracy killer".

Namely the two FBI memos on the bag.

Care to post that Pat, it really goes after Bugliosi.

[Guest]

On 1/22/2023 at 1:51 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

Somebody buzz me when the discussion returns to the JFK assassination.

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[David Von Pein]

.......

Edited January 23, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ege]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It’s a Grateful Dead lyric. Not sure if that’s where David got it though. 

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/btwi.html

 Tom, you rock!  Thank you.

At 80 years old, have listened to a lot of Big Band, old time rock 'n roll ('50s primarily), C & W, and some other genres - but not so much the GD.

I'll check it out - as - "I DO wanna learn, what I don't know"! 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

Deleted

Edited January 23, 2023 by Michaleen Kilroy

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have Roe on ignore, but when he quotes me I have to read his...writing.

Huh??

Why would you be forced to read a post from someone whose posts you can't even see in the first place because you've got that person (e.g., Roe) on Ignore? That makes no sense.

And in the past, DiEugenio has also claimed on multiple occasions that he's forced to read posts written by LNers that he has on Ignore because other CTers have quoted those ignored LNers. But that's also a silly statement, because Jim obviously isn't being forced to read a damn thing written by anybody at any time. He can very easily and swiftly simply glide right past anything written by an LNer.

And for the longer LNer posts that appear in a CTer's Quote Box, DiEugenio most certainly isn't being forced to click the "Expand" link, which he certainly would have to do in order to read the full LNer post. But Jim obviously does click "Expand" nonetheless.

So Jim's constant whining about having to read all those dreadful LNer posts just because a CTer has quoted them is nothing but another great big crock dredged up by Mr. JFK Revisited.

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ege]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect there's more to it. He was stating that that was why he was brought in, sure, but implicit in this is that that is why the evidence led to him. A patsy is someone who's been made to be a fall guy, by design. This suggests there is evidence against this person. So I read Oswald's statement as an acknowledgement there is evidence against him, and that he has been framed. He was not asserting he was just an innocent walking down the street. And that all the evidence against him was being made up afterwards. He was stating he was framed as part of a plot--because of his background. 

 

Pat, thank you.  As doggone nearly all the time, you're right on.

In the context of his predicament, his implication always seemed pretty clear to me - and others, I'm sure.

Yes, of course, "I'm just a patsy" and then no more.

Implicit in that short statement, IMO, was:

"I going to have to speak to a lawyer, before I say anything more.  Eventually, you will discover that my background, which you are currently, clearly unaware of, has put me in a position to be easily fingered as the fall guy.  In the end, I'm confident that my innocence will be proven."

For a 24 years' old guy who had been arrested for killing a police officer and was just told by reporters that he was also going to be charged with assassinating the POTUS, Lee portrayed one very cool young man.

Most of us would most likely display more nervousness than Lee did, if we were to be stopped by a police officer for "California Stoppin'" a traffic stop sign!

He was not maniac or a psychopath or anything else akin to those extremes.  And he certainly was not a publicity seeker, looking to go down in the history books. 

At the moment, so Oswald thought, an innocent man has nothing to worry about.

That's the way I see it, anyway. 

And because of Ruby, here we are. 

[Charles Blackmon]

18 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:

 

He was not maniac or a psychopath or anything else akin to those extremes.  And he certainly was not a publicity seeker, looking to go down in the history books. 

 

He certainly wasn't a "lone nut". Part of the plot? Maybe, but not likely. Ben's "false flag" piggyback operation makes some sense to me.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

He certainly wasn't a "lone nut". Part of the plot? Maybe, but not likely. Ben's "false flag" piggyback operation makes some sense to me.

Thanks!

 

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

This comment by Mr. DiEugenio is very entertaining. Mr. DiEugenio believes and proclaims that the rifle, the bag and other evidence would be not admissible in the hypothetical Oswald criminal trial. He cites chain of custody issues. 

First of all, there is no chain of custody issue with the rifle and the bag. It's all in Mr. DiEugenio's imagination. Why? 

The rifle is evidence, period. It was found hidden on the 6th floor on the opposite corner where the 6.5 mm shell casings were discovered. That establishes the first chain of custody. The rifle and the bag were taken to the DPD crime lab and eventually turned over to the FBI to examine. No criminal trial judge would rule the rifle as inadmissible evidence. 

Next Mr. DiEugenio takes issue with the Rifle bag because it was not photographed by J.C. Day or Studebaker of the DPD crime search team. Wow! Mr. DiEugenio's extremely poor understanding of admissible evidence is staggering. There were LEO's who saw the bag, and the bag was brought out in front of the TSBD recorded by numerous press photos. All the prosecution had to do was call those that saw the bag lying in Oswald's sniper nest as witnesses and testify to the jury. Do you understand this Mr. DiEugenio?

Next, the rifle was ordered using the fake Hidell alias, to Oswald's P.O. Box. What Mr. DiEugenio also ignores was Oswald was captured with the fake Hidell ID on him with his picture on it. What trial judge would rule that inadmissible? Seriously Mr. DiEugenio? 

There is no chain of custody issues with the evidence found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Just ask any practicing prosecuting criminal trial lawyer Mr. DiEugenio if you don't believe me. (DiEugenio reads these messages on his Iphone, feigning the Ignore when logged in).

Now Mr. DiEugenio invokes the first-generation WC critic, Harold Weisberg. What Mr. DiEugenio does not disclose to everyone here is how Weisberg eviscerated his pal, Oliver Stone on the fictious JFK movie. 

You can read Weisberg's letters to Ollie here:

ww.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/harold-weisberg-writes-oliver-stone

One of Weiberg's most memorable quotes to Stone is this:

"You are (Stone), as I warned you a Mack Sennet producing a Keystone Kops with a Pink Panther star making a Mardi Gras of one of the greatest of our national tragedies." Harold Weisberg. 

If Harold Weisberg had lived to see the Stone Destiny Betrayed film, I'm confident that he would also rip him to shreds once again with all the debunkable nonsense presented. 

 

You are correct in thinking that the rifle and bag would have been allowed into evidence. But you should realize that entering that bag into evidence could have been a disaster, as bad as entering the glove into evidence at the O.J. trial. There are tremendous problems with the bag, that a competent defense attorney would have been able to use to raise reasonable doubt. First and foremost, none of the discoverers of the sniper's nest saw it, even though it was purportedly laying right out in the open within inches of where they had been standing. There are also issues with who found it, when it was found, and precisely where it was found. It's as big a mess as you can imagine. At times, I ponder what I would have done if I'd been tasked with arguing for Oswald's guilt. I would avoid the bag supposedly found in the building, much as the WC ended up avoiding the chicken lunch the original reports claimed Oswald had left behind in the sniper's nest, and the reports of Oswald at the firing range. It's a problem. You don't need it. And you're better off avoiding it. 

[Joseph McBride]

There's a Yiddish word for this thread: patchke (POTSH-kee). Definition: 

• v. "1. To fuss or "mess around" inefficiently and inexpertly. 2. To dawdle, to waste time." (Rosten) 

On purpose in this case.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Joseph McBride

[James DiEugenio]

I agree Joe.

The Arizona drug advisor's so called "Conspiracy killer" has fallen inward on itself.

But I just want to echo something Pat Speer says.  Quoting the late Sherry Feister, how could those cops not have seen that package? They were standing on it.  😝

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Quoting the late Sherry Feister, how could those cops not have seen that package.  They were standing on it.  😝

I think it's quite possible that the police officers who later said they did not see any paper bag on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building might have actually physically seen the bag on the floor but simply didn't associate it with "evidence" in the JFK case.

Maybe they thought it was merely a piece of trash lying in the corner (akin to the many cigarette butts that were littering the TSBD floorboards; and I don't think every one of those cigarette butts was retrieved as "evidence" by the Dallas Police Department), and therefore even though some of those officers (the ones who stood right in the Sniper's Nest itself) must have caught at least a glimpse of the bag, it was something that just didn't register in their minds as anything of importance that they should retain in their memory.

We must also remember that the bag was not found directly underneath the sniper's window. It was found east of the window, as indicated in Commission Exhibit No. 1302.

According to Dallas Police Detective Robert Studebaker, who saw the paper bag lying on the floor before he himself picked it up, the bag was located "in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was" [Studebaker; WC Testimony; at 7 H 144].

Studebaker also testified [at 7 H 143-144] that when he saw and picked up the bag (or "sack") in the corner of the sixth floor, it was "folded" and "doubled over".

And according to DPD Officer Marvin Johnson [at 7 H 103], the bag he saw in the corner was "folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package":

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

JOSEPH BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?"

ROBERT L. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."

MR. BALL -- "Where?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there—in the southeast corner of the building—folded."

[Later...]

MR. BALL -- "Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures."

MR. BALL -- "Was it near the window?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Which way from the window?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "It was east of the window."

MR. BALL -- "Over in the corner?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Over in the corner—in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was." [Emphasis added by DVP.]

[...]

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?"

MARVIN JOHNSON -- "Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was [sic] wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag."

MR. BELIN -- "Where was this found?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Right in the corner of the building."

MR. BELIN -- "On what floor?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Sixth floor."

MR. BELIN -- "Which corner?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Southeast corner."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know who found it?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "I know that the first I saw of it, L.D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor*, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it."

MR. BELIN -- "When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package." [Emphasis added by DVP.]

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

* This part of Marvin Johnson's testimony conflicts with that of L.D. Montgomery. Montgomery testified [at 7 H 98] that it was Detective Studebaker who physically picked the bag up off of the floor.

There are other possible explanations for why some of the officers did not notice the bag, such as:

They weren't in a position to see the bag at all (which would certainly be the explanation for those officers who never actually stepped INSIDE the Sniper's Nest area itself prior to the bag being picked up on 11/22/63).

Or:

Perhaps some of the policemen in question just simply weren't as observant as other officers, and for one reason or another they missed seeing the paper bag in the far southeast corner of the 6th floor.

But there's ample testimony from multiple other police officers who said they did see the bag to indicate that the paper bag (CE142) was most definitely found on the sixth floor of the Depository on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists really think all of these officers were lying when they each testified that they saw the bag on the 6th floor?:

J.C. Day [4 H 267].
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97].
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103].
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144].
 

Edited January 23, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I think it's quite possible that the police officers who later said they did not see any paper bag on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building might have actually physically seen the bag on the floor but simply didn't associate it with "evidence" in the JFK case.

Maybe they thought it was merely a piece of trash lying in the corner (akin to the many cigarette butts that were littering the TSBD floorboards; and I don't think every one of those cigarette butts was retrieved as "evidence" by the Dallas Police Department), and therefore even though some of those officers (the ones who stood right in the Sniper's Nest itself) must have caught at least a glimpse of the bag, it was something that just didn't register in their minds as anything of importance that they should retain in their memory.

We must also remember that the bag was not found directly underneath the sniper's window. It was found east of the window, as indicated in Commission Exhibit No. 1302.

According to Dallas Police Detective Robert Studebaker, who saw the paper bag lying on the floor before he himself picked it up, the bag was located "in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was" [Studebaker; WC Testimony; at 7 H 144].

Studebaker also testified [at 7 H 143-144] that when he saw and picked up the bag (or "sack") in the corner of the sixth floor, it was "folded" and "doubled over".

And according to DPD Officer Marvin Johnson [at 7 H 103], the bag he saw in the corner was "folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package":

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

JOSEPH BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?"

ROBERT L. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."

MR. BALL -- "Where?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there—in the southeast corner of the building—folded."

[Later...]

MR. BALL -- "Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures."

MR. BALL -- "Was it near the window?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Which way from the window?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "It was east of the window."

MR. BALL -- "Over in the corner?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Over in the corner—in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was." [Emphasis added by DVP.]

[...]

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?"

MARVIN JOHNSON -- "Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was [sic] wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag."

MR. BELIN -- "Where was this found?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Right in the corner of the building."

MR. BELIN -- "On what floor?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Sixth floor."

MR. BELIN -- "Which corner?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Southeast corner."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know who found it?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "I know that the first I saw of it, L.D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor*, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it."

MR. BELIN -- "When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package." [Emphasis added by DVP.]

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

* This part of Marvin Johnson's testimony conflicts with that of L.D. Montgomery. Montgomery testified [at 7 H 98] that it was Detective Studebaker who physically picked the bag up off of the floor.

There are other possible explanations for why some of the officers did not notice the bag, such as:

They weren't in a position to see the bag at all (which would certainly be the explanation for those officers who never actually stepped INSIDE the Sniper's Nest area itself prior to the bag being picked up on 11/22/63).

Or:

Perhaps some of the policemen in question just simply weren't as observant as other officers, and for one reason or another they missed seeing the paper bag in the far southeast corner of the 6th floor.

But there's ample testimony from multiple other police officers who said they did see the bag to indicate that the paper bag (CE142) was most definitely found on the sixth floor of the Depository on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists really think all of these officers were lying when they each testified that they saw the bag on the 6th floor?:

J.C. Day [4 H 267].
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97].
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103].
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144].
 

Seriously, David, there's no way they could have missed this. One of them? Maybe. All of them? No way.