Moments Leading to Oswald's Deserved Death

[Robert Burrows]

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

This is the verdict of history, not a claim by Warren Commission apologists. Too bad Hitler didn't get a trial either, I guess.

Godwin's law.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

Godwin's law.

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

The evidence is open and shut. 

 

28 minutes ago, Robert Burrows said:

Godwin's law.

You can't fix stupid, guys...

As much as you'd like to, there are some who do what they do on this forum simply for the joy of feeling as if they got you off topic...  

The FBI generated something called COINTELPRO as a guideline as to how to go about disrupting forums, gatherings, lectures or any other agenda for which THEY feel it necessary.  Please Google the term and recognize the tactics...

This forum has been under attack in one way or another for as long as I've been here... but not by the likes of Von Pein who does his best given the material with which he has to work...  No, the people who use these tactics offer little to the members beyond the pleasure of seeing their name on a forum...  their most prized accomplishment is to be taken seriously and to be argued with...  a no win situation as their position is not real, their arguments not sincere...

It's not hard to tell wheat from shaft.

It pains me to see intelligent people such as yourselves get dragged down into the hole these people have dug for themselves by simply accepting the WCR as if nothing has occurred since Sept 1964.  The evidence offered in the POS was never vetted, never cross-examined, never even rendered authentic...

So we must pity these poor fools for having to defend the indefensible day after day to the point we all see now as comical.  But please, don't feed the idiots...  let them pace back and forth in their cages hoping someone comes in to feed them, then they can attack...

Some of the people in the past even were paid provocateurs with endless hours to waste and your time and energy the target.   I'm as guilty as the next for engaging...  yet I doubt highly that members are so intellectually starved they need the intellectually bankrupt to serve as counterpoint.

I bring this up as it appears there are more than a handful of posters with nothing to do but try to convince you the good ole US of A never had political conspiracies and never will... none being a better example of this than the JFK/Tippit/Oswald murders...  so spit in to the wind, pull on Superman's cape... but don't believe for a second that anyone is being convinced of anything here...

Either you get it and want to understand, or you don't and playing the fool is all that's left...  this isn't Twitter, so no, their opinions are not worth much of anything, their incredulity over the events don't change them...  count how many "why would he/they" or "does it make sense" statements these posters use... for that is the only argument left... fighting the evidence with opinions hasn't worked so far, and surprise-surprise-surprise, it's not going to start any time soon.

Good luck

COINTELPRO

Hopefully this can help raise awareness of the different behaviors we've all experienced.
Our POV has to be maintained - we are NOT attempting to PROVE the existence of a conspiracy... a foregone conclusion.... all we are doing now is identifying the players and the tactics... with a good chunk of those tactics listed right here.

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________

Here are a few from #2: 25 Rules...  see if you don't recognize them...

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 

[Charles Blackmon]

The IGNORE feature is a Godsend.

[Gene Kelly]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"You ignore the fact that the officer on dispatch duty the night before, Billy Grammer, said that a man who sounded like Ruby called the DPD, that the man knew about the actual time that Oswald would be transferred, and that the man warned that the police needed to change the transfer plan or else Oswald would be killed."

 

And when exactly is it that you believe we first hear of this story from Grammer?

 

Bill

Here is a summary of the Billy Grammer story:

At 3:00 am, Dallas Police Officer Billy Grammer received a phone call from a familiar voice warning him that Oswald would be killed if the police didn't transfer him in secret. Grammer said the man detailed the plans of the transfer, such as a decoy vehicle, information that couldn’t be obtained without the help of police officers or other government agents. Grammer then asked a high-ranking police officer to listen in on the call. After the call ended, Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which he identified Ruby as the man who called the police station and made threats against Oswald at 3:00 AM. Grammer was never asked to testify before the Warren Commission, and the sworn affidavit that he and his supervisor personally gave to Chief Curry disappeared. After placing these early morning phone calls to the Sheriff's office, the FBI office, and the Dallas Police Department Ruby likely drove home, arriving around 4:00 AM.

This was later recounted in a KTBS TV interview on November 18, 2018, "Retired Dallas officer Billy Grammer remembers the call that could've stopped killing of JFK's assassin" by Gerry May (see link below).  In his interview, Grammer stated that Chief Curry told FBI investigators the next day that he did not remember getting Billy's report ... but Grammer says his fellow officer and two FBI agents stood behind him.

"That report has never surfaced," Grammer says. "When all that happened on Sunday and Oswald was killed, I think probably Sunday afternoon the chief probably shredded that thing and threw it in the trash," Grammer says.

https://www.ktbs.com/community/hometown-patriot/retired-dallas-officer-billy-grammer-remembers-the-call-that-couldve-stopped-killing-of-jfks-assassin/article_f428d63e-e9ea-11e8-ac79-57eca10df1f5.html

Chief Curry never mentioned Billy Grammer or discussed the typewritten report given to him by Grammer during his Warren Commission testimony. Nonetheless, Curry apparently took this threat seriously because he suggested to Assistant Police Chief Charles Batchelor and Deputy Chief Stevenson that Oswald be transported to the county jail in an armored truck, although Captain Fritz disagreed, and later intended to use the armored truck as a decoy. 

Gene

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Bill

Here is a summary of the Billy Grammer story:

At 3:00 am, Dallas Police Officer Billy Grammer received a phone call from a familiar voice warning him that Oswald would be killed if the police didn't transfer him in secret. Grammer said the man detailed the plans of the transfer, such as a decoy vehicle, information that couldn’t be obtained without the help of police officers or other government agents. Grammer then asked a high-ranking police officer to listen in on the call. After the call ended, Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which he identified Ruby as the man who called the police station and made threats against Oswald at 3:00 AM. Grammer was never asked to testify before the Warren Commission, and the sworn affidavit that he and his supervisor personally gave to Chief Curry disappeared. After placing these early morning phone calls to the Sheriff's office, the FBI office, and the Dallas Police Department Ruby likely drove home, arriving around 4:00 AM.

This was later recounted in a KTBS TV interview on November 18, 2018, "Retired Dallas officer Billy Grammer remembers the call that could've stopped killing of JFK's assassin" by Gerry May (see link below).  In his interview, Grammer stated that Chief Curry told FBI investigators the next day that he did not remember getting Billy's report ... but Grammer says his fellow officer and two FBI agents stood behind him.

"That report has never surfaced," Grammer says. "When all that happened on Sunday and Oswald was killed, I think probably Sunday afternoon the chief probably shredded that thing and threw it in the trash," Grammer says.

https://www.ktbs.com/community/hometown-patriot/retired-dallas-officer-billy-grammer-remembers-the-call-that-couldve-stopped-killing-of-jfks-assassin/article_f428d63e-e9ea-11e8-ac79-57eca10df1f5.html

Chief Curry never mentioned Billy Grammer or discussed the typewritten report given to him by Grammer during his Warren Commission testimony. Nonetheless, Curry apparently took this threat seriously because he suggested to Assistant Police Chief Charles Batchelor and Deputy Chief Stevenson that Oswald be transported to the county jail in an armored truck, although Captain Fritz disagreed, and later intended to use the armored truck as a decoy. 

Gene

 

You don't really believe any of that, do you?

 

I'm familiar with the Grammer claim and none of that answered my question.

 

Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which Grammer identified Ruby as the caller that very night?  I call bullsh*t on that one.

 

During Ruby's trial, Bill Alexander (and in effect, Henry Wade) were trying to prove that Ruby murdered Oswald with malice and forethought.  They wanted the death penalty.  If Ruby really did make that phone call and Grammer really did recognize that it was Ruby, then Grammer would have been their star witness during Ruby's trial since he (Grammer) would have been the perfect witness to prove malice and forethought on Ruby's part.  Despite this, we do not hear from Grammer until 1988 in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

 

[Joe Bauer]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

 

You don't really believe any of that, do you?

 

I'm familiar with the Grammer claim and none of that answered my question.

 

Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which Grammer identified Ruby as the caller that very night?  I call bullsh*t on that one.

 

During Ruby's trial, Bill Alexander (and in effect, Henry Wade) were trying to prove that Ruby murdered Oswald with malice and forethought.  They wanted the death penalty.  If Ruby really did make that phone call and Grammer really did recognize that it was Ruby, then Grammer would have been their star witness during Ruby's trial since he (Grammer) would have been the perfect witness to prove malice and forethought on Ruby's part.  Despite this, we do not hear from Grammer until 1988 in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

 

BB...

Without an actual tape recording of the Ruby call to Grammar, Henry Wade could not present Grammer in trial without such.

Otherwise Grammer's claim would just be passed off as subjective hearsay.

[Bill Brown]

29 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

BB...

Without an actual tape recording of the Ruby call to Grammar, Henry Wade could not present Grammer in trial without such.

Otherwise Grammer's claim would just be passed off as subjective hearsay.

 

No Sir.

 

If Ruby really did call the police station, then Grammer would be called in to testify about what he knows personally, that Jack Ruby called him at the police station the night before Oswald was killed.

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

You can't fix stupid, guys...

As much as you'd like to, there are some who do what they do on this forum simply for the joy of feeling as if they got you off topic...  

The FBI generated something called COINTELPRO as a guideline as to how to go about disrupting forums, gatherings, lectures or any other agenda for which THEY feel it necessary.  Please Google the term and recognize the tactics...

This forum has been under attack in one way or another for as long as I've been here... but not by the likes of Von Pein who does his best given the material with which he has to work...  No, the people who use these tactics offer little to the members beyond the pleasure of seeing their name on a forum...  their most prized accomplishment is to be taken seriously and to be argued with...  a no win situation as their position is not real, their arguments not sincere...

It's not hard to tell wheat from shaft.

It pains me to see intelligent people such as yourselves get dragged down into the hole these people have dug for themselves by simply accepting the WCR as if nothing has occurred since Sept 1964.  The evidence offered in the POS was never vetted, never cross-examined, never even rendered authentic...

So we must pity these poor fools for having to defend the indefensible day after day to the point we all see now as comical.  But please, don't feed the idiots...  let them pace back and forth in their cages hoping someone comes in to feed them, then they can attack...

Some of the people in the past even were paid provocateurs with endless hours to waste and your time and energy the target.   I'm as guilty as the next for engaging...  yet I doubt highly that members are so intellectually starved they need the intellectually bankrupt to serve as counterpoint.

I bring this up as it appears there are more than a handful of posters with nothing to do but try to convince you the good ole US of A never had political conspiracies and never will... none being a better example of this than the JFK/Tippit/Oswald murders...  so spit in to the wind, pull on Superman's cape... but don't believe for a second that anyone is being convinced of anything here...

Either you get it and want to understand, or you don't and playing the fool is all that's left...  this isn't Twitter, so no, their opinions are not worth much of anything, their incredulity over the events don't change them...  count how many "why would he/they" or "does it make sense" statements these posters use... for that is the only argument left... fighting the evidence with opinions hasn't worked so far, and surprise-surprise-surprise, it's not going to start any time soon.

Good luck

COINTELPRO

Hopefully this can help raise awareness of the different behaviors we've all experienced.
Our POV has to be maintained - we are NOT attempting to PROVE the existence of a conspiracy... a foregone conclusion.... all we are doing now is identifying the players and the tactics... with a good chunk of those tactics listed right here.

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________

Here are a few from #2: 25 Rules...  see if you don't recognize them...

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 

 

"It's not hard to tell wheat from shaft."

 

You mean the wheat from the chaff?

 

 

"You can't fix stupid, guys..."

 

Boy, that's for sure.

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 2/13/2023 at 3:02 PM, David Von Pein said:

Which, of course, totally contradicts these words spoken by the same Jack Ruby during his WC testimony:

MR. RUBY -- "All I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all. There was no conspiracy." [5 H 212]

And he said it again at 14 H 543:  "There was no conspiracy." -- Jack Ruby

Sigh. . . .  You must be kidding. You simply must be kidding. Ruby was scared to death at that point, as anyone can readily see from his WC testimony. You omitted the fact that in that same WC interview, Ruby begged, literally begged, to be taken to DC to be questioned, and expressed his fear that he wouldn't be around long after Warren and Ford left, and that this was one reason they had to take him to DC.

You and Lance Payette always ignore evidence that doesn't fit your minority view of the assassination. Rather than fit your theory to the facts, you dismiss all facts that contradict your theory. You always insist on finding an innocent explanation for damning evidence, no matter how clearly that evidence points to guilt and crime.

You won't admit that Ruby did a flimsy job of trying to make his hit on Oswald appear to be a spontaneous, grief-driven, spur-of-the-moment action to spare Jackie and Caroline an Oswald trial, even though Ruby later admitted in writing that his professed desire to spare the Kennedys a trial was phony.

Why did Ruby go to the Western Union office near the DPD HQ when there was a Western Union office much closer to him, right there in Oak Cliff, at 206 South Zangs Blvd., Oak Cliff? This fact alone reveals the fraud, deception, and criminal intent in Ruby's actions.

And let's repeat the other evidence that belies Ruby's obviously phony spontaneity alibi: his lying about how he entered the basement, his interest in learning the time of Oswald's transfer the day before, the call that police dispatcher Billy Grammer received the night before from a man who "sounded like Ruby" and who warned the police to change the transfer plans, Ruby's apparent failing of the polygraph question about conspiracy, his numerous calls to Mafia contacts all over the country in the weeks before the assassination, his suspicious armed appearance at Wade's press conference where he revealed his knowledge of Oswald's involvement in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, the credible report of Ruby's presence in a truck from which a man was seen departing with a rifle case and heading toward the grassy knoll earlier in the day, the considerable credible evidence that Ruby knew Oswald, and his video-taped admission shortly before he died that there had been a conspiracy.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Gene Kelly]

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

You don't really believe any of that, do you?

 

I'm familiar with the Grammer claim and none of that answered my question.

 

Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which Grammer identified Ruby as the caller that very night?  I call bullsh*t on that one.

 

During Ruby's trial, Bill Alexander (and in effect, Henry Wade) were trying to prove that Ruby murdered Oswald with malice and forethought.  They wanted the death penalty.  If Ruby really did make that phone call and Grammer really did recognize that it was Ruby, then Grammer would have been their star witness during Ruby's trial since he (Grammer) would have been the perfect witness to prove malice and forethought on Ruby's part.  Despite this, we do not hear from Grammer until 1988 in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

 

Bill

Your response appears to mirror a comment made by John McAdams 20+ years ago.

To answer your question, I wouldn't reject Grammer's story out of hand.  Grammer served 32 years with DPD and retired as a lieutenant in 1986.  I suspect that he was loyal to the Department and didn't want to make waves, plus he did what he was expected to do ...  he reported and documented the call to the watch officer (Lieutenant Putnam), and the two of them brought it to Chief Curry's attention. Curry dismissed the warning, since DPD were receiving many similar threats at the time.  Grammer consistently related his story, 30 years after the Men Who Killed Kennedy documentary.  This is also covered in James Douglas' "JFK and the Unspeakable" published in 2010 (page 367) ... Footnote 856 (WCH vol 19) refers to a report from the Sherrif's office, and Footnote 857 (WCH vol 24) documents a similar call to the FBI.  The FBI's Vernon Glosser reported a caller who stated: We wanted to be sure and tell the FBI, Police Department, and Sheriff's Office and we will be there, and we will kill him." (24 H 429)

I have previous experience with investigating allegations (as a government employee) and Officer Grammer appears credible to me.  

Gene

 

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You don't really believe any of that, do you?

I'm familiar with the Grammer claim and none of that answered my question.

Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which Grammer identified Ruby as the caller that very night?  

During Ruby's trial, Bill Alexander (and in effect, Henry Wade) were trying to prove that Ruby murdered Oswald with malice and forethought.  They wanted the death penalty.  If Ruby really did make that phone call and Grammer really did recognize that it was Ruby, then Grammer would have been their star witness during Ruby's trial since he (Grammer) would have been the perfect witness to prove malice and forethought on Ruby's part.  Despite this, we do not hear from Grammer until 1988 in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

Wow. You guys robotically repeat the argument that "someone would have talked if there had been a conspiracy," but every time a witness comes forward with evidence of conspiracy, you guys look for any excuse to discredit the person and their evidence. 

Now, why would Grammer have lied about this? Why would he continue to insist that the phone call happened and that the man sounded like Ruby? Why? 

It seems your only reason for rejecting Grammer's account is that it doesn't fit your see-no-evil-here narrative. 

By the way, in 2018, Grammer repeated his account of the call and stood by it:

Retired Dallas officer Billy Grammer remembers the call that could've stopped killing of JFK's assassin | Hometown Patriot | ktbs.com

Edited February 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

The bottom line is that we don't hear from Grammer (regarding the voice belonging to Jack Ruby) until the late 80's.  If you guys want to say it is credible, then go right ahead.

 

Me?  I require more.

 

Waiting almost 25 years to ever mention that it was Ruby who made the call?   Come on, now.

 

[Joe Bauer]

Gene, Michael...

I thought all calls in to the police by the public were tape recorded, even back then...no?

Maybe "non-emergency" calls weren't?

But the call to Grammer was a direct call to the main police station hot line.

You would also assume that this contact by Grammer and his immediate higher rank officer, brought directly to Curry's attention and being so out of the ordinary, that Curry and whoever else was responsible for the Oswald transfer security would have at least had it checked out by someone, even a lower level PD member.

And didn't Grammer state to Curry his suspicion that he recognized the caller as Jack Ruby?

Imagine Curry having to acknowledge officer Grammer's "Jack Ruby" ID call in warning after Ruby killed Oswald as the greatest warning ignoring blunder in his life?

And Grammer wasn't called to testify to any of the JFK assassination investigative hearings?

Niether the WC, HSCA and ARRP one?

[Bob Ness]

14 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

No Sir.

 

If Ruby really did call the police station, then Grammer would be called in to testify about what he knows personally, that Jack Ruby called him at the police station the night before Oswald was killed.

 

Not necessarily. The lack of corroborating documentation creates problems on cross, I would imagine. It seems clear Grammer and Putnam's report was filed in the discard bin and any of the other witnesses such as FBI agents would reveal Curry's dismissal of the report. If you're prosecuting Ruby and going for the death penalty, there's already enough evidence of prior intent (particularly in Texas at that time) to do that.

Prosecutors could choose to not muddy the water and Belli would stay mum (Brady was brand spanking new and he would no doubt leave sleeping dogs sleep - not knowing whether it would be pertinent). Of course, he probably had no knowledge of it anyway. The prosecution would much rather project a competent law enforcement image rather than the clown show and possibly criminal set up it was. Curry had every reason not to say anything about it to anyone before and during the trial even if Wade would have wanted it (which he probably didn't - it's a straight Helen Keller on that front). 

Grammer said the caller knew the details of the transfer which indicates the information came from the DPD, not news sources or whatever. I doubt he or Curry would be eager to go to the stand to tell everyone they could have prevented LHO's murder but "We're here so Ruby gets the chair". That doesn't make any sense at all. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Bob Ness