Jump to content
The Education Forum

Perjury or not ?


Recommended Posts

Some here ( @Sandy Larsen @James DiEugenio  have called this perjury (or alleged to it being so), I found that a rather serious accusation 

Ruth spend a few days at her sisters house in july 1963 (the family tour)

In April 1968 she didn't exactly remember the place in first (p 56) when asked by Alcock (before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury)

A little later when asked by Garrison se mentioned the place.

I would like to hear some opnions on this

PS 1 : Falls Church was the correct place, apparently she did not remember the exact street, but she was not asked again about it after she had mentioned Falls Church

PS 2 : Perjury is "voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath, false swearing"

PS 3 : "Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding." 

PS 4 : on the side, I think Garrison could have found her anyway, it really wasn't about that, I think all of this was merely his intro for getting to the CIA part in this. Anyway, Garrison went after a dozen or so, I think only Dean got convicted if I remember correctly ?

 

56.jpg

61.jpg

62.jpg

Edited by Jean Ceulemans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean:

A listener to Black Op Radio sent me something on this.

He did some really good work on the subject.

It turns out that the Hokes did not live at Falls Church at that time.

They lived in Maryland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

How was this perjury exactly?  Jean can you elaborate?

IMO it is not, but Sandy said Ruth lied when she was asked about her sisters address

I referred to you in that topic (if you look at the notices - the bell, next to messages - you get from EF it should be in there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean:

A listener to Black Op Radio sent me something on this.

He did some really good work on the subject.

It turns out that the Hokes did not live at Falls Church at that time.

They lived in Maryland.

Yes, but they got on to it from the visits she had made in that tour, and where she stayed during that, and she assumed that was Falls Church, one of their previous addresses.  And why would she lie about it when in december 1963 the agencies had her address. Sylvia was questioned a number of times in december 1963 about Ruth's visit in or about about august '63.

The thing is, what Ruth has said in Orleans,  how would it be perjury on Ruth's part ?

She was not sure it was Maryland, Falls Church or any other in the region where her sister had lived (see below).

Her sister had lived in Falls Church, so that was not a bad statement IMHO

I certainly would not call it a perjury, a serious matter 

And, Jim, It was your invitation (see attached) to me to look up the matter, so I did, and I thank you for reminding me to do so

But they had her address, she was in the phonebook, and IMO not hiding from Garrison, at least not that I can tell ?

Yes, Silvia was working for the CIA, but was it Ruth's to know or tell ?

Ruth did say what she assumed she was doing for those organisations

Garrison should have called Sylvia to the stand, I don't know if he did ?

But blaming Ruth for perjury ? IMO nope

 

 

Hoke.jpg

diE.jpg

Edited by Jean Ceulemans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean:

You find this credible, I do not.

I know precisely where both my sisters live right now, address and phone numbers.

Now, if I was going to visit one in person at their domicile, I would certainly know where that place was.  I would write it down and map it out.

And I would not forget about it in a legal proceeding.

Now, if my sister worked for the CIA, and I knew Garrison was hot on their trail, that probably would make a difference.

Finally, I do not think you understand what Greg Parker noted in one of his cross postings here about Ruth.

Ruth was  careful about the way she replied to questions on the case, as with Hootkins. Almost like she prepared her answers in advance so as not to give certain key points of information away.  Just look at the way she fumbles around with that location name.

Is the glass half empty or half full?  We do not know for certain since there was never any real investigation of the Paines by the WC, by the HSCA or even an interview by the ARRB.  But based on some good work by certain researchers, I think its the latter.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, just more nothing Jean!

If it's not innuendo, it's phony claims of charges that would never hold up.

But I do have a personal story I can account.

In my whole time living in the U.S. There was only one time I didn't know what state I was in.

To any people who've been to D.C. it's very possible to head south and

1) Not know when you've left DC, which i didn't.

2)Not know if you've left DC and be in Virginia, which happened to me.

3)Not know if when you've  left DC and be in Maryland.

There was nothing worth lying about here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yes, just more nothing Jean!

If it's not innuendo, it's phony claims of charges that would never hold up.

But I do have a personal story I can account.

In my whole time living in the U.S. There was only one time I didn't know what state I was in.

To any people who've been to D.C. it's very possible to head south and

1) Not know when you've left DC, which i didn't.

2)Not know if you've left DC and be in Virginia, which happened to me.

3)Not know if when you've  left DC and be in Maryland.

There was nothing worth lying about here.

Thanks, that was indeed the main point I was getting at, nothing worth lying about.

I have a little personal story myself,  I actually also have a sister that is now living in Virginia.  She moved to the US over 40 years ago, has moved a number of times (different states, cities, etc).  If I need her address, I would have to look it up in the address book, I really wouldn't know the town or city it actually is.

Edited by Jean Ceulemans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Finally, I do not think you understand what Greg Parker noted in one of his cross postings here about Ruth.

Ruth was  careful about the way she replied to questions on the case (…)

Jim D, I know you like Greg P and I do too but he was just wrong on that. Not what Ruth was doing and not any custom in any Quaker primary text or that any religion sociologist ever noticed of Quakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Some here ( @Sandy Larsen @James DiEugenio  have called this perjury (or alleged to it being so), I found that a rather serious accusation 

Ruth spend a few days at her sisters house in july 1963 (the family tour)

In April 1968 she didn't exactly remember the place in first (p 56) when asked by Alcock (before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury)

A little later when asked by Garrison se mentioned the place.

I would like to hear some opnions on this

PS 1 : Falls Church was the correct place, apparently she did not remember the exact street, but she was not asked again about it after she had mentioned Falls Church

PS 2 : Perjury is "voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath, false swearing"

PS 3 : "Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding." 

PS 4 : on the side, I think Garrison could have found her anyway, it really wasn't about that, I think all of this was merely his intro for getting to the CIA part in this. Anyway, Garrison went after a dozen or so, I think only Dean got convicted if I remember correctly ?

 

56.jpg

61.jpg

62.jpg

 

Jean,

I've never said a word about the things you say I did.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

IMO it is not, but Sandy said Ruth lied when she was asked about her sisters address

I referred to you in that topic (if you look at the notices - the bell, next to messages - you get from EF it should be in there)

Does not appear to be perjury based on this limited info.   However, I have said before that I find her answers generally at best evasive.   I understand how Jim might find them as coached or rehearsed.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean, if you rely on Kirk, you are lost.  He will say almost anything just to disagree with me. Which is why I have him blocked.

Now go back and look at the actual dialogue.

The town they lived in did not have two names. 

And it was in the wrong state.

Now if you find that credible, God bless you.

I do not.

Recall, Garrison said he was having trouble finding out the location and her occupation.

Ruth made sure it would stay that way.

I wonder why?

Maybe the same reason she messed up the info on Hootkins?

Maybe the same reason she cooperated with Odum and Hoover on deep sixing Oswald's Minox?

Maybe the same reason she was so outraged about Oswald using her typewriter to write something about a place he was likely never at? Or maybe why she then produced 'evidence" in addition to that letter saying he was there?

I could go on and on, but if you are buds with Kirk, its no use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean, if you rely on Kirk, you are lost.  He will say almost anything just to disagree with me. Which is why I have him blocked.

Now go back and look at the actual dialogue.

The town they lived in did not have two names. 

And it was in the wrong state.

Now if you find that credible, God bless you.

I do not.

Recall, Garrison said he was having trouble finding out the location and her occupation.

Ruth made sure it would stay that way.

I wonder why?

Maybe the same reason she messed up the info on Hootkins?

Maybe the same reason she cooperated with Odum and Hoover on deep sixing Oswald's Minox?

Maybe the same reason she was so outraged about Oswald using her typewriter to write something about a place he was likely never at? Or maybe why she then produced 'evidence" in addition to that letter saying he was there?

I could go on and on, but if you are buds with Kirk, its no use.

Don’t forget the story about not knowing where he actually worked.  Oh, you mean that depository?   Gosh!   Or the we were all so excited about the president visit but we did not go down to watch because we had to go shopping or something ridiculous like that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jean,

I've never said a word about the things you say I did.

 

In the same topic, about the way Ruth answered to her sisters employment I believe it was.  IMHO she answered to those questions pretty much in the same way she answered the questions about the place her sister lived.   I did not add the excerpts on the Q and A about the work she did.  BUT perhaps you were talking about a perjury in an other part, or perhaps even another hearing ?

Please give me some references to that so I can find where she committed perjury there,  or copy the exerpts as I did with the address discussion,   I'm really only trying to learn ya know !

 

 

sl.jpg

Edited by Jean Ceulemans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...