Bill Brown Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 On 4/8/2024 at 5:21 AM, Gil Jesus said: Absolutely not. The correct way: "I'm going to show you a lineup of (whatever number) men. If you DON'T see the man who shot the police officer, tell me he's not there. If you DO see him, tell me the number he's standing under." You don't tell the witness that the suspect is in the lineup. You let the witness tell YOU he's in the lineup. The absence of an attorney gave police the freedom to conduct lineups that were completely unfair, using fillers that did not match the witnesses descriptions or even resembled Oswald. Had a lawyer been present, he never would have allowed such lineups. The Dallas Police never produced photographs of the the fillers as they were dressed for the first two lineups. This is how the fillers were dressed. The Police instead produced photos of the "fillers" in clothes they were not wearing at the time of the lineups. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/wc-lineups.jpg The Police did not produce photographs of the "fillers" in lineups 3 and 4. This deceptive move by the Police, to suppress what the "fillers" looked like at the time of the lineups, allowed the Commission to conclude in its Report that, "The Dallas Police furnished the Commission with photographs of the men who appeared in the lineups with Oswald and the Commission has inquired into the general lineup procedures used by the Dallas police as well as the specific procedures in the lineups involving Oswald. The Commission is satisfied that the lineups were conducted fairly." ( Report, Chapter 4, pg. 169 ) Had Oswald been convicted, the conduct of these lineups would have been grounds for an appeal. These lineups would have been enough to have his conviction overturned and granted a new trial. And any witness identifications made from these lineups would have been inadmissable at re-trial. Misleading. Oswald was wearing his brown shirt for the Friday lineups. Therefore, why use the mugshot photo of Oswald only in the white T-shirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 hour ago, Bill Brown said: Misleading. Oswald was wearing his brown shirt for the Friday lineups. What's that got to do with the way the others were dressed ? 1. Perry was dark skinned ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a brown sport coat, no tie. ( 7 H 233 ) 2. Clark had blond hair, blue eyes ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a white short-sleeved shirt with a red vest. ( 7 H 236 ) 3. Ables was short, heavy and was wearing a grey woolen sweater. ( 7 H 240 ) What witness described Tippit's killer as any of the above three ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 19 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said: What's that got to do with the way the others were dressed ? 1. Perry was dark skinned ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a brown sport coat, no tie. ( 7 H 233 ) 2. Clark had blond hair, blue eyes ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a white short-sleeved shirt with a red vest. ( 7 H 236 ) 3. Ables was short, heavy and was wearing a grey woolen sweater. ( 7 H 240 ) What witness described Tippit's killer as any of the above three ? Exactly. What a shamelessly obvious set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brown Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 37 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said: What's that got to do with the way the others were dressed ? 1. Perry was dark skinned ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a brown sport coat, no tie. ( 7 H 233 ) 2. Clark had blond hair, blue eyes ( 7 H 168 ) and was wearing a white short-sleeved shirt with a red vest. ( 7 H 236 ) 3. Ables was short, heavy and was wearing a grey woolen sweater. ( 7 H 240 ) What witness described Tippit's killer as any of the above three ? "What's that got to do with the way the others were dressed ?" Your graphic asks "Can you pick the suspect"? Your graphic shows Oswald in a beat up plain white T-shirt, no doubt in an attempt to misrepresent what Oswald was wearing versus what the fillers were wearing. Oswald was wearing his brown shirt for all of the Friday lineups. You couldn't find a photo of Oswald in the brown shirt? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted April 9 Author Share Posted April 9 On 4/8/2024 at 11:26 AM, Gil Jesus said: There are several things Mr. Down fails to mention in his argument that Oswald's rights were not violated. The absence of a lawyer gave the Dallas Police free reign to question Oswald after he had asked for a lawyer. It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to hold Oswald incommunicado, not allowing him to see his family for almost 24 hours. This prevented Oswald from asking them for help getting an attorney. It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to conduct unfair lineups. It also gave the Dallas Police the freedom to arraign Oswald at the ungodly hour of 1:35 am on Saturday. And while Mr. Down and his allies commend the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to use the phone, they fail to mention that Oswald was not allowed to use the phone until 1:40 pm on Saturday the 23rd, 24 hours after his arrest. Police delayed his use of a phone until they were sure no New York lawyer would be in his office. Of course, Oswald was unable to reach Abt at his office. Satisfied that Oswald was unable to reach an attorney, Police then allowed him to use the phone twice more, at 4 pm ( when he called Ruth Paine and got no answer because they had gone shopping ) and 8 pm ( when he finally got a hold of Mrs. Paine ). The problem with the Lone Nut side is that they never tell you the whole story. While Mr. Down and his allies in the Lone Nut community reap praises on the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to speak to a lawyer, they don't tell you that that lawyer ( H. Louis Nichols ) did not practice criminal law. They don't tell you that there were TWO Bar Associations in Dallas, the Dallas Bar Association and the Dallas CRIMINAL Bar Association and that Nichols was President of the first one. They don't tell you that Nichols was a reluctant participant, pressured to go see Oswald by a professor at SMU school of law. They don't tell you that Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office and at the time of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city credit union. They don't tell you that having a lawyer who did not practice criminal law go in to question Oswald was a joke. A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions: Was he being beaten? Was he being starved? Was he being deprived of sleep? Was he being isolated from his friends and family? Was he being denied counsel? Finally, they don't tell you that Nichols had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 ) Even more shockingly, Mr Down and his allies never tell you that Oswald told Nichols he was being held incommunicado ( 7 H 328 ) and he wanted either John Abt from New York or the ACLU to represent him. ( ibid. pg. 329 ) Not only did Nichols testify to this fact, he told the press the same thing. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/abt-or-ACLU.mp4 But you'll never hear that from Mr. Down or his allies on the Lone Nut side. From the Dallas Police's standpoint, what a perfect lawyer to speak to Oswald. Nichols then gave in to Chief Curry's request that he give a statement to the press that Oswald did not want a lawyer. Nichols reluctance to get involved in this case and the fact that the city was a client of his, made him a shill for the Dallas authorities who were pushing a narrative that Oswald did not want legal counsel. I'd agree with this assessment. It looks like the DPD held off on allowing LHO contact a lawyer on the Friday, long enough to see if they could get any information out of Oswald that would help them understand the case better. Then when pressure came on to allow Nichols in, they had no choice but to comply. But this is where it then gets interesting. After allowing Nichols in to see Oswald, Oswald then decides to effectively deny himself a lawyer until Abt can see him, which would be a day or two away. Then Oswald agrees to more questioning by the DPD. So while the DPD may have stalled giving Oswald a lawyer on the Friday (i'm still waiting to find out what actual law was broken by the DPD in doing this, the DPD have to go by laws, not by ones interpretation of the constitution which varies from person to person), this is somewhat negated by the fact that on Saturday Oswald denies himself a lawyer and proceeds to continue answering questions without a lawyer present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted April 9 Author Share Posted April 9 (edited) On 4/8/2024 at 11:26 AM, Gil Jesus said: But you'll never hear that from Mr. Down or his allies on the Lone Nut side. I don't agree the WCR is the final say on the JFK assassination, nor agree with the conclusions of Posner or Bugliosi as laid out in their books. Some CTers on this forum believe Oswald fired shots that day. Others, the late Michael Brownlow for example, believe Oswald shot Tippit. JFKA researchers come in all shapes and sizes. Edited April 9 by Gerry Down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Why has no one mentioned what happened to Greg Olds? Its both important and revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted April 9 Author Share Posted April 9 On 4/8/2024 at 8:58 AM, Johnny Cairns said: Gerry, As a basic requirement, in my opinion, have you read the WCR? How about any of the exhibits of the 26 Volumes? Yes I’ve read them. Some testimonies many times as I’m sure you have too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted April 9 Author Share Posted April 9 On 4/8/2024 at 4:10 AM, Gerry Down said: While still alive in police custody, Jesse Curry said LHO was the assassin but that there could be a conspiracy. This was arguably providing room for manoeuvre for Oswald in a trial whereby Oswald could claim it was a conspirator who actually pulled the trigger. Is Curry prejudicing a potential jury by publicably speculating there might be a conspiracy and they only captured Oswald while others roam free? I posted a video which had been online for 4 years i believe. Now all of a sudden the account gets terminated just when i post it on here. Did someone on here not like was in the video and reported it? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to hide footage related to the assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Here is Greg Olds' testimony. Everyone should read it to see how bad the DPD really was. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Olds.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) 8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Here is Greg Olds' testimony. Everyone should read it to see how bad the DPD really was. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Olds.pdf After reading his testimony, I came away with the impression that they ( ACLU ) were afraid of the Dallas Police. They certainly didn't want to lock horns with them and I'm not surprised. The level of corruption within the whole Dallas prosecutory system was enough to scare anyone from challenging them. You could end up dead. Edited April 10 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Yes, I agree with that Gil. He was intimidated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brown Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Mr. OLDS. Well, I know, but we had the idea that Oswald was not being accurate when he said he had been denied, because in our dealings with the police here, we have had reason to believe that they are very careful of this sort of thing. And certainly in a case of this notoriety, certainly, our tendency was to believe that, but I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald, because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not. Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him? Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now