+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine (/thread-12545.html)
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - Albert Doyle - 28-05-2014
David Josephs Wrote:So basically Albert and Bob....
You've hijacked the thread to steer it toward the BYP and the physical characteristics of the rifle...
Well you did sort of invite it in post #8. However if Bob is right about the groove in the forestock it pretty much proves the rifle can't be the Fucile Corto in evidence.
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - David Josephs - 30-05-2014
Drew Phipps Wrote:Just saw thischallenge: "Name a single piece of WCR evidence that can be authenticatedthat leads to Oswald's guilt."
Oswald's anomalous behavior after the shooting of JFK would be admissibleevidence of "guilt" (though not anything more specific that that).Leaving work early without asking the boss, abortive bus ride that he wastes aperfectly good fare to leave, an "expensive" cab ride (for thethrifty Oswald at least), changing clothes; grabbing either a loaded pistol, orgrabbing pistol and ammo (but from where?) and loading the pistol; concealingit, and heading out to a movie theater, striking a cop in the face, pulling aloaded pistol on a cop, resisting arrest, would be admissible evidence ofa guilty "state of mind." As far as authenticating it, this stuff wasall (allegedly) admitted by Oswald (some of it on live TV), backed up byeyewitnesses, and doesn't seem to be seriously contested by anyone. (This stuffis also completely independent of the Tippet matter, but if he did kill Tippet,that would also be evidence.)
I know this doesn't you very far along in support of any particular theory ofthe case, but it would be admissible and it would be evidence. In Texas, thisis evidence of "guilt", not a great deal of evidence to be sure, butstill evidence.
An interesting POV Drew... yet somewhat confusing to me.
In America, where it's suppose to be "Innocent until proven guilty" you'd offer us "anomalous behavior" as EVIDENCE ??
and then when pressed - and by your own admission, AUTHENTICATION of said events has not only been non-existent, but most of these are proven in the opposite!
Leaving work early without asking the boss,
by that token Charles Givens is guilty as well
abortive bus ride that he wastes a perfectly good fare to leave,
it has been proven that Oswald was not on that bus... the transfer is not authenticated as used or given to Oswald that day... (btw - Drew, if he changed his shirt at home, are you claiming he also took the transfer from the WORK SHIRT and put it in his ARREST SHIRT? - that would make for an interesting presentation of evidence in a court of law...)
According to Kelley's notes, Oswald said he rode the bus all the way tothe theater… According to FRITZ's notes he says he took the bus to a stop near his home… and only when Fritz brings up a taxi cab do the notes literally QUOTE OSWALD as changing his mind…
Drew are you aware of the discovery processwith that transfer and the bullets?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6035[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]6036[/ATTACH]
an "expensive" cab ride (for the thrifty Oswald at least),
Whaley was the substitute cab driver afterit was found that Darrly Click - as mentioned by Wade - did not exist.
Wade said, "He then the bus, he asked thebus driver to stop, got off at a stop, caught a taxicab driver, Darryl Click I don't have his exact place and went to his home in Oak Cliff, changed his clothes hurriedly, and left." On Nov. 27, it was conceded that "Darryl Click" did not drive a taxicab in which Oswald was a passenger. When "Darryl Click"disappeared from the case, "William Whaley" appeared as the man who drove Oswald, not home, but at least in that general direction http://22november1963.org.uk/mark-lane-oswald-arguments-11-15
changing clothes;
Wow, now there's a guilty man if ever I saw one! Drew, Oswald did indeedchange his shirt. Which means that Bledsoe's bus ID could not be correct as she id's the ARREST shirt with tornbuttons and a hole in the elbow. The shirt and pants he wore were found in his dresser and is listed on the inventroy of items taken from Beckley…. Just not photographed or inventoried.
grabbing either a loaded pistol, orgrabbing pistol and ammo (but from where?) and loading the pistol; concealingit, and heading out to a movie theater, FRITZ Said that Oswald said, HOLMES Said that Oswald said… No transcript and notes well after the fact… Mark Lane would have a field day with that incourt. Furthermore, Balcony or Lower level?
striking a cop in the face, according to the DPD
pulling a loaded pistol on a cop,
according to the DPD there is testimony from those there that the arm that had the pistol was in a short sleeve shirt… and there is NO EVIDENCE thatc an be authenticated that Oswald and the Seaport pistol he supposedly had and is in evidence were EVER connected. In fact it can be proven that the SEAPORT SHIPMENT was a fraud created by the FBI.
resisting arrest,
yes, he definitely fought back according to those in the theater… have you read the evidence of those in the theater BEFORE the DPD arrives and what Oswald did?
would be admissible evidence of aguilty "state of mind."
I have to disagree with you here again Drew. The WCR could find no motive and dismissed that as inconsequential. "State of mind" does not prove guilt unless it supports actual evidence, authenticated evidence that it was possible for the person to have committed the crime. There is no such authenticated evidence.
"A lawyer establishes the evidence's competence by showing thatit really is what it is supposed to be. Establishing that real or otherevidence is what it purports to be is called authentication"
Admissible evidence
Definition
Evidence thatis formally presented before the trier of fact (i.e., the judge or jury) to consider in deciding the case. Thetrial court judge determines whether or not the evidence may be proffered. Tobe admissible in court, the evidence must be relevant (i.e., material and having probative value) and not outweighed bycountervailing considerations (e.g.,the evidence is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, a waste of time, privileged,or based on hearsay). Also termed competentevidence; proper evidence;legal evidence. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admissible_evidence
As far as authenticating it, this stuff was all (allegedly) admitted by Oswald(some of it on live TV), backed up by eyewitnesses, and doesn't seem to beseriously contested by anyone. (This stuff is also completely independent ofthe Tippet matter, but if he did kill Tippet, that would also be evidence.)
Do you hear yourself Drew? "If Oswald killed Tippit, that would be evidence that he killed Kennedy" you sound like Arlen Specter here… "If a shot exists the throat Dr. Perry, after being shot from behind, would that be considered an exit' wound?"
Had this gone to court the defense would have ripped this case to shreds…which is why Bugliosi had to STAGE the trial with woefully inadequate defense.
You might find this interesting Drew: "The WC, the Truth and Arlen Specter"http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html
And then there is this memo in April 1964... which literally blows me away and to me is MUCH more important than the Katzenbach memo in illustrating the conspiracy to frame Oswald.
April 27, 1064 Redlich to Rankin: Excerpts
Wehave not yet examined the assassination scene to determine
whetherthe assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to
frame190. We could locate the position on theground which
correspondsto this frame and it would then be our intent to establish
byphotography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the
Presidentprior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the
point withcomplete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesiswhich underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole
assassin.
…
I should add that the facts which wenow have in our
possession,submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
SecretService, are totally incorrect and, ifleft uncorrected, will
presenta completely misleading picture.
Commission Doc #1 isthe FBI report which becomes without change the BACKBONE of the WCR while WCD 298 is THE FBI EXPLANATION OF THE EVENT which, after offered to the WCbecomes a single WCR exhibit, #879, that neither shows or explains the entire point of the Document: three shots,three hits, last hit at the foot of the steps 60 frames after 313. CE879 was all that could be offered from the entriety of WCD298... I urge EVERYONE to read thru the detailed analysis of the crime in this doc and the testimony of one FBI agent LEO GAUTHIER, the man in charge of creating this exhibit.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6034[/ATTACH]
WCD #5 is from the SSand contains the statements of every SS agent there along with their analysis and conclusions
Page 30 of the SS document describes the break from SS SOP would you call the 120 degree turn onto Elm admissible evidence of anomalous activity ? Traveling 12-15 mph (actually 2-8mph) is also anomalous for the SS. As was the motorcade vehicle sequence, the protection onthe back of the limo, the removal of motorcycles, etc, etc…
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1008
Drew, what bothers me most is the discussion of "state of mind" evidence when the real evidenceoffered has not only been NOT authenticated, but proven to be fraudulent whilebeing specifically mentioned in a WCR lawyer's memo to the lead lawyer… andsummarily dismissed as inconsequential… The "evidence and reports" need to be FIXED asap…. And not by independent investigation but by the same agencies that are lying to begin with!
The REPORT AND EVIDENCE gathered and presented by the FBI and SS needs correcting … and we can spend time discussing anything butthe actual fraudulent evidence…
and,if left uncorrected, will
present a completely misleading picture.
It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the
FBI andSecret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a
staffproject. The important thing is that the project be undertaken
expeditiously.
IOW let's let the Foxes tell us who ate the chickens…. ::face.palm::
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - Bob Prudhomme - 30-05-2014
Hi David
A bit off topic again (sorry) but I'm always intrigued whenever you post the FBI photo depicting the position of the limo at the time of each of the three shots. Did the FBI ever explain how they determined the exact position of the limo at these locations?
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - David Josephs - 30-05-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Hi David
A bit off topic again (sorry) but I'm always intrigued whenever you post the FBI photo depicting the position of the limo at the time of each of the three shots. Did the FBI ever explain how they determined the exact position of the limo at these locations?
Not specifically... I suggest reading WCD298 in full... Also read Gautheir's testimony...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6037[/ATTACH]
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - Bob Prudhomme - 30-05-2014
Thanks, Dave, I'll do that. When they changed the story from three bullets hitting flesh to two bullets, did they keep the data from the first shot for the SBT?
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - David Josephs - 30-05-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Thanks, Dave, I'll do that. When they changed the story from three bullets hitting flesh to two bullets, did they keep the data from the first shot for the SBT?
That's a great question... I did a detailed measurement of the FBI descriptions, posted below, and then there is Z224...
We must also remember that the NPIC analysis of the film did NOT place a shot at z224 (see bottom), but at 190, 206 or 213.... Z190 appears more likely the first shot location... yes?
DJ
(yes.. off topic... but I think the point is made that even the SS knew that Klein's did not send anyone C2766... as Redlich to Rankin said:
I should addthat the facts which we now have in our
possession,submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
SecretService, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
present acompletely misleading picture.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6039[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6040[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]6041[/ATTACH]
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - Drew Phipps - 31-05-2014
probably gonna take me a few edits to work through all this stuff. please be patient.
First, it appears that you hijacked your own thread. This was originally just about the gun. Now it looks like an omnibus survey of the evidence. I'll work my way through it though. Your challenge was not to "prove the state's case", it was to "offer a single authenticated bit of Warren Commission evidence that leads us toward Oswald's guilt"...which I did. As I cautioned earlier, I was merely answering your challenge. You asked for evidence. There it is.
'Innocent till proven guilty" is a rephrasing of the way the Constitution works in a court of law. It applies to the way a jury or judge is supposed to rule after being presented some evidence. It doesn't help when deciding IF something is evidence, or analysing the caliber, or the admissibility, of evidence.
Anomalous behavior after a criminal act is evidence of guilt, yes. Not anything more specific than that. It often serves to rebut a claim by the defense that the accused had no knowledge if the crime, or lacked a specific intent. Decades and decades of criminal law behind that one.
About changing clothes: I never said "shirt." Oswald claimed to have changed his pants, and also claimed to have changed his shirt and pants at 2 different times. You said "authenticated". Since it is still an open question specifically about the shirt, I didn't say "shirt". I note that the statement you attached above says he claimed he changed his shirt too. It seems uncontested, at least, that he changed his pants and donned a jacket.
(It would be interesting to present the "changed shirt" evidence to the folks who claim that Altgens caught a pic of "Oswald", wearing the shirt he was arrested in, in front of the TSBD at the time of the shooting, and see what they say.)
The cop that got hit in the face went to the doctor. There were a number of cops that saw Oswald draw the gun. Oswald admitted carrying a gun to the movie theater. He had a gun. That is evidence. Doesn't matter if the government can produce that gun now, or not; the police officers' observations of the gun are "evidence".
It doesn't matter who drove the cab, or the bus, it is uncontested that he did both on that day. There was a bus transfer in his pocket at arrest.
Oswald had unfired bullets in his pocket when arrested. That is uncontested.
State of mind, or intent, is ONE element of the offense and does not require corroborating evidence or proof of any kind, in Texas, so long as a jury could reasonably infer the proper intent from the other evidence. "Motive" is an entirely different animal and is not required for proof, although if you do establish a motive, it usually supports whatever is the required intent. All of the other elements of the offense must also be supported by some evidence, and in fact must be supported by enough evidence to convince a judge or jury that they are true.
Officers', and other witnesses', in-court statements (as well as most testimony) do not need to be separately "authenticated." I assume that if there had been a trial, most of what we read in written form now would actually have been offered in court with live testimony, and would not have needed separate authentication. Physical objects, and written statements (of witnesses that don't testify) do require some form of authentication; usually asking a witness what Item X is, is sufficient. In cases where evidence has passed through several hands on its way to court, or had scientific testing done on it, or the evidence is the result of some sort of test, that requires more complicated authentication.
You asked for "evidence." Statements made by an accused under arrest are considered "admissible evidence" whether or not they are recorded or written. Admissions by an accused are specifically exempt from the definition of "hearsay." I'm not going to teach you all about the hearsay rule, it would take a long time and be boring. Basically, though, 'hearsay" is stuff that other people heard someone say. Courts take a dim view of it for a number of reasons. However, a suspect who makes admissions to a cop isn't protected by the "hearsay" rule, even if the suspect doesn't know that what he is talking about might wind up being an admission.
Oswald changed his story about the clothes and the transportation. That fact is incriminating evidence.
Yes, the speed and the path of the motorcade (plus the lack of window securing, lack of advance work, etc.) would be considered "evidence" that the Secret Service had something to do with the assassination.
We didn't get a trial. So we are left with analying everything the government could throw at the case. Some of it is admissible evidence, some of it wouldn't be admissible. Much of it might be admissible evidence but wouldn't be very convincing either way. Some of it is fabricated, and we'd hope, that a defense team could have prevented it from seeing the inside of the courtroom (unless they had a sneaky reason for wanting the jury to hear the state's witnesses swear to the validity of the faked evidence).
The standard for what constitutes evidence is pretty loose. (Fortunately for lawyers, or we would hardly have anything to talk about.) Whether its convincing evidence is a whole 'nother story.
You asked for evidence. You got some. You might, or might not, agree that it proves what Specter or Bugliosi or Hoover says it proves. Your disagreement with the weight, or importance, of the evidence, doesn't change its character as evidence. That's why we have juries. 12 people got to agree that the State's evidence is convincing enough to overcome any of their reasonable doubts. That is WAY shy of a perfect, airtight case. And it shouldn't have to be a perfect case to get a verdict.
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - David Josephs - 31-05-2014
Drew Phipps Wrote:probably gonna take me a few edits to work through all this stuff. please be patient.
First, it appears that you hijacked your own thread. This was originally just about the gun. Now it looks like an omnibus sruvey of the evidence. I'll work my way throught it though. Your challende was not to "prove the state's case", it was to "offer a single authenticated bit of Warren Commission evidence that leads us toward Oswald's guilt"...which I did. As i cautioned earlier, I was merely answering your challenge.
About changing clothes: I never said "shirt." Oswald claimed to have changed his pants and also claimed to have changed his shirt and pants at 2 different times. You said authenticated. Since it is still an open question specifically about the shirt I didnt say shirt. It seems uncontested that he changed his pants and donned a jacket.
1) I make the comment to Bob that I realize the thread is off topic but no one seems to be challenging the SS identifying the rifle Kleins' worked with as a 36" M91TS rilfe and NOT the 40" FC.
2) What you offered I replied to... "state of mind" evidnece only works when the "facts" it is based upon can be proven... most of what you claim contributed to his "state of mind" is false, unproven and in fact proven to be freaudulent "evidence"... so no Drew, you accomplished no such illustration.
3) And once again, there is no original evidence of Oswald saying anything in his interviews... just what others wrote. That he did hcange his shirt and there are witnesses who claim to have seen the CHANGED shirt beforehand is very illuminating.
4) no contest... it's in the Inventory.
But hey, thanks for playing. I hope you can enjoy the direction the thread is going
DJ
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - Drew Phipps - 31-05-2014
David:
You didn't mention the most important part of the Lipschultz invoice (according to JA and others): The weight. According to the FBI a Carcano 91/38 weighs 7 pounds 11 oz. A crate of 100 of them (in cardboard boxes) would weigh much more than 750 pounds (more than 818 lbs). The 36" inch Carcanos weighs between 6 and 7 lbs, and so 100 of them in thier cardboard boxes might weigh around 750 pounds.
A 36" gun is 90% the length of a 40" gun, so we might expect the weight to be 90% of the 91/38. (Probably with all the different stock designs its hard to be precise.) 818 lbs x .9 = 736 lbs.
Course we all know what happens when we trust the FBI...
CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine - David Josephs - 31-05-2014
Drew Phipps Wrote:David:
You didn't mention the most important part of the Lipschultz invoice (according to JA and others): The weight. According to the FBI a Carcano 91/38 weighs 7 pounds 11 oz. A crate of 100 of them (in cardboard boxes) would weigh much more than 750 pounds (more than 818 lbs). The 36" inch Carcanos weighs between 6 and 7 lbs, and so 100 of them in thier cardboard boxes might weigh around 750 pounds.
A 36" gun is 90% the length of a 40" gun, so we might expect the weight to be 90% of the 91/38. (Probably with all the different stock designs its hard to be precise.) 818 lbs x .9 = 736 lbs.
Course we all know what happens when we trust the FBI...
Drew, please go back and take a look at my first post on page 1... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13487-CD87-p92-SS-tells-us-the-rifle-Kleins-shipped-to-Hidell-was-a-91(T)roop-(S)pecial-carbine&p=87120#post87120
there is so much that is wrong with the Klein's process it's almost amusing...
Yes, the weight of the shipment is very strange, yet if you remember the packing slip, carton #3376. If they only shipped 9 cartons, as 3376 - the carton with C2766, is the only one not checked off, could that account for the weight? I'm not claiming that's what happened, only offering a reasonable option. As I see it, the June order paperwork was used to give the impression the rifle was a 40" FC delivered in Feb rather than in June. Eitehr way, the point of the thread remains the same... the rifle ordered was an 1891 TS. No rifle was ever shipped to Hidell, nor ever picked up by or in the possession of Oswald.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6044[/ATTACH]
Pottsville, PA is 60 miles from Rupps shop.... and not where Rupp shipped from
The rate for the shipment changes from the original 76, total 570, to 527, total 3953.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6043[/ATTACH]
and finally from page 5 of this thread, the undated, unsigned Crescent shipping order... y'know, for the shipment of 100 rifles, you'd think the records would be just a little better....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6045[/ATTACH]
Drew, EVIDENCE is only worthwhile and proof of something if it can be authenticated... state of mind, or not. The evidence you offered to prove state of mind is all fraudulent and easily proven so.... Yes, lawyers and the court can present all sorts of evidence and make sure it is not challenged correctly....
Quote: Anomalous behavior after a criminal act is evidence of guilt, yes
as long as you can prove the criminal act occurred... when the person is framed for a crime and their actions are presented in the context of their guilt as opposed to in the context of their innocence until guilt is proven... we get Lee Harvey Oswald, patsy extraordinaire... he didn't say he was innocent, he said he was a Patsy... BIG difference.
Cheers
DJ
btw - why is it that you don't address Feldsott giving the FBI proof that C2766, part of the 100 rifle shipment in June 1962, included C2766, and there is not a shred of evidence to explain from which order a June shipment from Crescent to Kleins was initially ordered and processed by Rupp who only begins taking rifles from Harborside on Aug 29 1962 ??
If Kleins got a 40" FC rifle in June... do you not see that the FBI has us believe that the June order's packing slips are actually from Feb 1963... there is NOTHING to prove this - and APRIL 1962 order change with a shipment 10 months later to represent the June shipment Feldsott signs an affidavit about.... who from Kleins EVER testifies Drew?
It's not until HSCA do we hear from Westra, Scribor and the gunsmith Sharp (this is all in the notebooks at Baylor/Poage... which sadly, if one does not take the extra step to dig deeper, they will not find it in the book or CD... have you seen this notebook?
Research Papers of
John Armstrong
Collected for his book
Harvey & Lee
Box 18
Notebook 2
TAB 20: [Westra]
Scanned by
W . R. Poage Legislative Library
Baylor University Electronic Library
January 2011.