New interview with Robert Wilson on my INTO THE NIGHTMARE research

[Albert Doyle]

That doesn't seem to me to be the sort of "conspiracy" that need concern us here.

Any analysis of the Dallas Police doings shows they were stood down and followed the script. If you read what you just wrote it pretty much says the same thing. Things like Ruby correcting Wade at the press conference shows his presence was tolerated at an inside level. Things like the lack of any transcripts for Oswald's statements also reflect this. If you research this you'll see the Dallas Police had reason to know Oswald was an intel operative and was sort of running him through the motions until they figured out what to do. I personally believe Oswald was coached to say he was being denied legal representation so his arraignment could be later thrown out. This kept Oswald cooperating and playing the role thinking he was being covered. Ask Roger Craig about a police conspiracy.

The doings at the Texas Theater and the wallet issues with Oswald were never really spoken up about by the cops who were involved. The cops were clearly in on it and probably acting under national security orders spiced up with some local input.

[Marc Ellis]

If you truly believe that, then why did LBJ's aide Cliff Carter call Henry Wade and tell him NOT to charge Oswald with conspiracy (which had already happened)? Did Wade just forget his single most important line? Why did LBJ call DPD Curry and tell him to stop investigating other aspects of the assassination ("You got your man")? Did Curry forget his lines too?

Any time someone prosecuted for something they didn't do, you have , by definition, a "conspiracy," at least to violate their civil rights. Prosecution requires the active (if not knowing) participation of police, attorneys, secretaries, judges, jailors, even the mail room clerk. That doesn't seem to me to be the sort of "conspiracy" that need concern us here.

I'll defer to your estimation of Mr. Wade since you knew him professionally. But in chapter 10 of 'Reclaiming Parkland' I read this:

"Before Oswald was shot by Ruby, Dallas DA Henry Wade appeared on national television and told tens of millions that Oswald was the killer"

(Excerpt From: DiEugenio, James. "Reclaiming Parkland." Skyhorse Publishing. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright. Check out this book on the iBookstore: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSt...=704810839 )

Maybe it is the sort of conspiracy that should concerns us here, both in Dallas, and on the WC. But I think you have a point. Wade was better at preserving evidence than Connick.

[Richard Coleman]

Let's not leave judges out of the equation. Hypothetical case:

Ed Jones is discovered by police on property clearly posted, "No Trespassing! All violators will be prosecuted. NO EXCEPTIONS!"

Ed has no "business" being there. He is not connected with the owners of the property or anything that takes place there. He has no permission to be there. He is arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

At trial there is no testimony about WHY Ed was on the property. The judge (or "judge") instructs the jury that the ONLY issue for them to decide is whether Ed violated the Trespass law by being on the property with no authorization from the owners. With no other information, the jury convicts Ed. (Wouldn't you?) Ed is now a convicted felon.

Item: What the "judge" refused to allow as irrelevant - there was a FIRE taking place and people were trapped inside. Ed saw the flames and heard the cries for help from the street and rushed in to help. Someone tossed him an infant from a window. He caught the baby and was running to get help with the baby in his arms when the police arrived and arrested him.

Item: The prosecutor knows this. Moves to exclude. The "judge" agrees. Goodbye, Ed.

Impossible? Imagine this: the "judge" is a teaparty bigot appointed by Dubya. Ed is BLACK.
This takes place in TEXAS!

Bottom line: Judges could probably put a major stop to prosecution misconduct, not to mention police frameups, IF THEY CHOSE TO. As part of the system, and corrupted themselves, they don't.

Example: How many judges who presided on coal mine cases were themselves investors in the coal companies in the cases before them?

[Drew Phipps]

Oswald was charged at around midnight with the murder of JFK. There were 2 press conferences after that featuring Wade, at one of which at least Ruby was present to correct Wade about the name of Oswald's committee. I don't remember the exact sequence of press conferences. There were also at least one TV interview (that might not have been a "press conference") in which Wade expressed his confidence in the case DPD was building.

I'm not suggesting that you ignore evidence of conspiracy, I think we should not focus on the bureaucratic process of putting together a prosecution, but look instead at stuff that must occur prior to Oswald's arrest for evidence of "plotters" (i.e. was the MC 91/38 "planted" at the scene, how many shooters, or guns, or types of ammo, are necessary to explain all the wounds, Oswald's impersonation in Mexico, Oswald's anomalous behavior after the shooting, etc), and also for stuff that occurs that goes out-of-bounds after his arrest (like the ballistic fakery by the FBI, photographic alteration of the backyard photos, the coercion and mistranslations of Marina, the disappearance of photographs, etc) to seek out "plodders" who were following orders from LBJ to close out the case.

Being a "plodder" doesn't mean that a person was also a "plotter." In fact it certainly seems to me that the "plotters" had a different ultimate objective in mind, namely, to start a war; and the "plodders" had the ultimate objective of preventing one.

[Drew Phipps]

Let's not leave judges out of the equation. Hypothetical case:

Ed Jones is discovered by police on property clearly posted, "No Trespassing! All violators will be prosecuted. NO EXCEPTIONS!"

Ed has no "business" being there. He is not connected with the owners of the property or anything that takes place there. He has no permission to be there. He is arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

At trial there is no testimony about WHY Ed was on the property. The judge (or "judge") instructs the jury that the ONLY issue for them to decide is whether Ed violated the Trespass law by being on the property with no authorization from the owners. With no other information, the jury convicts Ed. (Wouldn't you?) Ed is now a convicted felon.

Item: What the "judge" refused to allow as irrelevant - there was a FIRE taking place and people were trapped inside. Ed saw the flames and heard the cries for help from the street and rushed in to help. Someone tossed him an infant from a window. He caught the baby and was running to get help with the baby in his arms when the police arrived and arrested him.

Item: The prosecutor knows this. Moves to exclude. The "judge" agrees. Goodbye, Ed.

Impossible? Imagine this: the "judge" is a teaparty bigot appointed by Dubya. Ed is BLACK.
This takes place in TEXAS!

Bottom line: Judges could probably put a major stop to prosecution misconduct, not to mention police frameups, IF THEY CHOSE TO. As part of the system, and corrupted themselves, they don't.

Example: How many judges who presided on coal mine cases were themselves investors in the coal companies in the cases before them?

Too bad Ed's lawyer was asleep during the trial, as the scenario you posit is clearly consistent with the Texas legal defense of "necessity," which excuses certain kinds of criminal conduct. Too bad Ed's lawyer also slept through the appeal deadline? Too bad criminal trespass is a misdemeanor not a felony, though if Ed was inside the burning building saving baby's life that could be charged as a felony. (If this is a real case, please provide me with more information.)

I agree generally that judges could be more active when they spot prosecutorial misconduct, and that it would be a positive thing.

[Drew Phipps]

Henry Wade went "off script" again on Nov 27, 1963, by stating at a press conference that law enforcement agencies suspected "something deeper" and were investigating connections between Oswald and Ruby. Not exactly rowing along with the others, was he?

[Albert Doyle]

So did Curry when he said there wasn't really any evidence against Oswald. Even Johnson ended up saying he didn't believe the Warren Commission in his interview with Cronkite. These people are hedging because they want to leave themselves an out in case the lid blows off the whole thing. In my mind this pattern evidences CIA facilitators giving national security orders. Heck, even the government hedged and allowed several committees and commissions. The difference is none of those people got killed like Bobby Kennedy because he was going to follow-through on his disagreement.


.

[Scott Kaiser]

Let's not leave judges out of the equation. Hypothetical case:

Ed Jones is discovered by police on property clearly posted, "No Trespassing! All violators will be prosecuted. NO EXCEPTIONS!"

Ed has no "business" being there. He is not connected with the owners of the property or anything that takes place there. He has no permission to be there. He is arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

At trial there is no testimony about WHY Ed was on the property. The judge (or "judge") instructs the jury that the ONLY issue for them to decide is whether Ed violated the Trespass law by being on the property with no authorization from the owners. With no other information, the jury convicts Ed. (Wouldn't you?) Ed is now a convicted felon.

Item: What the "judge" refused to allow as irrelevant - there was a FIRE taking place and people were trapped inside. Ed saw the flames and heard the cries for help from the street and rushed in to help. Someone tossed him an infant from a window. He caught the baby and was running to get help with the baby in his arms when the police arrived and arrested him.

Item: The prosecutor knows this. Moves to exclude. The "judge" agrees. Goodbye, Ed.

Impossible? Imagine this: the "judge" is a teaparty bigot appointed by Dubya. Ed is BLACK.
This takes place in TEXAS!

Bottom line: Judges could probably put a major stop to prosecution misconduct, not to mention police frameups, IF THEY CHOSE TO. As part of the system, and corrupted themselves, they don't.

Example: How many judges who presided on coal mine cases were themselves investors in the coal companies in the cases before them?

Too bad Ed's lawyer was asleep during the trial, as the scenario you posit is clearly consistent with the Texas legal defense of "necessity," which excuses certain kinds of criminal conduct. Too bad Ed's lawyer also slept through the appeal deadline? Too bad criminal trespass is a misdemeanor not a felony, though if Ed was inside the burning building saving baby's life that could be charged as a felony. (If this is a real case, please provide me with more information.)

I agree generally that judges could be more active when they spot prosecutorial misconduct, and that it would be a positive thing.

I agree generally that judges could be more active when they spot prosecutorial misconduct, and that it would be a positive thing.

Judges make mistakes all the time especially when the attorney does not provide the judge with all the information. I know, I was falsely arrested due to my ex-wife, the B@%^t who had me arrested threw her attorney. The attorney never provided a sworn statement with the warrant, the judge was stupid enough to sign it.

I was brought before the Magistrate rather than thrown in jail, it was a good thing I wasn't thrown in jail under my false arrest. I would have filed a lawsuit against Bexar county for the Texas tort claims act, for a violation of my constitutional rights. Sued the attorney and his insurance company and his client for creating this crap against me, and because no damages happened to my house when those dumb ass cops came over to arrest me, and I didn't spend any time in jail I decided not to peruse the lawsuits, to bad it didn't turn out differently, I would be very wealthy over something so stupid.

The only one I wouldn't have been able to sue would be the judge, he is exempt, but not exempt from stupidity.