It is the Lovelady clip, you stupid shit. Just because I don't think the guy is really Lovelady doesn't mean that it isn't purported to be him. The whole purpose for which the thing was showcased or even mentioned was for Lovelady, supposedly, being shown in it.
So, when I say the "Lovelady clip" I mean "the clip supposedly of Lovelady." I assume that people have the intelligence to realize, after all this time, that that's what I mean. But you, because I didn't spell it out, jump on it like it's a gaffe, like I've given away the farm.
You're stupid, Backes. You're fucking stupid. You are helplessly and hopelessly stupid.
Bonnie Ray Williams said that they watched the motorcade from the 5th floor window, and we have a picture of them doing it; then they stayed on the 5th floor a while and watched the throng of people herd into the railway area. Then they went down one flight of stairs and stopped briefly on the 4th floor. And then they went down to the first floor where they ran into police officers.
"When we arrived to the first floor, the first thing I noticed was that the policemen had rushed in. I think some firemen came in with a water hose. And then the next thing that happened, these detectives, or maybe FBI--anyway, they stopped us all and they said, "Do you work here?" And we told them yes. And they took our name, address, and they searched everybody. And then the other fellow--I think one fellow asked whether we had been working upstairs. I think we told him yes."
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
So, fuck you, you dirty mudder-rucker! Williams denied being outside at the time that clip, which was supposedly of Lovelady, was taken. And since there are doubts about the Williams figure in it, based on his weight, his hairline, the length of his neck, and size of his collar button, this then cinches it; different guy. Williams is telling us that it was a different guy.
You are an evil, blood-soaked Kennedy-killer. You don't give a good God-damn about Kennedy or Oswald or anyone else. All you care about is your war against me, even though every battle of which you have lost. Meanwhile, my organization, the Oswald Innocence Campaign, has grown. It is now the largest JFK research organization in the world. And, the OIC website is the biggest threat to JFK officialdom in the world today.
www.oswald-innocent.com
Did the Supposed Lovelady clip exist in any form on 11/22/63? I'm not at all sure about that, but what I know for sure is that it did not exist in the form that it appeared in 1966 when it was first spotlighted. It was never mentioned before that. It was never noticed before that. And it certainly had no effect on the Warren Commission and what they did.
Therefore, you can't make any argument about the Warren Commission concocting Bonnie Ray Williams' testimony the way you have done with Lovelady's. There isn't even a theoretical basis for why they would have done that. So, that testimony is what it is, and there is no reason to doubt it. Bonnie Ray Williams was NOT outside 15 minutes after the assassination. He was inside. He said so himself.
You don't like it? Tough shit. There's nothing you can do about it. There's no spin you can put on it. Oh, I don't say you aren't stupid enough to try. But, there is no plausible spin; there is no effective spin.
You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid. You eat, drink, and sleep stupid. And every word that comes out of your mouth is stupid.
OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque
www.oswald-innocent.com
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Bonnie Ray Williams said he didn't leave the TSBD until it was time to go to City Hall.
He also said that the police weren't allowing workers to leave the building.
That means that he could not have been milling around outside in front 15 minutes after the shooting.
And that means that the Bonnie Ray Williams figure in the Lovelady clip must be an impostor.
He also said that the police weren't allowing workers to leave the building.
That means that he could not have been milling around outside in front 15 minutes after the shooting.
And that means that the Bonnie Ray Williams figure in the Lovelady clip must be an impostor.
No, Backes. It's not that I think Joseph Ball and David Belin were good guys. It's just that I don't think they were good screenwriters either. Nor could anyone else on the Warren Commission have written that testimony.
And, they wouldn't have taken that approach anyway. They started with the decision that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit, and they worked backwards from there. And it's true that they were never going to allow anyone to say anything that was truly devastating to the official story, such as seeing Oswald in the doorway.
But, they weren't going to make up whole swaths of testimony. They were smarter than that, which is to say, a lot smarter than you. They knew that doing that could have come back to haunt them. What if some investigator approached Lovelady to confirm the trek to the tracks? And what if Lovelady said, "What trek to the tracks? I never said that."
They were never going to take a chance like that.
The Warren Commission investigation was a show trial, a Stalinist show trial. But, it was done with an air of propriety, lawfulness, and, dare I say, integrity. So, they were never going to concoct false testimonies on the scale that you imagine. That's ridiculous.
Just check with Robin Unger and B Pete. They'll tell you that they didn't do it.
So, who are you talking to, Backes? Because you're not talking to them, and you're talking to me. And no one else is listening.
And, they wouldn't have taken that approach anyway. They started with the decision that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit, and they worked backwards from there. And it's true that they were never going to allow anyone to say anything that was truly devastating to the official story, such as seeing Oswald in the doorway.
But, they weren't going to make up whole swaths of testimony. They were smarter than that, which is to say, a lot smarter than you. They knew that doing that could have come back to haunt them. What if some investigator approached Lovelady to confirm the trek to the tracks? And what if Lovelady said, "What trek to the tracks? I never said that."
They were never going to take a chance like that.
The Warren Commission investigation was a show trial, a Stalinist show trial. But, it was done with an air of propriety, lawfulness, and, dare I say, integrity. So, they were never going to concoct false testimonies on the scale that you imagine. That's ridiculous.
Just check with Robin Unger and B Pete. They'll tell you that they didn't do it.
So, who are you talking to, Backes? Because you're not talking to them, and you're talking to me. And no one else is listening.
You stupid ignoramus. Do Robin Unger and B Pete support you on this?
Joseph Ball and David Belin, and others on the Warren Commission created lies, suborned perjury, falsified testimony, inserting ideas like this trek to the tracks for Shelley and Lovelady.
Oh really, Backes? Were they trained scriptwriters? Because that's what it would have taken to come up with this:
Mr. BALL - Right after you talked to Gloria, did you leave the steps and go toward the tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you run or walk?
Mr. LOVELADY - Medium trotting or fast walk.
Mr. BALL - A fast walk?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - How did you happen to turn around and see Truly and the policeman go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Somebody hollered and I looked.
Mr. BALL - You turned around and looked?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - After you ran to the railroad tracks you came back and went in the back door of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you go in through the docks, the wide open door or did you go in the ordinary Small door?
Mr. LOVELADY - You know where we park our trucks--that door; we have a little door.
Mr. BALL - That is where you went in, that little door?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - That would be the north end of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - That would be the west end, wouldn't it?
Mr. BALL - Is it the one right off Houston Street?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; you are thinking about another dock.
Mr. BALL - I am?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; we have two.
Mr. BALL - Do you have a dock on the west side and one on the north side of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, and well, it would be east and west but you enter it from the south side.
Mr. BALL - Now, the south side---
Mr. LOVELADY - Elm Street is that little dead-end street.
Mr. BALL - That's south.
Mr. LOVELADY - I drive my truck here (indicating) but we came in from this direction; that would have to be west.
Mr. BALL - You came into the building from the west side?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that, those raised-up doors.
Mr. BALL - Through the raised-up doors?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it.
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Joseph Ball and David Belin, and others on the Warren Commission created lies, suborned perjury, falsified testimony, inserting ideas like this trek to the tracks for Shelley and Lovelady.
Oh really, Backes? Were they trained scriptwriters? Because that's what it would have taken to come up with this:
Mr. BALL - Right after you talked to Gloria, did you leave the steps and go toward the tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you run or walk?
Mr. LOVELADY - Medium trotting or fast walk.
Mr. BALL - A fast walk?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - How did you happen to turn around and see Truly and the policeman go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Somebody hollered and I looked.
Mr. BALL - You turned around and looked?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - After you ran to the railroad tracks you came back and went in the back door of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you go in through the docks, the wide open door or did you go in the ordinary Small door?
Mr. LOVELADY - You know where we park our trucks--that door; we have a little door.
Mr. BALL - That is where you went in, that little door?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - That would be the north end of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - That would be the west end, wouldn't it?
Mr. BALL - Is it the one right off Houston Street?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; you are thinking about another dock.
Mr. BALL - I am?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; we have two.
Mr. BALL - Do you have a dock on the west side and one on the north side of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, and well, it would be east and west but you enter it from the south side.
Mr. BALL - Now, the south side---
Mr. LOVELADY - Elm Street is that little dead-end street.
Mr. BALL - That's south.
Mr. LOVELADY - I drive my truck here (indicating) but we came in from this direction; that would have to be west.
Mr. BALL - You came into the building from the west side?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that, those raised-up doors.
Mr. BALL - Through the raised-up doors?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it.
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Let's look at this testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams. He said that after the shooting, they saw the throng of people, including police, herding towards the railway area, so they "followed" them by moving westward on the 5th floor to the west windows, so they could watch. And they were still there when the first policeman arrived, whom they recognized as a motorcycle cop from his helmet. Then, they went down to the 4th floor, where they saw two women at a window. We'll pick it up from there:
Mr. BALL. After you stood at the west window for a while, what did you do?
Mr. WILLIAMS. After we stood at the west window for a while, we decided to go down. Then we left.
Mr. BALL. How did you go down?
Mr. WILLIAMS. By stairs.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. We went to the fourth floor first. Then we paused for a minute there, where we saw these women looking out of the window. Then we decided to go down to the first floor, and we ran on down.
Mr. BALL. When you got to the first floor, what did you see there?
Mr. McCLOY. How did you get to the first floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. By stairs.
Mr. DULLES. There were some people on the fourth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember seeing maybe two or three women standing in the window, looking out the window.
Mr. DULLES. Looking out the window?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Which stairway did they take, west or east?
Mr. BALL. There was only one stairway, and that is the one in the corner. Did you run down stairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; we ran.
Mr. BALL. When you got to the first floor, what did you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. When we arrived to the first floor, the first thing I noticed was that the policemen had rushed in. I think some firemen came in with a water hose. And then the next thing that happened, these detectives, or maybe FBI--anyway, they stopped us all and they said, "Do you work here?" And we told them yes. And they took our name, address, and they searched everybody. And then the other fellow--I think one fellow asked whether we had been working upstairs. I think we told him yes. They got out all the fellows I think that was working on the sixth floor at the time, and they took us all down to the courthouse, I think, and we had to fill out some affidavits and things.
Mr. BALL. You made out an affidavit there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
Mr. BALL. How long after you came down from the first floor were you taken over to the Police Department?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I couldn't give you the exact time, but it wasn't long.
Mr. BALL. You can't give me any estimate in minutes?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I would not want to say.
Mr. DULLES. Did you see Lee Oswald at any time during this period?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I don't remember seeing him.
Mr. BALL. Were the police with you?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; they were.
Mr. BALL. Were your two friends with you, Jarman and--
Mr. WILLIAMS. No; they wasn't with me. First I think they took me and another fellow, Danny-- they took us in one car. Then they took some other fellows in another car, and then another car, I think.
Mr. BALL. You were with Danny Arce and one or two police officers?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
So, there is Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce waiting to get in the police car. But, how does that allow for Bonnie Ray to be milling around outside the TSBD 15 minutes after the shooting? What grounds are there to extrapolate that from his testimony? I don't see that there are any. When asked if he went outside, he said that police weren't letting anyone out. The implication seems to be that he didn't go out until it was time for them to be taken to City Hall.
Mr. BALL. After you stood at the west window for a while, what did you do?
Mr. WILLIAMS. After we stood at the west window for a while, we decided to go down. Then we left.
Mr. BALL. How did you go down?
Mr. WILLIAMS. By stairs.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. We went to the fourth floor first. Then we paused for a minute there, where we saw these women looking out of the window. Then we decided to go down to the first floor, and we ran on down.
Mr. BALL. When you got to the first floor, what did you see there?
Mr. McCLOY. How did you get to the first floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. By stairs.
Mr. DULLES. There were some people on the fourth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember seeing maybe two or three women standing in the window, looking out the window.
Mr. DULLES. Looking out the window?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Which stairway did they take, west or east?
Mr. BALL. There was only one stairway, and that is the one in the corner. Did you run down stairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; we ran.
Mr. BALL. When you got to the first floor, what did you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. When we arrived to the first floor, the first thing I noticed was that the policemen had rushed in. I think some firemen came in with a water hose. And then the next thing that happened, these detectives, or maybe FBI--anyway, they stopped us all and they said, "Do you work here?" And we told them yes. And they took our name, address, and they searched everybody. And then the other fellow--I think one fellow asked whether we had been working upstairs. I think we told him yes. They got out all the fellows I think that was working on the sixth floor at the time, and they took us all down to the courthouse, I think, and we had to fill out some affidavits and things.
Mr. BALL. You made out an affidavit there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
Mr. BALL. How long after you came down from the first floor were you taken over to the Police Department?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I couldn't give you the exact time, but it wasn't long.
Mr. BALL. You can't give me any estimate in minutes?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I would not want to say.
Mr. DULLES. Did you see Lee Oswald at any time during this period?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I don't remember seeing him.
Mr. BALL. Were the police with you?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; they were.
Mr. BALL. Were your two friends with you, Jarman and--
Mr. WILLIAMS. No; they wasn't with me. First I think they took me and another fellow, Danny-- they took us in one car. Then they took some other fellows in another car, and then another car, I think.
Mr. BALL. You were with Danny Arce and one or two police officers?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
So, there is Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce waiting to get in the police car. But, how does that allow for Bonnie Ray to be milling around outside the TSBD 15 minutes after the shooting? What grounds are there to extrapolate that from his testimony? I don't see that there are any. When asked if he went outside, he said that police weren't letting anyone out. The implication seems to be that he didn't go out until it was time for them to be taken to City Hall.
Very telling piece of testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams. It was about what happened immediately after the shooting.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; we were on the fifth floor, the east side of the building. We saw the policemen and people running, scared, running--there are some tracks on the west side of the building, railroad tracks. They were running. towards that way. And we thought maybe--well, to ourself, we know the shots practically came from over our head. But since everybody was running, you know, to the west side of the building, towards the railroad tracks, we assumed maybe somebody was down there. And so we all ran that way, the way that the people was running, and we was looking out the window.
So, from the 5th floor window, he saw a throng of people running towards the railroad tracks. That happened immediately, and Shelley and Lovelady were part of it. It didn't happen 3 or 4 minutes after the assassination, it happened immediately after the assassination. And, Shelley and Lovelady were part of it. THEY LEFT RIGHT AWAY. THEY DIDN'T HANG AROUND FOR 3 OR 4 MINUTES AND THEN LEAVE. THEY LEFT RIGHT AWAY.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; we were on the fifth floor, the east side of the building. We saw the policemen and people running, scared, running--there are some tracks on the west side of the building, railroad tracks. They were running. towards that way. And we thought maybe--well, to ourself, we know the shots practically came from over our head. But since everybody was running, you know, to the west side of the building, towards the railroad tracks, we assumed maybe somebody was down there. And so we all ran that way, the way that the people was running, and we was looking out the window.
So, from the 5th floor window, he saw a throng of people running towards the railroad tracks. That happened immediately, and Shelley and Lovelady were part of it. It didn't happen 3 or 4 minutes after the assassination, it happened immediately after the assassination. And, Shelley and Lovelady were part of it. THEY LEFT RIGHT AWAY. THEY DIDN'T HANG AROUND FOR 3 OR 4 MINUTES AND THEN LEAVE. THEY LEFT RIGHT AWAY.
I am starting to have my doubts now about the guy they claim to be Bonnie Ray Williams. Is it really him? I always assumed that it was, and I never gave it much thought: until now. With both the Lovelady figure and the Arce figure discredited, I feel compelled to look closely at the Bonnie Ray Williams figure with fresh eyes.
Bonnie Ray Williams was a very skinny guy. The first problem I see is that that guy on the right doesn't seem quite skinny enough to be him. Doesn't his arm on the right look less spindly than Bonnie Ray's on the left? And what about the length of his neck? Doesn't Bonnie Ray's neck on the left look longer? Consider the distance from the collar to the ear. Doesn't it look much longer on the left than the right? Now compare the hairlines. Doesn't the guy on the right have some hairline recession going on? It looks to me like he's got more scalp showing there, like his hairline has receded some.
In the following collage, I tried to reach proportionality by making the heads the same size.
What I am wondering is: why is the collar button so big on the right? You can see on the left that on Bonnie Ray, the collar buttons were smaller diameter than the shirt buttons. But, that collar button on the right looks huge.
Let's look at just one more collage:
Again, I am getting the impression that the guy on the left is stouter in his arms and shoulders. I'm getting the impression his hairline is receded some compared to Williams. Again, the other guy's neck looks shorter. And again, I'm seeing that collar button jump out at me in comparison to the tiny collar button on Williams.
Admittedly, there is a lot that correlates between them, but how much variance does it take to establish different individuals? Not much. Not much.
I'm going to put this up on Facebook to see what the folks there think. I'll admit this is a much closer call than for the Lovelady and Arce figures.
Bonnie Ray Williams was a very skinny guy. The first problem I see is that that guy on the right doesn't seem quite skinny enough to be him. Doesn't his arm on the right look less spindly than Bonnie Ray's on the left? And what about the length of his neck? Doesn't Bonnie Ray's neck on the left look longer? Consider the distance from the collar to the ear. Doesn't it look much longer on the left than the right? Now compare the hairlines. Doesn't the guy on the right have some hairline recession going on? It looks to me like he's got more scalp showing there, like his hairline has receded some.
What I am wondering is: why is the collar button so big on the right? You can see on the left that on Bonnie Ray, the collar buttons were smaller diameter than the shirt buttons. But, that collar button on the right looks huge.
Let's look at just one more collage:
Admittedly, there is a lot that correlates between them, but how much variance does it take to establish different individuals? Not much. Not much.
I'm going to put this up on Facebook to see what the folks there think. I'll admit this is a much closer call than for the Lovelady and Arce figures.
That guy is DEFINITELY not Danny Arce.
He's too light. He's way too light. He's lighter than Lovelady. That is, he's lighter than the guy claimed to be Lovelady.
Another thing is that his ears stuck out. Can't you see that? But, that wasn't true of Danny Arce. His ears were very streamlined. They had very little flare, compared to that guy and compared to Williams.
That white guy wasn't Danny Arce. No way. No how.
And the old geezer Popeye wasn't Maddie Reese.
For Christ's sake, stop the nonsense!
Another thing is that his ears stuck out. Can't you see that? But, that wasn't true of Danny Arce. His ears were very streamlined. They had very little flare, compared to that guy and compared to Williams.
That white guy wasn't Danny Arce. No way. No how.
And the old geezer Popeye wasn't Maddie Reese.
For Christ's sake, stop the nonsense!
Saturday, May 30, 2015
 |
On Sunday, 31 May 2015 03:53:05 UTC+10, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.
That is not a graphic by John McAdams, that is a graphic by Jerry Organ.> http://oswaldinthedoorway.
Once again you simply DON'T KNOW what you're talking about, Ralph.
Yet it doesn't stop you going around making WILD accusations, does it?
Your organization is a CROCK!
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
Ralph Cinque:
Yeah, Brennan. I heard the story of it. Jerry Organ made it at the request of John McAdams, and John is the one who promoted it.
That collage, which attempts to prove that Doorman was Lovelady not Oswald, includes no image of Oswald in his entirety, clothes included.
But, when we look at Doorman, we're looking at two things: we are looking at a man, and we are looking at a wardrobe. Organ and McAdams included that image of "Lovelady" in his plaid shirt, so why not include an image of Oswald dressed as well?
In other words, they were as bad as the FBI, which on the evening of Nov 23, went to Billy Lovelady to show him the Altgens photo. But, why didn't they do the same with Oswald? He was still alive.
If you have an image that you think could be one of two men, wouldn't you show it to both of them? Millions of people from all over the world thought it was Oswald in the doorway. So, why not get Oswald's opinion about it as well as Lovelady's? Wouldn't any honest investigator, bent on discovering the truth, do that?
Why couldn't John McAdams have had Jerry Organ include an image of Oswald as he really was? Meaning: fully dressed. An image such as this:
McAdams and Organ didn't do it, and I'm saying it was downright dishonest not to do it.
I'm still riveted by Malcolm Kilduff's 1991 claim that Oswald's target, all along, was not Kennedy, but Connally. Today, that is VERY politically incorrect. You won't hear John McAdams or Vincent Bugliosi saying that. And, I have to think that even in 1991 it was politically incorrect. Really, it was a gaffe. So, why did Kilduff say it?
I think it's because he realized that Oswald had NO MOTIVE to kill Kennedy. So, if he could think of a motive for Oswald to kill Connally, at least it was something. Some motive is better than no motive. Right?
But, it's ridiculous. He was going to kill Connally all because of his dishonorable discharge? But, at the time, he was heading to the Soviet Union and renouncing his US citizenship. So, what did he care? And if that was all a ruse, as many think it was, where he was really a false defector, then the dishonorable discharge was part of it. So, what did he care?
But, more important is the fact that Oswald returned from Russia in June 1962, and this was a year and a half later. And things hadn't gone too well for him. Financially, he was struggling. He had a hard time holding a job. His marriage was in trouble. He and Marina were separated, although they weren't completely separated. When he visited her and and his kids on the weekends, he stayed with her, in her room; they slept together. So, they weren't really separated in the full sense of the word. And, the very night before the assassination, he implored Marina to end the separation, to give him permission to start looking for a place in Dallas for them all to live as a family.
However, admittedly, there were problems, serious problems, in his marriage, in his work, in his ability to support his family, and in his life in general. But, not one iota of those problems had anything whatsoever to do with his Marine discharge. Whether it was honorable or dishonorable, his life was what it was. And for him to be concerned and resentful about his Marine discharge at that late date would have been insane.
Furthermore, he would have been more insane to place any blame on the Secretary of the Navy. How could he think that he mattered enough that the handling of his Marine discharge involved the Secretary of the Navy? That would be like wanting to kill the President because you lost your job at the post office, as though he got you fired.
But, you want to know what makes it even more insane from Kilduff's perspective???????
It is the fact that John Connally didn't become Secretary of the Navy until 1961, and Oswald was discharged from the Marines in 1959. It means that Malcolm Kilduff was completely and utterly misinformed; either that, or he was totally deranged. Connally could not have had anything whatsoever to do with Oswald's discharge.
So, the whole idea of Oswald wanting Connally dead is wacky, and the only thing that is significant about it is the recognition, subsumed in the wacky idea, that Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy. So really, it is a desperate cry for help. "Help! Help! Please! Oswald has no motive! Our ship is sinking!"
Their ship has already sunk. Oswald had no motive to kill anybody, not Connally and not Kennedy. On the contrary, he liked Kennedy. He defended Kennedy. He read Kennedy's book, and he read books that Kennedy read. But, in addition, he had no opportunity to kill Kennedy. There is no evidence that he had any knowledge of the motorcade route. The map with the correct motorcade route did not appear in any newspaper until Friday morning. And, there is no solid evidence of him even handling a newspaper which had information about it. And if even he had, there's no basis to assume that he would have seen it and registered on it just because it was there. People skim newspapers; they don't read them word for word.
You can't just assume things; it is fanciful to the extreme.
Oswald asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. And, he wasn't putting on an act. He really didn't know. Just think: he and Frazier rode from Dallas to Irving on the Thursday, and then from Irving to Dallas on the Friday. Don't you think one or both would have said something about the Presidential motorcade passing their building if they knew? Before or after, "How about them Cowboys?" Neither one of them knew.
Oswald did know that JFK would be in Dallas because he and Marina discussed it that Thursday night, but he did not know that the motorcade would be passing his building. And Marina told Lee how much she admired Kennedy and wished that she could see him. If he knew that Kennedy would be passing his building, don't you think he would have mentioned it to his wife?
Of course, the bloodied will say that he didn't mention it precisely because he planned to kill Kennedy. But, that's circular reasoning. That he killed Kennedy is the very thing that we are disputing. And if he didn't kill Kennedy, he didn't plan to kill Kennedy.
The idea that Oswald meant to kill Connally not Kennedy- I'll tell you what it is. It is blind alley that was tried, field-tested, and then abandoned for having failed. It failed to support the official story and only made its credibility worse. You won't be hearing any more Presidential Press Secretaries, retired or otherwise, saying it again. Malcolm Kilduff was a fossil.
I think it's because he realized that Oswald had NO MOTIVE to kill Kennedy. So, if he could think of a motive for Oswald to kill Connally, at least it was something. Some motive is better than no motive. Right?
But, it's ridiculous. He was going to kill Connally all because of his dishonorable discharge? But, at the time, he was heading to the Soviet Union and renouncing his US citizenship. So, what did he care? And if that was all a ruse, as many think it was, where he was really a false defector, then the dishonorable discharge was part of it. So, what did he care?
But, more important is the fact that Oswald returned from Russia in June 1962, and this was a year and a half later. And things hadn't gone too well for him. Financially, he was struggling. He had a hard time holding a job. His marriage was in trouble. He and Marina were separated, although they weren't completely separated. When he visited her and and his kids on the weekends, he stayed with her, in her room; they slept together. So, they weren't really separated in the full sense of the word. And, the very night before the assassination, he implored Marina to end the separation, to give him permission to start looking for a place in Dallas for them all to live as a family.
However, admittedly, there were problems, serious problems, in his marriage, in his work, in his ability to support his family, and in his life in general. But, not one iota of those problems had anything whatsoever to do with his Marine discharge. Whether it was honorable or dishonorable, his life was what it was. And for him to be concerned and resentful about his Marine discharge at that late date would have been insane.
Furthermore, he would have been more insane to place any blame on the Secretary of the Navy. How could he think that he mattered enough that the handling of his Marine discharge involved the Secretary of the Navy? That would be like wanting to kill the President because you lost your job at the post office, as though he got you fired.
But, you want to know what makes it even more insane from Kilduff's perspective???????
It is the fact that John Connally didn't become Secretary of the Navy until 1961, and Oswald was discharged from the Marines in 1959. It means that Malcolm Kilduff was completely and utterly misinformed; either that, or he was totally deranged. Connally could not have had anything whatsoever to do with Oswald's discharge.
So, the whole idea of Oswald wanting Connally dead is wacky, and the only thing that is significant about it is the recognition, subsumed in the wacky idea, that Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy. So really, it is a desperate cry for help. "Help! Help! Please! Oswald has no motive! Our ship is sinking!"
Their ship has already sunk. Oswald had no motive to kill anybody, not Connally and not Kennedy. On the contrary, he liked Kennedy. He defended Kennedy. He read Kennedy's book, and he read books that Kennedy read. But, in addition, he had no opportunity to kill Kennedy. There is no evidence that he had any knowledge of the motorcade route. The map with the correct motorcade route did not appear in any newspaper until Friday morning. And, there is no solid evidence of him even handling a newspaper which had information about it. And if even he had, there's no basis to assume that he would have seen it and registered on it just because it was there. People skim newspapers; they don't read them word for word.
You can't just assume things; it is fanciful to the extreme.
Oswald asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. And, he wasn't putting on an act. He really didn't know. Just think: he and Frazier rode from Dallas to Irving on the Thursday, and then from Irving to Dallas on the Friday. Don't you think one or both would have said something about the Presidential motorcade passing their building if they knew? Before or after, "How about them Cowboys?" Neither one of them knew.
Oswald did know that JFK would be in Dallas because he and Marina discussed it that Thursday night, but he did not know that the motorcade would be passing his building. And Marina told Lee how much she admired Kennedy and wished that she could see him. If he knew that Kennedy would be passing his building, don't you think he would have mentioned it to his wife?
Of course, the bloodied will say that he didn't mention it precisely because he planned to kill Kennedy. But, that's circular reasoning. That he killed Kennedy is the very thing that we are disputing. And if he didn't kill Kennedy, he didn't plan to kill Kennedy.
The idea that Oswald meant to kill Connally not Kennedy- I'll tell you what it is. It is blind alley that was tried, field-tested, and then abandoned for having failed. It failed to support the official story and only made its credibility worse. You won't be hearing any more Presidential Press Secretaries, retired or otherwise, saying it again. Malcolm Kilduff was a fossil.
Says the Bad Medicine Man:
But watch the films. You'll see that in Martin, the guy is right behind the black man in the orange hard hat.
By the time the man in the hard hat is up on the step by the left column, the other man is on the left side of the lady in the scarf. He's passed her. But, there isn't the slightest hint of that on the right. That's what I was looking for. I think his head would pop up, if only a little, on the other side of the woman. But, it never does. I checked the film too and watched it large.
This is a gif made by Robin Unger of the Lovelady clip, as per the Martin film (left) and as per the Hughes film (right). So, it's the exact same thing on both sides.
In both, you use see the black guy wearing the orange hard hat walk by. But, following him in Martin is a white man with short black hair and a black shirt. We don't see him at all in Hughes.
That's who I am talking about, and you don't see him in Hughes.
If you try to say that he's obstructed in Hughes, I'm sure he is: partially. But, he does walk past the woman wearing the scarf.
So, I should think that we would get at least a hint of him in the Hughes film. But, we don't. See if you can find him. Start looking at 1:38.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo6ik2Zti6k
In both, you use see the black guy wearing the orange hard hat walk by. But, following him in Martin is a white man with short black hair and a black shirt. We don't see him at all in Hughes.
That's who I am talking about, and you don't see him in Hughes.
If you try to say that he's obstructed in Hughes, I'm sure he is: partially. But, he does walk past the woman wearing the scarf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo6ik2Zti6k
Are you completely out of your mind, Backes?
How does this statement amount to proof?
That is it. It is the totality of what he said about it. It is the totality of what he offered. And yet, you had the nerve to say this?
Richard Sprague did offer proof. Did you think I forgot this letter? Or lost access to it?
What you have lost access to is: touch with reality. That statement is not proof. That statement is not evidence. That statement is just one guy, who happens to be a flachettist, flapping his lips on paper. In the words of the vernacular: SO FUCKING WHAT? Who cares what the flachettist thinks? Who cares what the flachettist says? Just because you worship the ground he walks on doesn't mean that anybody else gives a shit.
Why, why, why do you have to be so fucking stupid, Backes? Why do you keep demeaning yourself with these ridiculous posts?
You can shove Sprague's letter the same place you shove your proscenium arches.
How does this statement amount to proof?
That is it. It is the totality of what he said about it. It is the totality of what he offered. And yet, you had the nerve to say this?
Richard Sprague did offer proof. Did you think I forgot this letter? Or lost access to it?
What you have lost access to is: touch with reality. That statement is not proof. That statement is not evidence. That statement is just one guy, who happens to be a flachettist, flapping his lips on paper. In the words of the vernacular: SO FUCKING WHAT? Who cares what the flachettist thinks? Who cares what the flachettist says? Just because you worship the ground he walks on doesn't mean that anybody else gives a shit.
Why, why, why do you have to be so fucking stupid, Backes? Why do you keep demeaning yourself with these ridiculous posts?
You can shove Sprague's letter the same place you shove your proscenium arches.
The Diabolical John McAdams
John McAdams had this poster made to supposedly settle the matter of who Doorman was. McAdams claims he was Gorilla Lovelady from the Martin film, with the arrow on the right. But, I installed an image of Oswald right next to Doorman on the left, so you can compare all three. So, which two match?
We can look at it again using a better image of Doorman. Here's the one from the HSCA.
I said: Which two match? Which two show the same man wearing the same clothes in the exact same way?
And notice that McAdams never let you see that. He never included any picture of Oswald in his outfit, where we could compare the two. Here is McAdams' chart untouched:
But, we are not just comparing men here; we are comparing clothing. But, McAdams denied us the ability.
Doorman is definitely wearing Oswald's clothes, and that's why McAdams left Oswald's clothes out of his collage.
How dare McAdams' do that? I'll tell you how. It's because of blood; the blood in which he, figuratively, swims. John McAdams is IN EFFECT an accessory after the fact in the murder of John Kennedy. John McAdams, resultingly from his efforts, protects and serves the killers of John Kennedy.
And that guy being allowed to enter is wearing a long-sleeved brown shirt, which is what Oswald wore. And he looks slender, which Oswald was. And he looks to be about Oswald's height. I'm not saying that he is Oswald, nor that he could be Oswald, only that he has certain similarities to Oswald. WTF is wrong with you?
God, you're dense as a brick. I didn't prove it isn't his arm going down. I proved that since it is his arm going down, it can't be the face and torso of Carl Jones above and below it.
And since we have examples of how the skin of three African-American individuals got imaged in the photo, it does give us a reference to use.
But, even if we didn't have that, we would know, automatically and intuitively, that the skin of any man is not going to be captured in a photo in the exact same way as his shirt.
We know very well, from our life experience and our experience with photographs, that that cannot be the junction of a man's rolled up sleeve and his naked forearm, that there would be a difference between the two, a readily discernible difference.
It's just a stupid idea because THERE IS NO OTHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN. How many times do I have to tell you that you can't make stuff up?
And what about this?
When you made this goofy thing, you obviously were implying that it was the raised arm of the man in the picture, the man we see. You weren't saying anything about "another African-American" then. But, at a later date, you decided to switch to the flechettist Richard E. Sprague's idea about the other African-American. But, how can you have just an arm in space? Where is the rest of him? Why can't we see him? Why can't we see him in other films?
What is the evidence for this other African-American? A glib remark by the flechettist does not constitute evidence. Richard E. Sprague did a lot of investigating and a lot of writing, and as far as we know, he never expounded on this; he never said it again; he never detailed it in any way; he never provided any evidence for it. It was just one glib terse unsubstantiated remark in a private letter he sent to someone, and that's it. Not another thing.
Yet, you treat it like a bankable fact. And it's because you're NOT a researcher. You don't care about Kennedy. You don't care about Oswald. You don't care about the truth. You don't care about anything but beating me, which is something you have never done and will never do. I've won on every issue. I've prevailed on every point. You've never prevailed on anything. You've been wrong on everything. And you're wrong on this. And it's because you're stupid; incredibly stupid. If you weren't classified as learning-disabled growing up, it's because somebody dropped the ball.
And since we have examples of how the skin of three African-American individuals got imaged in the photo, it does give us a reference to use.
But, even if we didn't have that, we would know, automatically and intuitively, that the skin of any man is not going to be captured in a photo in the exact same way as his shirt.
It's just a stupid idea because THERE IS NO OTHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN. How many times do I have to tell you that you can't make stuff up?
And what about this?
What is the evidence for this other African-American? A glib remark by the flechettist does not constitute evidence. Richard E. Sprague did a lot of investigating and a lot of writing, and as far as we know, he never expounded on this; he never said it again; he never detailed it in any way; he never provided any evidence for it. It was just one glib terse unsubstantiated remark in a private letter he sent to someone, and that's it. Not another thing.
Yet, you treat it like a bankable fact. And it's because you're NOT a researcher. You don't care about Kennedy. You don't care about Oswald. You don't care about the truth. You don't care about anything but beating me, which is something you have never done and will never do. I've won on every issue. I've prevailed on every point. You've never prevailed on anything. You've been wrong on everything. And you're wrong on this. And it's because you're stupid; incredibly stupid. If you weren't classified as learning-disabled growing up, it's because somebody dropped the ball.
Friday, May 29, 2015
But, I have some questions about it. I really want to proffer some questions for discussion. First, there is an old woman at the top on the right hand side whose face looks pasty white. Do you notice how weird she looks? Notice how the face of the cop next to her looks flesh-colored/ as you would expect. But, look at hers compared to his. And hers stays like that too. Even as the clip continues and she turned her face towards us, it is still pasty white. You can't say it is a sudden light reflection because her face is constantly white, in contrast to the others. And what is she doing there? She can't possibly work there; she's too old. Is she somebody's mother? Most of the employees at the TSBD were so young, she could be their grandmother. So, what was she doing there? What was her purpose in being up there?
Second, who is the older man in the Fedora Man on the left? He definitely wasn't there during the motorcade. There was a man in a Fedora hat on Elm Street close to the Monument whom we can see in the Altgens photo. Is he supposed to be the same guy or someone else? But regardless, what business does he have to be up there crowding that doorway at a time like that? It can't be that he works there because if he worked there, we would know who he is. And like the old woman, he is too old to be working there.
Third, there is a strange casualness to the whole thing. The checkpoint cops are letting this young man who, strangely, looks like Lee Harvey Oswald from behind. He's wearing a shirt that looks very much like Oswald's arrest shirt. Apparently, he's got business there, so the cops let him enter. The others seem very curious about it, as they peer inside, including Lovelady. (Psst. I call him Lovelady because he is supposed to be Lovelady, but he wasn't really Lovelady. And I don't think he was even there. I think they implanted him into the film. But, we don't need to address that now. Let's stay on point.) And, the point I want to make is that it seems strangely commonplace. The big cop on our left is apparently a touchy-feely kind of guy because after letting the young man in, with some contact, he pats the other cop on the shoulder. In fact, he pats him twice: first with one hand, and then with the other. This strikes me as strange, mainly because the President of the United States had his brain blown out just 15 minutes before. It seems like everybody would still be a little shell-shock from that. The whole clip has a very business-as-usual, ordinary-day feel to it that is surreal.
Fourth, I draw your attention to two figures, and I mean the two ladies who are closest to Lovelady. Neither one of these ladies move in the whole 6 seconds. Other people move and some move quite a lot, but these two are like statues. They don't twitch. There's not so much as a slight head turn from either of them.
And what's with the curlers in the one? She's got curlers in her hair, right? That's what it looks like to me. Well, you know that she doesn't work there because who would go to work with her hair in curlers? But, who would go to watch the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World with curlers in her hair? So, what is she doing there, and I mean there at the doorway and there in Dealey Plaza? She seems out of place. And I wonder similarly about the other lady in the coat and scarf because she doesn't move a muscle either, and she seems over-dressed. It was a warm afternoon at that point. Wasn't she overdressed? Wasn't she hot?
Again: who is she? What does she want? What is she hanging around for?
And why plant yourself right in the center there? Could she be any more in the way than she is? And she's a hefty woman too. She's got shoulders like a linebacker.
I'm going to try to put up the gif of the whole 6 second clip so that you can watch it. But, friends and enemies alike may feel free to weigh-in concerning my questions about these strange characters. There is some strange stuff here.
It's a sad day for freedom. Ross Ulbricht never took aggressive action against anybody. The fact is: people like to take recreational drugs. I don't, but a lot of people do. And in a free country, what you put in your body would be your business and nobody else's.
The eeriest thing about this is all we've heard about the government, particularly the CIA, being involved in drug trafficking. It made it onto Wikipedia:
Do you think anyone who bought drugs on Silk Road would not have found another way to buy them if it didn't exist? And even if you think they wouldn't have, it was still their decision, wasn't it?
Note that the government also claimed that there were murder-for-hire contracts, which sounds a heck of a lot worse. But, those charges were never substantiated, and all were dropped.
"Most shockingly, prosecutors alleged Ulbricht had hired assassins to murder six targets who threatened the existence of Silk Road. Ulbricht was denied bail on the basis of these accusations, but the murder charges were never filed. It remains unclear why the prosecution dropped the charges, although one reason may be the lack of evidence that these supposed murders ever even occurred. Defense attorney Dratel insisted the murder-for-hire charges were fabricated, and that there was no way to link any drug-related deaths to Silk Road. If anything, he argued, the website had provided a platform for buying and selling drugs that was "far safer" than traditional drug-dealing on the street."
Me, I wouldn't take aspirin for a headache. That's how anti-drug I am. But, this is just plain sick. We need to stop calling this place a free country.
Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison Without Possibility of Parole
Ross Ulbricht conceived of his Silk Road black market as an online utopia beyond law enforcement’s reach. Now he’ll spend the rest of his life firmly in its grasp, locked inside a federal penitentiary.
On Friday Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for his role in creating and running Silk Road’s billion-dollar, anonymous black market for drugs. Judge Katherine Forrest gave Ulbricht the most severe sentence possible. The minimum he could have served was 20 years.
“The stated purpose [of the Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the Dread Pirate Roberts,” she told Ulbricht as she read the sentence. “Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous.”
Ulbricht had stood before the court just minutes earlier in navy blue prison clothes, pleading for a lenient sentence. “I’ve changed. I’m not the man I was when I created Silk Road,” he said, as his voice grew husky with emotion and cracked. “I’m a little wiser, a little more mature, and much more humble.”
Ulbricht’s sentencing likely puts the final seal on the saga of Silk Road, the anarchic underground market the 31-year-old Texan created in early 2011. At its peak, the Dark Web site grew to a sprawling smorgasbord of every narcotic imaginable—before Ulbricht was arrested in a public library in San Francisco in October of 2013. Eighteen months later, he was convicted in a Manhattan court on seven felony charges, including conspiracies to traffic in narcotics and launder money, as well as a “kingpin” charge usually reserved for the leaders of organized crime groups.
Two of those seven charges were deemed redundant and dropped by the prosecution just days before the sentencing, though that technical change to the charges didn’t lessen Ulbricht’s mandatory minimum sentence—or his eventual punishment.
Ulbricht’s defense team has already said it will seek an appeal in his case. That call for a new trial will be based in part on recent revelations that two Secret Service and Drug Enforcement Administration agents involved in the investigation of the Silk Road allegedly stole millions of dollars of bitcoin from the site. One of the agents is even accused of blackmailing Ulbricht, and of allegedly selling him law enforcement information as a mole inside the DEA. But the judge in Ulbricht’s case ruled that those Baltimore-based agents weren’t involved in the New York FBI-led investigation that eventually took down the Silk Road, preventing their alleged corruption from affecting Ulbricht’s fate.
In the weeks leading up to his sentencing hearing, Ulbricht’s defense team attempted to lighten his punishment with arguments about his motives and character, as well as emphasizing the Silk Road’s positive effect on its drug-using customers. In more than a hundred letters, friends, family, and even fellow inmates pointed to Ulbricht’s idealism and lack of a criminal history. And the defense argued that Silk Road had actually reduced harm in the drug trade by ensuring the purity of the drugs sold on the site through reviews and ratings, hosting discussions on “safe” drug use, and giving both buyers and sellers an avenue to trade in narcotics while avoiding the violence of the streets. “Transactions on the Silk Road web site were significantly safer than traditional illegal drug purchases, and included quality control and accountability features that made purchasers substantially safer than they were when purchasing drugs in a conventional manner,” Ulbricht’s lead attorney Joshua Dratel wrote in a memo to Judge Forrest two weeks ago.
But the prosecution countered that any protection the Silk Road offered drug users was dwarfed by the increased access it offered to dangerous and addictive drugs. And it pointed to six individuals who it claimed had died of drug overdoses from drugs purchased on the Silk Road. “Praising Silk Road for including ‘harm reduction measures’ is akin to applauding a heroin dealer for handing out a clean needle with every dime bag,” the prosecution wrote in a letter to the judge.
The Justice Department also argued in their letter to Judge Forrest that Ulbricht should be made an example of to stop even more Dark Web market kingpins from following in his footsteps. After all, dozens of copycat sites and advancements on the Silk Road market model have sprouted in the years since its takedown, including the Silk Road 2, Evolution, and the currently largest Dark Web black market to survive law enforcement’s attacks, Agora. To combat the spread of those anonymous bazaars, prosecutors asked Judge Forrest to “send a clear message” with a sentence for Ulbricht well beyond the mandatory minimum.
“Although the Government has achieved some successes in combating these successor dark markets, they continue to pose investigative challenges for law enforcement,” read the prosecution’s letter. “To the extent that would-be imitators may view the risk of being caught to be low, many are still likely to be deterred if the stakes are sufficiently high.”
The defense’s arguments about Ulbricht’s character and his idealistic motives were also undercut by accusations that Ulbricht had paid for the murder of six people, including a potential informant and a blackmailer. Those accusations never became formal charges in Ulbricht’s case—five out of six of the murder-for-hires appear to have been part of a lucrative scam targeting Ulbricht, with no actual victims. But they deeply colored Ulbricht’s trial, and no doubt loomed large in the mind of Judge Forrest at sentencing.
In his own letter to the judge ahead of sentencing, Ulbricht took a more personal tact, promising that he had learned that the Silk Road was a “terrible mistake” and a “very naive and costly idea” that he regretted and wouldn’t repeat. He pleaded for a chance at freedom in the decades after his incarceration.
“I’ve had my youth, and I know you must take away my middle years, but please leave me my old age,” he wrote. “Please leave a small light at the end of the tunnel, an excuse to stay healthy, an excuse to dream of better days ahead, and a chance to redeem myself in the free world before I meet my maker.”
On Friday Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for his role in creating and running Silk Road’s billion-dollar, anonymous black market for drugs. Judge Katherine Forrest gave Ulbricht the most severe sentence possible. The minimum he could have served was 20 years.
“The stated purpose [of the Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the Dread Pirate Roberts,” she told Ulbricht as she read the sentence. “Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous.”
Ulbricht had stood before the court just minutes earlier in navy blue prison clothes, pleading for a lenient sentence. “I’ve changed. I’m not the man I was when I created Silk Road,” he said, as his voice grew husky with emotion and cracked. “I’m a little wiser, a little more mature, and much more humble.”
Ulbricht’s sentencing likely puts the final seal on the saga of Silk Road, the anarchic underground market the 31-year-old Texan created in early 2011. At its peak, the Dark Web site grew to a sprawling smorgasbord of every narcotic imaginable—before Ulbricht was arrested in a public library in San Francisco in October of 2013. Eighteen months later, he was convicted in a Manhattan court on seven felony charges, including conspiracies to traffic in narcotics and launder money, as well as a “kingpin” charge usually reserved for the leaders of organized crime groups.
Two of those seven charges were deemed redundant and dropped by the prosecution just days before the sentencing, though that technical change to the charges didn’t lessen Ulbricht’s mandatory minimum sentence—or his eventual punishment.
Ulbricht’s defense team has already said it will seek an appeal in his case. That call for a new trial will be based in part on recent revelations that two Secret Service and Drug Enforcement Administration agents involved in the investigation of the Silk Road allegedly stole millions of dollars of bitcoin from the site. One of the agents is even accused of blackmailing Ulbricht, and of allegedly selling him law enforcement information as a mole inside the DEA. But the judge in Ulbricht’s case ruled that those Baltimore-based agents weren’t involved in the New York FBI-led investigation that eventually took down the Silk Road, preventing their alleged corruption from affecting Ulbricht’s fate.
In the weeks leading up to his sentencing hearing, Ulbricht’s defense team attempted to lighten his punishment with arguments about his motives and character, as well as emphasizing the Silk Road’s positive effect on its drug-using customers. In more than a hundred letters, friends, family, and even fellow inmates pointed to Ulbricht’s idealism and lack of a criminal history. And the defense argued that Silk Road had actually reduced harm in the drug trade by ensuring the purity of the drugs sold on the site through reviews and ratings, hosting discussions on “safe” drug use, and giving both buyers and sellers an avenue to trade in narcotics while avoiding the violence of the streets. “Transactions on the Silk Road web site were significantly safer than traditional illegal drug purchases, and included quality control and accountability features that made purchasers substantially safer than they were when purchasing drugs in a conventional manner,” Ulbricht’s lead attorney Joshua Dratel wrote in a memo to Judge Forrest two weeks ago.
But the prosecution countered that any protection the Silk Road offered drug users was dwarfed by the increased access it offered to dangerous and addictive drugs. And it pointed to six individuals who it claimed had died of drug overdoses from drugs purchased on the Silk Road. “Praising Silk Road for including ‘harm reduction measures’ is akin to applauding a heroin dealer for handing out a clean needle with every dime bag,” the prosecution wrote in a letter to the judge.
The Justice Department also argued in their letter to Judge Forrest that Ulbricht should be made an example of to stop even more Dark Web market kingpins from following in his footsteps. After all, dozens of copycat sites and advancements on the Silk Road market model have sprouted in the years since its takedown, including the Silk Road 2, Evolution, and the currently largest Dark Web black market to survive law enforcement’s attacks, Agora. To combat the spread of those anonymous bazaars, prosecutors asked Judge Forrest to “send a clear message” with a sentence for Ulbricht well beyond the mandatory minimum.
“Although the Government has achieved some successes in combating these successor dark markets, they continue to pose investigative challenges for law enforcement,” read the prosecution’s letter. “To the extent that would-be imitators may view the risk of being caught to be low, many are still likely to be deterred if the stakes are sufficiently high.”
The defense’s arguments about Ulbricht’s character and his idealistic motives were also undercut by accusations that Ulbricht had paid for the murder of six people, including a potential informant and a blackmailer. Those accusations never became formal charges in Ulbricht’s case—five out of six of the murder-for-hires appear to have been part of a lucrative scam targeting Ulbricht, with no actual victims. But they deeply colored Ulbricht’s trial, and no doubt loomed large in the mind of Judge Forrest at sentencing.
In his own letter to the judge ahead of sentencing, Ulbricht took a more personal tact, promising that he had learned that the Silk Road was a “terrible mistake” and a “very naive and costly idea” that he regretted and wouldn’t repeat. He pleaded for a chance at freedom in the decades after his incarceration.
“I’ve had my youth, and I know you must take away my middle years, but please leave me my old age,” he wrote. “Please leave a small light at the end of the tunnel, an excuse to stay healthy, an excuse to dream of better days ahead, and a chance to redeem myself in the free world before I meet my maker.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)