Saturday, November 18, 2017

Bill Simpich's Betrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald
by Ralph C. Cinque

Amy Joyce:

"No real defense would be so stupid as to plead not guilty but not place their client somewhere else."

Ralph Cinque: 

That is so well put, I had to quote you, Amy. And I do love it when someone states something really profound in just a few succinct words, as you did.

The person who made that decision was Attorney Bill Simpich, who was supposed to be Oswald's attorney. And again I'll state that Bill Simpich vaguely referred to Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the shooting. My recollection is that Bill sought to imply that that's where Oswald was. But, he was tepid about it; like he was deliberately being vague and evasive. Why? I know why. I know exactly why.  

It's because Bill Simpich talked, at length, to Larry Rivera, and Bill knows, full-well, how certain Larry is that Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting. 

And, Bill was going to go with that. I kid you not. So, why didn't he do it? He planned to. He was going to put Larry Rivera on the witness stand. He very nearly did. But, what I think happened is that someone got to Bill and said to him, in so many words: 

"Oh Bill, you don't want to go with him. Don't you know that he's considered an extremist? Don't you know that there is a respectable level of disputing the JFK assassination, but that he's not on that level? Don't you understand that Larry Rivera is considered fringe? Lunatic fringe? You'll be aligning yourself with radicals, and it may stick with you- even beyond the trial. Don't do it, Bill. It's not worth it. Think about your reputation. As for Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting, nobody knows for sure, but I think most likely, he was in the second floor lunch room, just as Carolyn Arnold said. And recall that that's what Oliver Stone depicted in his movie JFK. So, you can't go wrong with that. You won't be criticized. And besides, your case really isn't about Oswald's alibi anyway, is it? There are plenty of CTs who make their case opposing the official story without giving Oswald any alibi at all. So, don't feel obliged."

So, Bill took that advice, but I think that the things Larry told him and showed him were still haunting him. Remember what he was going to do. For weeks, it was a done deal. Look:

So, Bill Simpich changed his mind at the last minute, and I suspect it was because somebody got to him. I don't think he changed his mind on his own. But, I suspect he was conflicted. He knows there is nothing bizarre and extreme about Larry Rivera; that Larry is level-headed, stable, rational, etc. And that means that he just may be right. 

So, I think that in the interest of self-preservation, Bill Simpich decided that he would go with the "respectable" alibi, but he wouldn't push it. He wasn't going to state emphatically that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting. What he said was (and I'm paraphrasing): "Carolyn Arnold said she saw him in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:15".  (she, reportedly, said 12:25) And then he followed that with, "And then, a police officer also saw him there, a little after the shooting."    

Now, keep in mind that I am recalling this from memory, so the wording isn't exactly right, but I believe the meaning is. 

But, the most important thing is that Bill Simpich never actually said: "Oswald was in the the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting." No, no, no: Bill protected Bill. He just stated what Carolyn Arnold said (although he got the time wrong) and what Marrion Baker said, and he left it to the jury to put the two together and draw the conclusion that there was continuity between them, that Oswald stayed put from the time Carolyn Arnold saw him to the time Marrion Baker saw him.

But, there is NO CHANCE that Carolyn Arnold was right.  She actually claimed that she saw Oswald EATING in the 2nd floor lunch room, and he NEVER ate there. He ALWAYS ate in the 1st floor lunch room. In fact, according to Bill Simpich, Oswald made a point of eating in the 1st floor lunchroom just to show solidarity with African-Americans. I think it's complete, total, utter bull shit.  It sounds like something the Idiot Backes would say. But, the point is that Bill Simpich knows that Oswald didn't eat in the 2nd floor lunch room, and that he didn't eat there on 11/22/63. But, look at the article about Carolyn Arnold from 1978:

Now, keep in mind that that article, from the Dallas Morning News, is everything. It's everything there is to this. There is nothing else. And it isn't evidence in the case. Obviously, it did not exist at the time of the Warren Commission, but it's not in the "document pile" of the HSCA either. It's just a piece of hearsay by a reporter for a newspaper with close ties to the CIA. But, what it says there is that at 12:25, Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in a booth in the 2nd floor lunch room, sitting there, alone as usual, and HE APPEARED TO BE HAVING LUNCH. That's what it says in plain visible English, Bill. Did you miss that? So, what does it mean? I presume it means that she saw that there was food in front of him on the table. And it likely means that she saw him bringing food to his mouth, chewing, swallowing, etc. 

But again: Bill Simpich knows very well, because he said so in the trial, that Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room, on that day, and every day, "to show solidarity with African-Americans." Your words, Bill.  

Well, what are we supposed to presume, Bill? That Oswald ate two lunches that day? As skinny as he was, he was lucky if he got one lunch. It is preposterous to suggest that he ate lunch twice within half an hour. 

So, if Carolyn Arnold made a false statement about seeing Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room, and we have to presume she did,  then what reason is there to give credence to any of this? 

We have a signed FBI statement from November 26, 1963 stating that she said she saw Oswald at the doorway (between the double doors) shortly before the shooting. It wasn't signed by her. It was signed by the FBI agent who took her statement. 

Carolyn Arnold was a 19 year old girl in 1963. What are the chances that she lied to an FBI agent? And what possible reason could he have had to lie? And what possible reason could the agent have had to invent that she said she saw Oswald at the doorway close to the time of the shooting? That's bad for the official story, so an FBI agent wouldn't make it up. 

Here is that statement. Note that, at the time, Carolyn used her husband's initials R.E. because, you know, women are the property of men, right?

Note: Special Agent Richard E. Harrison wrote it, based on what she said. But, Professor Gerald McKnight, in his excellent book Breach of Trust, spelled out why he thinks it was Harrison who edited her words, and that it was he who designated the time as 12:15 (to leave Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor).

But, smarter/wiser minds above Harrison at the FBI realized that it was still poison to the official story. So, they came back, in March 1964, and got Carolyn Arnold to say that she didn't see Oswald at all. And then, they let her cite the real time when she got outside which was 12:25.

It was Professor McKnight who separated the wheat from the chaff and concluded that the first statement was the truth, except the time that she saw Oswald at the doorway was not 12:15 but 12:25.

But again, I want to stress that hearsay is not admissible in court, and what Bill Simpich cited today in court was hearsay. Hearsay from a newspaper article is still hearsay, and there is nothing but hearsay in that article. 

In fact, at the trial today, the pretty young prosecutor asked the last witness, Brian Edwards, if he believed everything in the newspaper, and his response was that he never does because "they never get it right." Everyone laughed. 

So, why would anyone put stock in this highly suspect, unverified, and internally-contradicting newspaper article? Why would ANYONE think that it's bankable as evidence? 

But, getting back to Bill Simpich, he wanted to allude to Oswald's alibi. He remembered what Larry Rivera told him and showed him, and he must have been impressed at the time. Right? I mean, he put Larry on the witness roster, didn't he? You want that I show it to you again? OK, here it is again:

Now, when Bill Simpich told Larry Rivera that he was out, the excuse he gave was that Larry has appeared on the New JFK Show with Jim Fetzer, and that program is anti-Semitic. 

Now, I am not going to get into this in a big way because it would be a distraction. However, I will point out what Jim Fetzer said to me last night on the phone: that criticism of Israel for its policies and actions is NOT anti-Semitism. And I'll also point out something that I know, that when David Lifton, who is Jewish, was writing his book Best Evidence about the pre-autopsy of JFK's body, that Jim Fetzer gave him $1000 just to help him out. I know both Jim and Larry well enough to say that there isn't a racist bone in either of their bodies. And, that's all I have to say about that. 

But, the point is that as far as I'm concerned, it was just an excuse on Bill's part. And why shouldn't I feel that way? Because: if it was just that, then why wouldn't he ditch Larry but keep the alibi? What bearing does Larry Rivera's attitude towards Jews have on where Oswald was during the shooting? 

So again, I think it was just an excuse, and really, Bill let someone convince him that associating with Larry Rivera was a detrimental association. And, I think that if he hadn't come up with the anti-Semite excuse, he would have found another one. 

So, Bill Simpich gave up on the doorway alibi, and really, he gave up on making Oswald's alibi a pivotal part of the case. I really think Bill decided to just brush over it lightly. He NEVER made a definitive statement to the jury about where Oswald was at 12:30. And again, to my ears, it sounded like he was just implying to the jury that Oswald was in the second floor lunch room the whole time, from the time Carolyn Arnold supposedly saw him until when Marrion Baker saw him. That's what it sounded like to me. 

But, there is NO CHANCE that it's true, and there is no reason to even expect it to be true. Why would Lee Harvey Oswald choose to sit in the 2nd floor lunch room when President John F. Kennedy was passing the building? Oswald? The guy who defended Kennedy to Marina's family in Russia? Oswald? The guy who went to the library and checked out Profiles in Courage and read it just because Kennedy wrote it?  Oswald? The guy who read James Bond novels because he heard that Kennedy liked them? Oswald? The guy who had a Soviet wife and who knew that the one and only person who figured out a way to avert nuclear war with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis was John F. Kennedy? Why, WHY WHY, Bill, would Oswald have no interest in seeing JFK when he had more reasons, personal reasons, to be interested in JFK than anyone else who worked there?

Bill Simpich has no strong conviction where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. His action wasn't based on that. His action wasn't based on WHERE OSWALD WAS. It was based on WHO LARRY RIVERA IS.

There is some irony here. Can you see it?

And here's the epilogue:

When word of this reached me, I pleaded with Bill. 

"Alright, so you don't want Larry Rivera. Then what about Chana Gail Willis? She is a professional photographer, a longtime JFK researcher, and an advocate of Oswald in the doorway. And she's never been on the New JFK Show. So, would you let her testify in place of Larry? 

And of course, I first spoke to Chana. And when she heard what was going on, she agreed to drop everything and catch a flight to Houston. It meant to immediately pack and leave and drive two hours to the airport. I assured Bill that we asked for nothing in the way of travel expenses. But, the response we got from Bill was no response at all- not even a polite rejection.   

Friday, November 17, 2017


by Ralph C. Cinque 

Those bozo lawyers be gone, now I am going to give you the opening statement to the jury that they should have made. 

The jury deliberated for less than an hour. As I recall, maybe 40 minutes. What that tells me is that their minds were firmly made up. Even though the conviction side had the smallest possible majority, the others said, "No way; we ain't budgin'; tell the judge we're hung."

And, it is uplifting to me to realize that the jurors who voted to acquit Oswald were adamant about it. It dazzles me because the defense stunk so badly. They truly failed Oswald- miserably. They never ADVOCATED for him, meaning that they never expressed outrage to the jury about what was done to him. The whole defense should have been centered on HIM: Lee Harvey Oswald. 

I told the idiot lawyers to forget about disputing the Single Bullet Theory because it didn't matter, not to Oswald. It didn't matter whether there was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. What mattered is whether Oswald was up at the 6th floor window. The entire case should have been devoted to disputing that.  

But, the point is that if Oswald wound up with 5 adamant jurors on his side after that miserable, rotten, lousy defense from those stinking lawyers, imagine how he would do if he got a real defense, a good defense, a competent, thorough, and effective presentation about his innocence. It makes me realize that with good lawyers, Oswald would sail to victory like Joshua.  

Good lawyers would have focused on Oswald: his whereabouts, his alibi, and his innocence. They would have addressed the evidence against him and demolished it. Their opening statement would have gone something like this:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury: I am here to tell you that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent; he did not shoot President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963." 

"At the time President Kennedy was shot, Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository, and we have a photographic image of him there. And, we will be showing you that image and comparing it to other images of Oswald in which you will be able to not only match the man, but also match the clothing. You'll see that the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested is the same shirt he was wearing in the doorway an hour before- and it is a very distinctive shirt. And you'll also be able to match the t-shirt."

"The very idea that another man looked that much like Oswald- and dressed that much like him- is utterly preposterous."

"We will be examining all the evidence against Oswald. However, we will NOT spend time challenging the Single Bullet Theory, because, although we dispute it and deny it vociferously, it has no bearing on whether Oswald was up on the 6th floor with a rifle."

"So, the Single Bullet Theory is a contentious and controversial issue, but it is not evidence against Oswald, and disputing it cannot help Oswald. What is the evidence against Oswald? The evidence against Oswald includes the following:
-fingerprint and palm-print evidence, which we will show to be completely and totally unreliable and unsubstantiated
-the testimonies of Buell Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae that Oswald brought a long bag to work that day, which he claimed was curtain rods. We will directly rebut those testimonies.
-the testimony of the most damaging witness of all against Oswald: his own wife Marina. We have an expert witness who will discuss the evidence for mental and physical coercion of Marina. And that coercion makes her entire testimony to the Warren Commission inadmissible. 
-you'll be shown that Marina's claim that Oswald shot at General Walker is the ONLY evidence there is linking him to that event. Nothing else has any merit whatsoever. And because of what I just told you about her mental and physical coercion, even her testimony about it has no merit. So, there is nothing, of merit, linking Oswald to the Walker shooting. Nothing. 
- you'll be shown that we were never given Oswald's alibi for the Tippit shooting. You'll be shown the bizarre things that that story entails, such as a man emptying the cylinder of his revolver of spent shells at the crime scene???? Such as two wallets turning up, one at the crime scene and one in Oswald's pocket????? Two wallets? Two FILLED wallets, with IDs, etc.??? How many wallets do you carry around at a time? We're supposed to believe that Oswald carried two??? And that just a taste concerning the Tippit shooting; there is much more.
-we will address the issue of Oswald "fleeing" Dealey Plaza. Fleeing? Did you know that Oswald offered his cab to a woman who seemed to be in a greater hurry than he was? Did you know that there were other warehouse workers who weren't present for the so-called TSBD roll-call, such as Charles Givens. But, no one suspected on that basis that he might be the killer; just Oswald. 
-we will look at the Backyard photos, and you will see that it's only Oswald's face in the photos, and not even his whole face. It's not even his chin. That wide, anvil-like chin in the Backyard photos was certainly not Oswald's. 
-we will present the evidence showing that Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. We will also demonstrate that a rifle ordered by an "A. Hidell" could never have reached Oswald at his P.O. box, the way he had it set up.
-we will present the evidence showing that Oswald never went to Mexico City; that he was framed for that, and by whom? The CIA." 

"And there is more, much more. By the time we're finished, you'll realize that Oswald was a victim that day- as much so as John F. Kennedy, that Oswald is, in fact, one of the most wronged men who ever lived."

"And with so much ground to cover concerning the evidence against Oswald, I hope you will understand why we won't waste time addressing the Single Bullet Theory. IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER OSWALD WAS IN THE SNIPER'S NEST ON THE 6th FLOOR, THEREFORE, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO HIS DEFENSE. Thank you."  




Amazingly, Robert Tanenbaum, in his final remarks to the court, said that he wasn't there as Oswald's lawyer. What??? Then what was he doing being Oswald's lawyer? 

What he was doing was advocating for multiple shooters and conspiracy. That's all he was doing. That's all he cares about. He doesn't care about Oswald. 

Tanenbaum thanked Josiah Thompson, who was there, for helping him prepare the case.  And that's what it was, a case for conspiracy, not a defense of Oswald. 

Josiah "Tink" Thompson is the quintessential "respectable" CT. He gets along with LNs. He doesn't trash them the way he trashes Oswald defenders. 

Tink trashed Oswald in the doorway on the basis that CBS told him that Lovelady told them that he was the Doorman. CBS? We're supposed to believe CBS? They didn't even tell us the truth about Dan Rather, never mind Billy Lovelady. Dan Rather was in the garage during the Oswald shooting spectacle, and he lied about it.

This is a new collage, but I have made many others like it. Look at the matching bushy eyebrows. Look at the matching ears. Look at the jowly cheeks on both. and even the noses match well, if you factor in the different angle. Don't tell me that isn't Dan Rather.

It would be an incredible likeness if the guy was standing in a supermarket. But, we're talking about the police garage where Lee Harvey Oswald was shot. There just happened to be a Dan Rather lookalike there, of all places?

But, getting back to Tink, that was at a time (1967) that Billy Lovelady was alive and well. So, why didn't Tink go talk to Lovelady himself, not just to hear what he had to say, but how he said it? Because: if Lovelady was intimidated or even threatened, then he might have been lying- in fear of his life. Is it so imponderable to consider that? In this case, the JFK assassination? Where, at various times, witnesses were dropping like flies?  

Robert Tanenbaum had the whole first day for the defense. And keep in mind that the prosecution only called one witness in the whole entire trial: Lucien Haag, the ballistics expert. 

I expected the prosecution to call in Buell Frazier to retell his story about the long bag and the curtain rods. But, maybe they tried to get him, and he turned them down. They weren't offering any pay, so that may have been a factor. 

Citing the dubious fingerprint/palmprint evidence is the ONLY thing that Tanenbaum offered in defense of Oswald, for the whole day, and for the whole trial. That's it. And, he didn't even do a good job of presenting it. 

I can't believe that Tanenbaum is so stupid as to not realize that establishing multiple shooters does NOTHING to exonerate Oswald. It would just mean that one or more might be swinging from the gallows with him. But, that's what Tanenbaum strove for the whole time, except for the one very brief exception, the prints. 

And just think: none of those idiot lawyers EVER made a definitive statement on Oswald's behalf, that he was innocent. Don't you think Oswald would have? How many times did he emphatically deny the charges? He even said, "I emphatically deny these charges!" Since he couldn't speak for himself, being dead, why didn't his lawyers do it? 

And, one of Oswald's lawyers (I think Simpich) actually talked about Oswald going to Mexico City and what he did there at the Consulate. 

Is Bill Simpich unaware that Lee Harvey Oswald denied ever going to Mexico City? 

So, what are you saying, Bill? That Oswald was innocent of murder, but you think he lied to police about going to Mexico City? 

If you think he's innocent, then why would an innocent man lie to police about the harmless and legal act of taking a trip to Mexico City? Nobody ever said he committed any crimes in Mexico City. Nobody ever claimed that he collaborated with anyone in Mexico City to kill Kennedy. Nobody ever claimed he had any thought to kill Kennedy until November 19 or whatever day he, supposedly, saw the motorcade route in the newspaper, and it flipped an evil switch in his brain. Of course, it's ridiculous. Oswald was focused on his family; he wanted very much to get them back under his wing. On Thursday night, he asked Marina about moving back in with him if he got a larger apartment. She turned him down, but it shows you where his mind was.   

So, Bill Simpich, Oswald's lawyer, thinks his client, Oswald, is a liar, and that he lied, of all things, about going to Mexico City?

You know, I'm not the brilliant legal mind that Bill Simpich supposedly is (cough, cough) but when you're accused by the police of committing two murders, for which you are professing complete and total innocence, why WHY WHY would you lie about going to Mexico City???

How could Oswald wind up with such lousy lawyers? And just think, if he had lived, do you know who would have been defending him? Mark Lane, who is the lawyer who won, on appeal, the one only civil lawsuit concerning the JFK assassination. And keep in mind that Mark Lane wasn't involved in the first trial. He wasn't responsible for that loss. But, he came in and picked up the pieces, and beat the daylights out of the plaintiff, who happened to be E.Howard Hunt and his backers. That's how good a lawyer Mark Lane was, and there's absolutely no doubt that he would have defended Oswald, and for free, of course. 

We, Oswald's true defenders, dodged a bullet today. And I learned a lesson from this. I guarantee you that if, years from now, there is an announcement about another mock trial, I'll look at it with a jaundiced eye and a bitter taste in my mouth. 

Well, I was right, but just barely. It was a hung jury, and there was a preponderance of votes to convict. But, it was close: 6 to 5. It seems that the 12th juror didn't show up today. But, how was that not noticed until now?

I really should admit that this is a better result for the defense than I expected, even though it falls within my parameters. When it's this close, the prosecution can hardly claim a mandate. 

So, what will the mainstream media do? My prediction: nothing. I expect no coverage of this by the corporate media. First, because the very idea of a hung jury is embarrassing. And, if they can't mitigate it by pointing to an overwhelming majority of votes to convict, then it just stands out as continued doubt about Oswald's guilt. 

One thing lacking from the trial is that the judge should have instructed the jury that even if they think there was another shooter, as long as they think Oswald was "a" shooter, they have to convict him. 

I'm saying that because most of what the defense presented had to do with establishing that there was another shooter, and their arguments in no way precluded Oswald being on the 6th floor and also shooting.

So, the question now is, why did the defense get off so easy? They did a miserable job. I have to assume it was because of the last witness Brian Edwards who made some good points. But, I'll add that the jurors looked different than I expected. We were told that the jury would consist of law students from Southwestern College of Law. Well, you expect law students to be young, right? But, there were some older people in that jury, and it's hard to believe that they are law students. But, since they were older, I have to wonder if they may have already had firm opinions about the case. We don't know anything about how the jury was chosen. We did hear the judge say that they needed to consider only the evidence presented at trial and not anything else. But, let's be honest: this is the JFK assassination, and people tend to have firm opinions. And remember too that this was two days of their lives without pay. Who would volunteer to do that except those with an interest in the case? And if you are interested in the case, then you probably have an opinion about it.  

I must say that I am very glad and also relieved that Oswald wasn't convicted. Because: it would have done a lot of damage if he was convicted. As I said, the mainstream media would have jumped on it, and now they won't. And, as I have previously said, a hung jury is better for Oswald than it is for the State. The 6 to 5 spread means nothing; it might as well have been 6 to 6. 

So, am I saying that this is actually a partial victory for Oswald? Yes, that's what I'm saying, and it's true. And, that is why we are not going to hear about it in the media. However, I give zero credit to the defense lawyers. None at all. They are stupid men, the three of them: Robert Tannenbaum, Larry Schnapf, and Bill Simpich. They are just mediocre, run-of-the-mill, dim-witted minds who just happened to get lucky. Oh, were they ever lucky that they are not going to have to live the rest of their lives as the lawyers who got Lee Harvey Oswald convicted. 

Overall, Gerry Spence did a much better job defending Oswald than they did, and he lost. Oswald got convicted. But, I suppose it's fair to say that Vince Bugliosi was stronger and more effective and aggressive than these prosecutors were. And that is another way in which these defense lawyers were extremely lucky.

And, the best thing about this result is that it reverses the conviction from 1984 and puts the question of Oswald's guilt back to neutral. 

And, it is also means that there is a chance for more mock trials in the future. If Oswald had been convicted, it would have meant two convictions in a row, and I think that would have ended the mock trials. But now, it's possible they will continue. 

So, I am greatly relieved that there was no great damage done to the cause of Oswald innocence and JFK truth. However, at the same time, I am infuriated at those stupid, incompetent, imbecilic lawyers: Robert Tanenbaum, Larry Schnapf, and Bill Simpich. They got mighty close to blowing it for Oswald and really hurting all of us who have worked so hard to exonerate him. 

I will NEVER forgive them.  

The mock trial is essentially over, except for the jury deliberation and verdict. The final witness for the defense was Brian Edwards, who is a retired policeman from Kansas. He's the one who wrote a book with Kansas schoolteacher Casey Quinlin, but I previously lambasted Quinlin for falsely quoting Oswald and for falsely disputing the Altgens photo evidence showing Oswald in the doorway. You can read my critique of Quinlin here:

So, Bill Simpich questioned Brian Edwards, and I'll grant that a few good points were made by Edwards. In fact, there is no question that Brian Edwards was the best witness the defense brought forth in the case. But, that doesn't mean he did great; he just did OK. 

But first, Simpich made the ridiculous statement that Oswald ate in the first floor lunch room, the domino room, because that is where the African-American workers ate, and he wanted to show solidarity with them. What the hell is that based on? Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room because all the grunt workers ate there. Plus, a newspaper was placed in there, and he liked reading the newspaper during lunch. That's it. What Simpich said is bull shit.  

Next, they went over an early British report that a British 303 rifle was found, and Simpich alluded to the idea that they were going to say that that was Frazier's rifle and he did it. But, that is ridiculous because Frazier was in the doorway. Right? And weren't there witnesses there who would have attested that he was? Was there really any chance that police were going to say that Frazier was the shooter in the Sniper's Nest? Hell no! Bill Simpich is such an idiot. That wasn't it. They were just going go say that he was Oswald's accomplice, not that anyone but Oswald did the shooting from the Sniper's Nest. 

Then, they went over Cunningham's testimony about no hammer mark on the bullet in Oswald's pistol. Then Simpich had Edwards describe why the rifle in the Backyard photo was different from the rifle that Lt. Day brandished. But, what was Simpich implying? That Oswald posed with another rifle? He never did tell the jury that Oswald denied posing for the picture. He never did suggest that the photo was faked, that Oswald's face was put over the body of another man. 

You see, that's not being a polite, respectable CT. That's considered being a rogue, renegade Oswald defender. And, Bill Simpich is a polite, respectable CT, not a rogue, renegade Oswald defender, and that's why he got invited to do this.  

Then, Brian Edwards took out a Carcano rifle and demonstrated to the jury why he considers it unreliable, why the telescopic scope is so bad that he would actually prefer to use the iron sights. Then, he cited the testimony of Lt. Day that Captain Will Fritz rearranged the shells on the floor of the Sniper's Nest. 

Then, it was on to the Tippit murder again, and they went through the discrepancy of the two wallets and the strange idea that Oswald would have emptied the cartridges from the revolver at the crime scene.    

These are some good points, and as I said, Brian Edwards was, by far, the best witness.

However, he was very weak during the cross examination. It was done by the other prosecutor, who just happened to be a very attractive young woman. And he was very polite to her, very gentle, and very cooperative. And, he said "yes" to some things that shocked the hell out of me. 

For instance, she asked him if he agreed that Lee Harvey Oswald, from the 6th floor window, using a bolt-action rifle, took three shots at President John F. Kennedy and killed him. And Edwards, responded "Yes, to everything except that it was Oswald."

What? That is ridiculous. If you get rid of Oswald, why would you keep everything else? Does Brian Edwards really believe that SOMEONE ELSE was in the Sniper's Nest and took the 3 shots, as laid out by the Warren Commission? I have never, ever heard any Oswald defender claim that, that the crime occurred just as authorities claim except that the shooter was someone else other than Oswald. That is absurd. How could Brian Edwards agree with that?

The judge is now giving instructions to the jury. He's actually telling them that you can't hold it against Oswald for not testifying.  Oh really? Thanks for telling us.

No closing arguments from the attorneys because, according to the judge: "you've already heard them."

OK, so, here is my prediction: I think they are either going to convict OR it will be a hung jury in which the preponderance of votes go for conviction.

We'll see if I'm right.  

Disaster for Lee Harvey Oswald. His stupid, incompetent lawyers are completely blowing his defense.

Larry Schnapf began this morning by questioning Dr. Gary Aguilar, who is a longtime JFK disputer of some renown. He talked about JFK's head motion, the famous "back and to the left" claiming that it resulted from the impact of the bullet, its momentum, and not a neuromuscular reaction. 

What does this have to do with Oswald? The goal was to establish that there was a shooter shooting from the Grassy Knoll, but what does this have to do with Oswald? Even if there was, and even if it was proven, Oswald could still be in the 6th floor window shooting at Kennedy, and he would still get the death penalty for that. And as they were about to pull the switch on the Electric Chair, Larry Schnapf would have told him: 

"At least, we proved that you weren't the only shooter, so take that with you to paradise. Have a nice trip." 

Then, it was Bill Simpich's turn, and he was allowed to make another opening statement for the defense. He spoke for about an hour, and I'll give you the highlights. He said very little in defense of Oswald, and some of what he said was flat-out wrong.

Simpich began by comparing the JFK assassination with Obama's operation to kill Osama bin laden in 2011, and he said that JFK was similar. Except that Osama bin laden died of kidney failure in 2001 according to multiple reliable sources, and it isn't even medically credible that he could have survived until 2011 looking younger and more robust when he looked so close to death in 2001. But, I digress.

Like the lawyers who came before him, Simpich wasted a lot of time talking about the Single Bullet Theory, how the bullet wound up on the stretcher, the bullet fragments in the limo, etc. etc. which has nothing to do with defending Oswald. So, what did he say that actually pertained to defending Oswald?

He half-heartedly disputed Oswald's possession of the rifle. I say half-heartedly because he never said it wasn't Oswald's rifle. And he didn't dispute anything about the rifle being ordered. What he claimed was that there is no credible evidence that Oswald actually used the alias A. Hidell, that that name was not listed as an owner of the P.O. Box, and therefore that a rifle that was sent to A. Hidell would not have been put to Oswald's P.O. Box and given to him.

But, why didn't Simpich start at the beginning with what Oswald said, which is, that he didn't own that or any rifle? Simpich is supposed to be Oswald's lawyer. So, does he believe Oswald or not? And if he doesn't believe, what business does he have representing him? So, why didn't Simpich begin by informing the jury that Oswald denied owning the rifle? And then, he could have disputed the paper trail for the rifle work, as per the work of John Armstrong and Gil Jesus. You see what I mean about half-hearted? The jury isn't going to care about what he said. 

Simpich did say that Dallas Police did not test the rifle to see if it had been recently fired, that they didn't even do the sniff test.

Then, Simpich went into the claims of Frazier and sister about the large package, and he said something I have never heard before: that Linnie Mae Randle must have been lying when she said she saw Oswald with a large bag because she couldn't see him from the window. At the time, Simpich was showing a slide of the area to the jury, but we, at home, didn't see it. And he provided a motive for her to lie, which is that police were threatening to arrest her brother Wesley over the Enfield 303 rifle that he owned and had in possession at her house. What, was it illegal? 

Then, Simpich trashed Frazier a little bit, saying that his whereabouts were unknown from 2 pm to 6 pm that afternoon. He pointed out the well known fact that Fritz had a confession written out that he pressured Frazier to sign, but Frazier refused, and they almost got in a fist fight. Simpich said all that. And supposedly, that is why Frazier agreed to say that Oswald carried a large bag, although he limited his to 24 inches. Simpich did tell the jury that he thinks Oswald carried only his lunch, and he thinks that, most likely, he just held it in his lap. 

But, why didn't Simpich cite the testimony of Jack Dougherty that he saw Oswald coming in at 8:05 with no large bag? He could have also added that even though the building was well populated at that time, that no other witness could be found to confirm the claims of Frazier and his sister. And then, he could have done a little Math: 

"So, you had Frazier and his sister claiming one thing, although not in complete unison, and you had Oswald and Dougherty denying their claims. So, that's 2 against 2. How does that not lead to reasonable doubt?"

But no, Simpich didn't do that. He was ill-prepared, mis-informed, and incompetent. 

But next, he made what I believe is a mistake and went into the Tippit shooting. Why do that? I mean: Why do that before exhausting everything you want to say about Oswald's innocence in the JFK shooting? But, Simpich started talking about the wallet found at the Tippit crime scene, the multiple stories that arose about it, etc.   

Then, Simpich moved on to the theater, disputing whether Oswald really tried to shoot Officer Nick McDonald. He cited the FBI firearms examiner Cunningham who said that the gun did not misfire. Of course, McDonald changed his story after that, claiming that he shoved the web of his hand (which is the thinnest tissue on your external body) in the firing space, and that's what kept the gun from firing. But, Simpich didn't go into that.

Then, Simpich talked ever so briefly about the Backyard photos, claiming that there is no proof that Oswald even owned the Minox camera. Again, I say: why didn't he start with what Oswald said, which is that it wasn't him in the picture, that the photo was altered, that it was done in a photo lab, putting his face over the body of another man, and that he, Oswald, could do it himself and would gladly demonstrate it. 

Then, Simpich made the claim that the rifle in the Backyard photos is not the same rifle as the alleged murder weapon. But, he left it at that. He provided no explanation, no evidence, no nothing. So, why should the jury believe him? 

It's on lunch break right now, and I don't know if he is going to come back to the Backyard photos or not. But, if he doesn't, then his treatment of that issue was woefully inadequate as well. 

But, Simpich did raise the issue of Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting. However, he never used the word "alibi." Then, what he did was start citing various witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald, but he NEVER made a definitive statement that "At 12:30 PM, when the Presidential motorcade passed the Texas Book Depository, Oswald was at X." Simpich cited times but never the time of 12:30. He did point out that a police officer saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room shortly after 12:30. But, the closest he got to that on the other side of 12:30 is to claim that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:15.

What???? That is an outrage. First, that is no part of the testimony in the case. It is not a piece of evidence in the case. What it is is hearsay by a Dallas reporter named Earl  Golz who claimed in 1978 that he spoke to Carolyn Arnold who told him that. Except that the time Golz reported that Carolyn Arnold said of seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room was 12:25, not 12:15. But, that was over 5000 days after the assassination, and what she said 4 days after the assassination to the FBI was that she saw Oswald at the doorway "between the double doors" after she had gone outside. In other words: AT THE DOORWAY. So, why didn't Simpich say that? 

OK, it's back on.  


Thursday, November 16, 2017

How old is Robert K. Tanenbaum? I can't find his date of birth. On Wikipedia, it says he was born in Brooklyn, NY, but it doesn't say when.

So, I'm going to try to deduce it. He went to Cal Berkeley on a basketball scholarship, and then he went to their law school. So, if he was 18 when he started college and did 4 years of college, that puts him at 22. Then, law school is 3 years, right? Alright, now he's a lawyer, and he's 25.  

So then, he goes back to New York. But, he studied law in California, and now he's got to pass the New York bar, which is all about New York law. I don't think it's unreasonable to assign a year to him passing the bar. So, now he's 26.

We know he became the Assistant New York County District Attorney under Frank Hogan. But, that couldn't have been immediately, right? They wouldn't make a new law school graduate the assistant DA, would they? He had to have some years ot litigating experience first, right? To establish his credentials, build a track record, etc. So, how many years do you think he had to work before they made him the Assistant DA? I don't know, but let's be conservative here and say 5. I can't see it being less than that. Alright, so that would mean that he became Assistant DA at age 31. Not bad. 

It says that during his tenure in the DA's office, he never lost a felony case. But, that's only meaningful if he did it for a while, right? So, how long did he do it? I don't know, but let's say 6 years. So now, he's 37. 

It was after his tenure at the Manhatten's DA office that he was appointed to be an attorney for the HSCA. He started out as the deputy to Chief Counsel Richard A. Sprague, and then replaced Sprague as chief counsel after Sprague resigned. The HSCA started in 1976 and went on to 1979. So, how old was Tanenbaum in 1979? Again, I don't know, but by my calculations, he was at least 40.

And, if he was 40 in 1979, then that makes him 78 in 2017. 

But, having done that, I'd say that it's entirely possible that Robert K. Tanenbaum is 80, or over 80. And I wonder to what extent his age contributed to his faulty performance today. Let's face it: 80 is pretty damn old for a human brain. Allen Dulles died with severe dementia at a younger age than that (76). Today, it seemed to me that Tanenbaum was oblivious to the fact that he was making no headway with the judge; none whatsoever. Perhaps the judge wrote him off before the trial even started, but even so, Tanenbaum only reinforced that opinion. And don't you think juries take their cues from the judge? It was so obvious that the judge thought of Tanenbaum as nothing but a self-inflated blowhard, and I don't see how the jury could have missed it. I paid attention to them as much as I could, although the camera wasn't on them often. And I saw none of them reacting favorably to Tanenbaum. For instance, as best I could tell, none of them seemed to have their eyes peeled on him. Their posture, which tells a lot, was often lazy-looking, like they were bored. Was it better when the prosecutor Gus Pappas was speaking? Yes, in fact, it was. And the judge was much more respectful to Pappas, and the jury could not have missed it. 

Tanenbaum did nothing right. He didn't even convey a passion for defending Oswald. If it were you, wouldn't you want to convey to the jury that Lee Harvey Oswald is one of the most wronged men in history, and if not the most wronged, then one of the most wronged? That you have sympathy and compassion for him, as should they? There was not the slightest conveyance of that sentiment from Tanenbaum to the jury. Again, he never once stated that Lee Harvey Oswald is innocent, and he never came close to saying it. He never even implied it. At no time did he even come across as Oswald's lawyer.

This trial is truly a disgrace, and I have to wonder if Bob Tanenbaum was chosen precisely because of his advanced age. Put it this way: he couldn't do a better job of losing even if he was deliberately trying to throw the case.  

It turns out that the one thing Tanenbaum said in his opening statement that was actually pertinent to Oswald's defense- the disputed the fingerprint and palmprint evidence- he didn't even get right. 

According to Michael Griffith, who is a well-respected JFK researcher who footnotes everything, the Dallas Police found partial prints on the magazine housing of the rifle, which is part of the trigger guard, which could not be matched to Oswald. Then, on the 23rd, the FBI's Sebatian Latona found the prints to be utterly worthless. It wasn't until 1993 that two experts studied, not the prints but photos of the prints, and declared that they were Oswald's.

But, the dubiousness of this is screaming out loud.  Michael Griffith:  

In the 1973 trial of H. Rap Brown, a police expert with 18 years experience with the New York Police Crime Lab, Sgt. William Torpey, testified that during his career he had examined over "500 firearms for fingerprints and had found only one identifiable print" (O'Hara 778). Torpey continued,

Even when fingerprints are found on a firearm, they are almost always too smudged to be useful. One reason is that these weapons are likely to be slightly oily, especially if well kept. Another is that the person using the weapon holds it so tightly that the prints are smeared. And if the weapon is fired, the jolt smears any prints that might otherwise have been useful. (O'Hara 779)That occurred to me just from thinking about it because if you think about the surface that's needed to capture a fingerprint perfectly, and then you think about the shape of a trigger guard, you realize that it's ludicrous to think that a bankable result can be obtained from such a surface. 

Any prints found on boxes are suspect not just because Oswald worked there but because someone could have seen him handle a box and then, after he (Oswald) was gone, that man could have moved that box into the sniper's nest. The boxes were all generic, so that would have been easy and fool-proof. 

Then there was the palm print which wasn't found until after Oswald was dead, and Oswald's wake was teeming with FBI agents. 

But, Tanenbaum made no definitive statement to the jury about this. He just alluded to it. He wasn't even that interested in it. He preferred to talk about the ballistics and Kennedy's x-rays and the bullet wounds, and the fact that Connolly held on to his hat. Yeah, we know, Tanenbaum, but what the hell does it have to do with vindicating Oswald? 

Tanenbaum made an opening statement that lasted for an hour and a half, and never once did he state, "Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent."  For Pete's sake, it would have been the first words out of my mouth. Tanenbaum rarely brought up the name Oswald at all. He had only one goal today: to dispute the Single Bullet Theory to establish multiple gunmen, and therefore, conspiracy. And really, he was stepping on Oswald, conveying to the jury, that not even he, his lawyer, wants to talk about him. 

Imagine if Oswald was alive and there and listening to all that. What would he be thinking? "I thought you were supposed to be MY lawyer."  

And while Tanenbaum was trashing Oswald, the judge was trashing him, asking him over and over to wrap it up. Tanenbaum did point out that Pappas, the prosecutor, took an hour and a half, and the judge wasn't harassing him. So, why the double standard? Well, for one thing, Tanenbaum was much more boring. He was so dull, he practically put the jury to sleep. There was nothing grabbing about anything he said or about his overall style. He never seemed to be talking to the jury. No, he was talking to the camera, to the country, and to posterity. Don't you think it's a good idea if the lawyer talks directly to the jury? Tell Tanenbaum. 

Oh, what a failure! The last segment of today's trial involved medical witnesses for the defense: Cyril Wecht, David Mantik, and Michael Chesser, all doctors. The name Oswald didn't come up. It wasn't about him. It was about whether there were multiple shooters and a shot from the front. 

What good does that do Oswald? Even if they proved it, he could still be "a" shooter. He'd still get the death penalty, even if there were other shooters. I thought this was about proving his innocence not that there was a conspiracy. But, that's all these defense lawyers care about; proving conspiracy, not Oswald's innocence. 

Cyril Wecht has said many times over the years that there had to be another shooter "besides Oswald." He is not even an advocate of Oswald's innocence. David Mantik talked about the x-rays. Gary Aguilar talked about Kennedy's brain being stolen, and an x-ray of another brain being "substituted" for his. What does any of this have to do with Oswald's innocence?

This entire day has been Bob Tannenbaum. I had it wrong. I thought he was going to be the sidekick to Larry Schnapf and Bill Simpich, but they might as well have stayed home today. Maybe it will be different tomorrow, but Tannenbaum has already set the direction of the defense, which is to prove conspiracy, not Oswald innocence. I have never seen anything like this before in my life, of lawyers being so indifferent to their client, not in real life, and not in courtroom dramas. 

Tannenbaum has his final witness of the day on now, another medical witness, Dr. Clifford Spiegelman, who is testifying about the dictaphone evidence- again. Not only does the jury look bored and disinterested, but so, apparently, is the livestream audience. It shows you how many people are watching, and earlier it was 38, and now, it's 29.  And these are people who, like me, shelled out $75 to watch this. And yet, 9 of them have decided that it's not interesting enough to watch. And of the 29, I wonder how many are tapping their feet and looking at their wristwatch. Their thoughts: "Is this thing almost over? What a waste of $75."

Again: there is nothing about this dictaphone evidence that wasn't known in 1979 when the HSCA issued their final report. Yet, no one in law enforcement did anything but yawn. What makes Tannenbaum think that a 2017 jury is going to be any less bored?

The Single Bullet Theory has already been ridiculed on Seinfeld, and everyone had a good laugh. Do you remember The Magic Loogie? 

If people could laugh about it then, in 1992, how is a jury going to get worked up about it in 2017? And what good is it? Tannenbaum is saying there were 5 shots. There may have been more, but so what? How does it help Oswald? How does it get him out of the 6th floor window?

They just don't care. Oswald's lawyers just don't care about him. 

Even Gerry Spence did better than this defending Oswald in 1984. much better. At least he talked about Oswald. But, even he lost. And when I say lost, I mean that the jury unanimously convicted Oswald. 

I'm sure glad this trial is just 2 days because this is painful to watch.  Only 1 day to go, thank God. 

Tannenbaum finally finished his monotonous opening statement, and he failed miserably. If they took a jury vote right now, I believe they would convict, based on hearing Pappas and then Tannenbaum. 

Pappas won that round by a mile. Everybody was just waiting for Tannenbaum to finish, bored silly by his dull drone. The judge kept hounding him over and over, "You about done?" The ONLY point that Tannenbaum made that was of ANY value to Oswald concerned the fingerprint evidence. He disclosed that the Dallas Police first said that there were "no identifiable prints", and even on November 23, Chief Curry said that. He said that Lt. Day was supposed to take photos before lifting the prints from the rifle but didn't. And although he reported finding no fingerprints, Lt. Day claimed to find a palm print but refused to sign an affidavit to that effect. The palm print wasn't found, officially, until after Oswald was dead, and Tannenbaum said that FBI agents visited the funeral home where Oswald was laid out, implying that they got the palm print off his dead body, but never saying so directly. 

And this addressing of the fingerprint/palmprint was something that Tannenbaum just squeezed in between his rants about the Single Bullet Theory. He actually finished by citing the dictabelt evidence from the HSCA. God-damn idiot. Did anyone give a shit about that back in 1979? Did in anyone in law enforcement at any level: federal, state, or local, take any action because of it? No. Nobody did a thing. And he thinks that is going to impress a jury in 2017?

Undoubtedly, so far, the score is, undoubtedly, Pappas 1, Tannenbaum 0.  Tannebaum was a total, utter failure. He was a constant irritant to the jury. Everything about him was annoying. Everyone was just waiting for him to shut the fuck up. He didn't even show any interest in Oswald. You got no impression that he didn't care about Oswald,  that he felt nothing for Oswald. Well, if he doesn't feel for Oswald, why should the jury?

This is going much worse than I expected. And if it continues this way, I won't be the least bit surprised if there is a conviction. 

Tannenbaum is completely and totally useless. They never should have gotten him. He never should have been allowed to defend Oswald. But, was that part of the plan all along? To make sure that Oswald had lousy lawyers?

I was under the impression, going in, that Larry Schnapf and Bill Simpich were going to be the main defense lawyers, and Tannenbaum was just going to be minimally involved. But, so far, it has been all Tannebaum, and it's 2:15. Right now, the live-streaming has stopped because they are showing a film, and I think it involves the Parkland doctors talking about what they saw. Stupid, stupid, stupid. That is useless to the defense of Oswald!

Even if you make a convincing case for multiple shooters, so the hell what? Oswald could still have been one of them, couldn't he? He could still have been on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy while someone else shot from the Grassy Knoll? Couldn't he? So, how does it help Oswald and defend him to be doing this? It doesn't. 

This is just a 2 day trial. It's not like a real trial, which is open-ended. This day is going to be over in less than 3 hours, and right now the defense is wasting an hour and a half showing a movie.  For some reason, it can't be live-streamed, so they told us to come back at 3:30. And, I'm sure we are not missing anything important. It's not anything that is going to help Oswald.

Shit. This is worse, far worse, than even my worst case scenario. Dumb plucks.    
It just broke for lunch. Bob Tannenbaum is making the opening statement for the defense, and what an idiot he is. He's supposed to be defending Oswald, and he's barely mentioned the name Oswald. The only time he said it is in connection with Oswald's "alleged" trip to Mexico City. And I put that word in quotes because he said "alleged". And then he cited the disparate photographic evidence from Mexico City (not Oswald) the disparate audio evidence (not Oswald's voice) and the disparate witness descriptions (not Oswald). But, amazingly, Tannenbaum, after saying all that, never made a definitive statement: "Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City."

But mostly, Tannenbaum is addressing the Single Bullet Theory, challenging it. He's got Zapruder frames displayed.

He's talking about Ed Hoffman, Lee Bowers, blah, blah, blah. He's claiming there were 5 shots. He's claiming that the Moorman photo shows a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. What? The Moorman photo spent a lot of time in the hands of law enforcement. So, don't you think that if showed a shooter on the Grassy Knoll that they would have done something about it? And regardless, what does this have to do with defending Oswald? Tannenbaum has been talking for an hour, and he's never once said, "Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. Framed and innocent." Don't you think I would have said it? Don't you think I would have started off by saying it?

And, what it really comes down to, in my opinion, is that Tannenbaum, like so many others who dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, doesn't give a shit about Oswald. I'm getting no sense whatsoever that he connects with Oswald, the person of Lee Harvey Oswald, his humanity.  I get no sense whatsoever that he has any compassion or sympathy for Oswald. Here, he should be making Oswald the focus of his opening statement, and he's barely mentioning him. And I can guarantee you that he is BORING the jury. For some reason, he went on for 15 minutes talking about the Revolutionary War!  I kid you not. This is terrible. He is doing such a bad job. He is not scoring any points with the jury. None. Frankly, I think they're just waiting for him to finish and shut the fuck up. I mean it. That's what I think is going through their minds. He is doing Oswald no good. Let's hope the other lawyers, Larry Schnapf and Bill Simpich, do better.    
Quick report on the mock trial, which is on break. I presume the defense chose to put off making their opening statement until later because the prosecutor made his and then went on to question his star witness. The prosecutor, Guy Pappas, who in real life is a defense lawyer not a prosecutor, said nothing outstanding in his opening statement, although it was long. And I'm surprised the judge would allow such a long statement considering that this trial is limited to 2 days. But, I'll point out that the judge revealed his own bias at the beginning by referring to "conspiracy believers" and it was basically derogatory, although I don't recall his exact words. I have no doubt that he, a real judge, is biased against the defense. 

But, the prosecutor wasted a lot of time blah, blah, blahing. What did he say that really attacked Oswald? He claimed there were witnesses who saw him in the 6th floor window. He claimed there was his fingerprints and palmprints on the boxes, the rifle, and the bag. He mistakenly said that it was undisputed that he came to work with a large bag which he said contained curtain rods. He never acknowledged that Oswald denied telling anything to Frazier about curtain rods.  

And that's about it. He's interrogating this forensic expert Luke Haag, his star witness, about the shooting sequence, but none of that directly implicates Oswald. And by the way, this expert is the one who with his son did a PBS special in which they attempted to duplicate the shooting. It's called Cold Case JFK, and you can see it here:

Now, it's resuming. But, the bottom line so far is: no surprises, nothing unexpected, no unexpected burdens for the defense; just the usual predictable rote stuff and mostly defending the Single Bullet Theory.  
Another thing I would point out about this image of Jack Ruby is how childlike he looks. Childlike.
Honestly, doesn't that look like the expression of a child? But, look at him the next day at the Sheriff's station:

What a difference! What a difference a day makes, 24 little hours. 

So, how do you account for that polar change? You account for it with one word: drug! Scopolamine! It wore off. He doesn't look like a child any more does it. The reality of the situation finally sunk in, that he not only (supposedly) killed another human being, but completely, totally, utterly destroyed his own life. Why didn't he look that way the day before? Scopolamine. 
Here's a guy named Steven Warran who has a Jack Ruby page with a massive collection of images of him. And, as I expected, the scene from outside the Carousel Club is the only one in which Ruby wore a fedora hat.

Only one comment was made to that page, and lo and behold, it's by someone who recognized that Ruby wasn't the Garage Shooter. However, he seemed to imply that he was Dhority. I considered Dhority, until I realized that he was driving the car that's backing up. And as you know, I eventually realized that it was James Bookhout impersonating Ruby. So, I added my comment. Keep in mind that the other guy is a bit wacky. 


D.W. said...
You haven't figured out its a illusion of a hit?
That that's not Oswald and there never was a Oswald.
That's not ruby either...The photo of ruby being escorted out with his head tilted down..NOTICE GUY STANDING BESIDE RUBY....NOTICE HIS SUIT, notice his pocket, notice the glasses...
Ralph Cinque said...
You're right, DW, that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby. But, you haven't ID'd him correctly. The Garage Shooter was FBI Agent James Bookhout, for whom there are no images. We had to go back to 1937 to find an image of him to compare to the Garage Shooter, and it's a perfect match, allowing for the passage of time.
It is the night before the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in Houston, and not one mainstream media outlet has announced it. Why do you think that is? It's because they don't know the outcome. If Oswald is acquitted, then they'll never announce it. They just won't cover it. It will be like it never happened. However, if he's convicted, then it will be all over the place, they'll cover it big-time. I can just imagine the propaganda pieces they'll spew.

But, what if it's a hung jury? And frankly, there is a very good chance of that. It's the most likely outcome. And that's because it takes a unanimous verdict of 12 to convict or acquit. All but one of the previous mock trials of Oswald ended with a hung jury.

So, what will the media do then? It's hard to say. But first, I'll point out that in this case, since no one is actually going to be imprisoned or put to death, in other words, since no sentence is actually going to be carried out, the breakdown of the hung jury would matter more than it usually does. 

So, if it was a hung jury with say 11 voting to convict and only 1 voting to acquit, then the media would definitely latch on to that and spread it far and wide. And that's because they could easily claim that there was just one errant oddball who voted to acquit, but the overwhelming majority did the right thing. 

And likewise, if it was 11 voting to acquit and only 1 to convict, the media would ignore it because it would look very bad.

But, what if it was a hung jury that wasn't lopsided? Say it was 6 and 6. Or even 7 and 5. What would the mainstream media do then?

I maintain that a hung jury that was balanced or relatively balanced would look bad for the State. I contend that it would appear to be a partial victory for Oswald, and here's why: 

The State, with its unlimited resources, and the mass media, with its vast resources, have spent over 50 years selling the idea that Oswald did it alone. So, after all that time, effort, and spending, for the jury be evenly divided would mean that the dogged campaign to sell JFK officialdom has failed, that a great many people reject it. Furthermore, you would think that the solidity of the case against Oswald would only grow over time. That's because time provides opportunity: to discover more evidence, more witnesses, more testing, more researching, etc. So, if Oswald was guilty, you'd expect the case that could be mounted against him to be stronger today, much stronger, than it was in 1963 or 1964. So, a hung jury would look bad for the State, the only exception being if the proportion was highly lopsided towards conviction. 

So, whether the mass media is going to cover the outcome of the trial depends on what that outcome is. 

Of course, if Oswald got acquitted and the media ignored it, it doesn't mean the Internet would ignore it. It doesn't mean the Youtube community would ignore it. And vigorous coverage there might force the mainstream media to cover it, as happened in the Rafael Cruz case. But not necessarily because there is massive coverage of 9/11 truth on the internet, including Youtube, but no coverage at all by the mainstream media. 

So, what is going to happen? As Bud said in Kill Bill Vol. II, "I guess we'll just see." 

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

This write-up about scopolamine is from the CIA's website. Even though their objective in writing it was to dismiss the usefulness of the drug, I consider this supportive of my theory that Jack Ruby was given scopolamine to control his actions on 11/24/63.

Scopolamine as "Truth Serum"

Early in this century physicians began to employ scopolamine, along with morphine and chloroform, to induce a state of "twilight sleep" during childbirth. A constituent of henbane, scopolamine was known to produce sedation and drowsiness, confusion and disorientation, incoordination, and amnesia for events experienced during intoxication. Yet physicians noted that women in twilight sleep answered questions accurately and often volunteered exceedingly candid remarks.
In 1922 it occurred to Robert House, a Dallas, Texas, obstetrician, that a similar technique might be employed in the interrogation of suspected criminals, and he arranged to interview under scopolamine two prisoners in the Dallas county jail whose guilt seemed clearly confirmed. Under the drug, both men denied the charges on which they were held; and both, upon trial, were found not guilty. Enthusiastic at this success, House concluded that a patient under the influence of scopolamine "cannot create a lie ... and there is no power to think or reason."14 His experiment and this conclusion attracted wide attention, and the idea of a "truth" drug was thus launched upon the public consciousness.
The phrase "truth serum" is believed to have appeared first in a news report of House's experiment in the Los Angeles Record, sometime in 1922. House resisted the term for a while but eventually came to employ it regularly himself. He published some eleven articles on scopolamine in the years 1921-1929, with a noticeable increase in polemical zeal as time went on. What had begun as something of a scientific statement turned finally into a dedicated crusade by the "father of truth serum" on behalf of his offspring, wherein he was "grossly indulgent of its wayward behavior and stubbornly proud of its minor achievements."11
Only a handful of cases in which scopolamine was used for police interrogation came to public notice, though there is evidence suggesting that some police forces may have used it extensively. 216 One police writer claims that the threat of scopolamine interrogation has been effective in extracting confessions from criminal suspects, who are told they will first be rendered unconscious by chloral hydrate placed covertly in their coffee or drinking water.16
Because of a number of undesirable side effects, scopolamine was shortly disqualified as a "truth" drug. Among the most disabling of the side effects are hallucinations, disturbed perception, somnolence, and physiological phenomena such as headache, rapid heart, and blurred vision, which distract the subject from the central purpose of the interview. Furthermore, the physical action is long, far outlasting the psychological effects. Scopolomine continues, in some cases, to make anesthesia and surgery safer by drying the mouth and throat and reducing secretions that might obstruct the air passages. But the fantastically, almost painfully, dry "desert" mouth brought on by the drug is hardly conducive to free talking, even in a tractable subject.

So, let's again consider the evidence that we have. Note that it says that talking becomes difficult to a person on scopolamine due to very dry mouth. Then note that we heard nothing from Ruby on 11/24. No speech. And contrast it to Oswald who was talking up a storm on 11/22 and 11/23. And I have to wonder about the behavior of the reporters. Recall how they were shouting questions at Oswald. So, why didn't they do the same to Ruby? "Jack, why'd you do it?" "Why'd you shoot Oswald?" "Why didn't you let justice take its course?" How come they weren't asking things like that? Were they told not to ask him questions? 

Recall that an anchorman on WFAA reported that Ruby was mumbling after shooting Oswald. And the implication was: mumbling incoherently.  

If Ruby was talking like some bad-ass to the detectives, as they claimed, why not to the reporters?

Then, there is his look, with the distant, glassy, vacant eyes and the blank face. Look at this carefully. Compare Ruby's empty stare to the focused look of Boyd on the right and the cop in uniform in the far-ground. Ruby has the look of a zombie. Scopolamine is known as the "zombie drug." 

And, scopolamine was the perfect drug to give him because it is odorless, tasteless, extremely fast-acting, and it can administered in food, in drink, or even blown in the face. 

It takes away your reasoning ability. It makes you extremely susceptible to suggestion, even to do something preposterous. But, in this case, it was used just to get Ruby to the basement. That's what they needed it for; nothing else. They had the Karen Carlin's money request to get him close to the PD, a couple blocks away or less. One guy timed the walk from the WU office and said it took 2 minutes to get to the ramp. Hmm. As close as it looks on the map, I have to think that included time waiting for a red light. But, they were never going to just hope that Ruby would decide on his own to venture to the ramp. They had to plant the idea in his head. I figure that either Doyle Lane from the WU office suggested that Ruby go down to the ramp entrance OR the customer ahead of Ruby, who has never been described or identified, did it. Those are the only possibilities we know of. 

Why would Jack Ruby, on his own volition, do that, go down to the ramp? A: he had his dog in his car, which wasn't locked. B: he had things he was going to do that day, including starting to move his belongings into his new apartment C: considering how far away the ramp was from the WU office, its "lure" could not have been that strong.  So there were some people standing around an incoming ramp. What is so alluring about that?  No, no, no: either Lane or the other person in there, who again, was never described or identified, must have made a casual remark, "You ought to go down to that police ramp and see what those people are doing there." That's all it would have taken under the influence of scopolamine. And then when Ruby got to the ramp, someone gently urged him to go down the ramp. And whalah, there he was, ready to be pounced on by police. This was well before the televised spectacle which starred Bookhout. 

Below, this is his lawyer asking him questions 2 weeks before he died. Why didn't the lawyer ask him why he walked to the bottom of the ramp? Nevertheless, I think it's pretty obvious that Ruby didn't know why he walked to the bottom of the ramp. His last statement was: "What happened I (didn't) know at the time." And note that all this below was edited out of the aural recording. They scraped all of this: 

Or, did they? What if it didn't happen? What if it's script that somebody wrote? OR, what if he said something else, such as, that somebody suggested that he go down there? Who knows. 

 Q. Jack, when you left the Western Union office what made you walk toward the jail house?
A. Because when I drove by I saw some people down at the ramp and the curiosity had aroused me because of the flash in my mind seeing the people there because before I went to Western Union as I drove by on Main Street.
Q. Is there anything else you can think of, Jack, anything else when you were walking by or going down there?
A. I don't know what to think -- happened.
Q. Well, you are doing very well -- just think a minute. Do you remember anything when you reached the bottom of the ramp?
A. Yeah, I did, like I said, a flash came to me from the point at the bottom of the ramp at the time that I was grappling with the police officers for the gun. Actually, what had happened I don't know at that time.