Sunday, December 31, 2017

I am spending New Year's Eve with the Gershwins (George and Ira) doing one of their classic songs, one that is very stylish and jazzy. And, and it's also very sultry, when sung by a woman, which was the intention. The song is The Man I Love, but for decades, Tony Bennett has been singing it as The Girl I Love. And, if Tony Bennett says it's OK that makes it A-OK in my book. 

And the fact is, when I started working on this, I expected to have a female vocalist: my good friend Karen Mitchell.  But, Karen had to postpone her visit, plus, we settled on another song for her: How Do You Keep The Music Playing by the French composer Michel LeGrand, which is very beautiful. I am looking forward to doing that with her. 

But, I still wanted to do this song because I had worked on it, and it's challenging.  These jazzy chords are not intuitive; they don't come easy to me. But, I got through it, so please give it a listen. 

This song didn't see daylight during Gershwin's lifetime. He wrote it in 1924 for the musical Lady Be Good, but it was rejected. Likewise for Strike Up The Band in 1927. It didn't appear until the 1947 movie of the same name, The Man I Love, in which it was featured throughout. It quickly became a popular standard after that. But, that was 10 years after Gershwin's tragic death. But, the song finally made it to Broadway, being included in the musical An American in Paris in 2015. 

So, we are supposed to believe that on Friday, November 22, 1963, the FBI telexed the serial number of the rifle from the 6th floor to all their field offices around the country, and at 9:41 PM, the New York field office replied with this information: "Rifles with similar serial numbers were shipped from a New York wholesaler to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in 1962 and early 1963." 

Oh really? Because Congress did not pass the Gun Control Act, which calls for the monitoring of interstate traffic of firearms, until 1968, and this was 1963. Plus, this was before the age of computers. The FBI did not begin to explore the computerization of criminal records until 1968.

It states: "In 1968 and 1969, the FBI established a working group to begin developing plans for automating criminal history records in the FBI." And obviously, criminal history records are much more important than gun sales from wholesalers to retailers. So, if they didn't have criminal records computerized in 1963, they certainly didn't have legal gun sales computerized. So, the New York office of the FBI had paper records of all rifle sales between wholesalers and retailers? 

I find that hard to believe, but even if they had such paper records, how hard would it be to wade through them starting with just a serial number? Very hard. Again: there were no computers.

I think you'd have to be awfully stupid to believe this crock o' bull. But, it tells us something. It tells us that Hoover and the FBI knew everything in advance; they had foreknowledge; and it's stupid to think otherwise.  How convenient that they came up with that on the same day as the assassination. 

Here, on this last day of 2017, the case against Lee Harvey Oswald has collapsed to nothing. Absolute nothing. There IS no case against him. Even if we didn't have his photo in the doorway during the shooting- and we do- there is NO case against him. There is no evidence against him. He didn't order or own the rifle, therefore, he could not possibly have shot Kennedy. Therefore, he could not possibly have left a partial fingerprint on the triggerguard or a palm print on the stock. Those claims are false. They are lies. What else is there? There is nothing else. There is nothing at all. 

Oswald had to be killed because the case against him would have collapsed at trial. The meager evidence that there was would have been exposed as fraud. 

And then what? The plotters just got lucky that Jack Ruby came along and saved their wicked asses? Is that what you think? 

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Here is the ultimate irony of Oswald honing in on the P.O. Box as the first thing on his "to-do" list for Marina in the event of his demise: she couldn't gavareach na amagleaskee, which is to say, ella no habla Engles. So, unless something in Russian was going to reach the P.O. Box, she couldn't read it anyway. 

1. This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main
post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street
where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4
blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box
last month so don’t worry about it.

And yet, that was the top concern of Oswald, foremost on his mind, that she check the P.O. Box? There was nothing coming to that P.O.Box that could have had any importance to her, or even any interest to her. What? His Communist literature? His Fair Play for Cuba Committee fliers? What was going to arrive at that P.O. Box that she could possibly need or want? 

Then, he added "I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it"?????  Doesn't everyone and his brother know that you have to pay first before you can get a P.O. Box? That you don't get to use it a while before you pay? So, was Oswald an idiot? Or did he think Marina was an idiot? Or, was the guy who actually wrote it an idiot? There's the rub.

Why didn't they ask Oswald if he had a P.O. Box on Saturday morning? Are you aware of the chronology? Supposedly, starting with the rifle, they telexed the serial number to FBI offices all across the country. Then, reportedly at 9:41 PM on Friday evening, the New York field office responded with:  "Rifles with similar serial numbers had been shipped from a New York wholesaler to Klein's Sporting Goods store in Chicago in 1962 and early 1963." 

Isn't that convenient? How could the New York Field Office of the FBI come up with that so fast?

"In Chicago, FBI special agent R.J. "Bob" Dolan received the teletype about Klein's.In a recent interview, Dolan said he and his partner called a Klein's official, got the name of the man in charge of records, and sent a car to take him to the Klein's offices. All the orders were on microfilm and they found the one matching the rifle's serial number, C2766, at about 2 a.m. The mail order purchase form was signed by "A.J. Hidell Age 28," with a return address of P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas. Klein's records showed the rifle had been shipped there on March 20, 1963."

So, by 2 AM Saturday morning, they had it all figured out, down to Oswald's P.O. Box?

In that case, why, on Saturday morning, didn't they ask Oswald if he had a P.O. Box? Why wouldn't they ask him? Didn't they want to find out if he would confirm that he had the box? And how could he lie? If he knew he had the box, then he knew his name was on the box, on the registry for the box. He'd have to know that they were going to find it, sooner or later. 

If they found out about the P.O. Box at 2 AM Saturday, then they should have asked him about it on Saturday morning. 

But, according to Will Fritz, Oswald wasn't asked about the P.O. Box until the last interview on Sunday morning, the one that went for almost 2 hours, from 9:30 to 11:15.  Let the record show that I say: bull shit. There was no near 2 hour long interview of Oswald. That was a delay caused by the need to clear the basement, then have their fracas with the real Jack Ruby there, then get him hustled up to the 5th floor, and all that had to happen BEFORE the jail transfer/shooting spectacle could take place. What they were really talking about with Oswald, during that waiting period, was the hoax they were going to put on. 

But, the coverage of the P.O. Box was handled this way, and it involved multiple P.O. Boxes.

Mr. BALL. Was he questioned about post office boxes that morning?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did, I asked him about those post office boxes, because the postal inspector had told us about those boxes, and Mr. Holmes did most of the talking to him about the boxes, and he knew about the boxes and where they were, and he said he had, and I asked him too if he had ordered a rifle to be shipped to one of those boxes, and he said he had not, to one of those box numbers.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him why he had the boxes?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me that he had, one of the boxes, if I remember correctly, he never admitted owning at all. The other box he told me he got his, he kept to get his mail, that he said he got some papers from Russia and correspondence with people from Russia and he used that box for his mail.
Mr. BALL. How long did you talk to him this morning of November 24?
Mr. FRITZ. Morning, well, let's see, I am not sure what time we started talking to him.
Mr. BALL. 9:30.
Mr. FRITZ. 9:30, we talked to him then until about--I have the exact time here.
Mr. BALL. Can we cut it shorter, your records show 11:15 in your office.
Mr. FRITZ. Here it is, 11:15.
Mr. BALL. Is that right?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. 

Bull shit to all of the above. What evidence is there that Oswald received any correspondence from Russia after he returned to the United States? If he had, don't you think we'd know about it? Don't you think we'd be discussing it and debating it for years on end? I know of no mail that Oswald received from Russia after he returned to the United States. Marina received letters, for instance from her aunt and uncle, but not him. And those letters were delivered to her residence. Why would Oswald need, not "a" but multiple P.O. Boxes for non-existent Russian correspondence? Why would he need multiple P.O. Boxes, period? Who gets multiple P.O. Boxes at the same post office? There is no limit to how much mail you can receive at one box. If it won't fit in the box, they put in a notice telling you to go to the counter. He never would have paid for two P.O. Boxes. 

And notice that Fritz said that it was Harry Holmes who did the questioning of Oswald about the P.O. Boxes.  Harry Holmes? The lying son of a bitch who claimed that Oswald reversed himself about Mexico City?

Now, it makes sense to me. I always wondered why Fritz invited a postal inspector, of all people, to attend the final interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Holmes wasn't even law enforcement. It was to cover the lie about the P.O. Box. And Eager Harry probably threw in the lie about Mexico City just to be a good sport.  

In his testimony, Harry Holmes said that Oswald received NO first class mail at the P.O. boxes, just newspapers, such as The Daily Worker, and a couple of Russian newspapers. 

So, Oswald was subscribing to two Russian newspapers? One wasn't enough? He needed two? And imagine the cost of subscribing to a Russian newspaper sent all the way from Russia, considering international postage for a heavy newspaper. 

And, newspapers come out every day, don't they? Or do you think it was a weekly newspaper? Well, even if it was a weekly newspaper, it would have piled up, wouldn't it? But, the cost of mailing it continually from Russia would have been astronomical. Oswald made $1.11/hour. That was his pay at the TSBD. How could he possibly afford something so totally unnecessary? 

I don't believe a word that came out of the mouth of that lying bastard Holmes. I go back to Saturday. If the FBI found out about Oswald's P.O. Box in the wee hours of Saturday morning, then FBI Agent James Bookhout should have asked Oswald about it at the Saturday interrogations, all of which he attended. But, he didn't. And this Sunday morning stuff is all revisionism; all lies. Look what Bookhout said Fritz told him about the last interview:

"I asked Captain Fritz if he had--if Oswald made any admissions, and he stated that he had not made any."

Oh, I see. So, Oswald reversed himself about Mexico City, but that didn't count as an admission. And, Oswald admitted having not one, but multiple P.O. Boxes, but that didn't count as an admission.

And look at all that Fritz wrote down from the final interview:

Nothing. Didley squat. Not a thing. Why? Because what they were really talking about was the upcoming hoax. 

Oswald did NOT have a P.O. Box. It's all a big lie, and it explains why a postal inspector, who was a known FBI informant, was so integral to the investigation. He had an important role to play. Without the P.O.Box, there was no getting the rifle to Oswald. And without getting the rifle to Oswald, the entire case against him collapses to nothing, which it has.  

Friday, December 29, 2017

Peter Willis came up with a doozey. Supposedly, it was so important to Oswald, first on his list, that Marina know about the P.O. Box, you'd think he was expecting a wad of cash. But, as Peter pointed out, there was no mention of the box number. They don't put the number of a P.O. Box on the key because they know it can get lost or stolen, and they don't want some miscreant to be able to find and access the box.So, if Oswald was so concerned about Marina getting into that P.O. Box, as if it was life or death, why didn't he provide her the number? It's all bull shit. There was no P.O. Box. There was no letter. There was no shooting attempt on Walker by Oswald. It's all lies. 

Here's my P. O. box key, both sides. There is a long number on one side, but it must be code for the post office to look up the number, if necessary. It's of no use to anyone else. 

Do you realize that this alone exonerates Oswald and destroys all the evidence against him? If he didn't have a P.O. box, then he didn't order the rifle, and if he didn't order the rifle, then it wasn't his rifle, and he didn't shoot Kennedy with it- just as he said.
Just think: those idiot lawyers in Houston, Larry Schnapf and Bill Simpich, all they had to do was present this, and Oswald would have been acquitted, and history would have been made.

Peter Willis It doesn't look like he gave her the number of the PO Box. If so would she have to try the key in any box or would she be confident enough to ask a worker for the number. Wasn't the alleged PO box under a different name to LHO? If so he would have to tell her the different name which doesn't seem to be in the letter.
LikeShow more reactions
Oswald Innocence Campaign Good one, Peter! They don't put the number on the key of a P.O.Box because they realize that it might get lost, and then the person finding it would be able to access the box. And no, the alleged P.O. Box was under his name, although I'm sure it's bogus. He had a very easy handwriting to forger. But, it raises the question of how he could get a rifle that was labeled to A. Hidell at his post office when he was Lee Harvey Oswald. Didn't they know him as Lee Harvey Oswald? So, what was he going to tell them? That he uses a phony I.D.sometimes? And they were going to turn a rifle over to him? The story is full of holes. He owned no rifle. He had no P.O. Box. It's all just lies.

I believe that I have found proof that Oswald did NOT have a P. O. box. It's from the note that he SUPPOSEDLY left for Marina when he went off to shoot General Walker.

The alleged letter was hand-written in Russian, but the translation of it has been reported, as follows: This is how it begins. This is HOW IT BEGINS! 

1. This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main
post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street
where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4
blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box
last month so don’t worry about it.

So, we are supposed to believe that the number one thing on Oswald's mind in the event that he was arrested or killed for shooting at Walker was the P.O. Box?  It's obvious that Marina didn't know anything about it since he had to tell her where the post office was. And she wasn't even listed as an owner of the P.O. box. Of course, if she had the key she could access it, but for what? What mail of hers could she possibly receive at that box? And what mail of his could she possibly receive there when that rifle is the only thing to have been sent there that we know of? Bills went to their residence, right? If she received mail from Russia, that went to their residence, right? How could this possibly be a priority of his? How could it matter one little bit?

Don't you get it? This was put in the phony letter just to have Oswald saying that he had a P.O. Box. It's not like there was money in the P.O. Box. If Oswald was dead or in custody, there was nothing coming to that P.O. Box that would be helpful, useful, or even relevant. There was nothing that could have been sent to that P. O. Box that could have mattered to Marina at all. So, why would he bring it up? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. It's all bull shit. THEY WERE JUST SELLING THE P.O. BOX BECAUSE IT NEEDED SELLING. 

Oswald didn't have a P.O. box. It's just part of the phony rifle story; that's all. And this proves it because he never would have written such a stupid thing, to start his letter of survival to his wife with the P.O. Box. It's not that it didn't matter very much; it's that it didn't matter at all. It only mattered to the story. It only mattered to the lying bastards who concocted the story and wrote the stupid letter.

The fact that Oswald's urgent fail-safe letter to his wife- about what to do if his shooting attempt on Walker went wrong- began with the P.O. box is proof that there was no P.O. Box. Such idiots. God-damn friggin' morons. 


Juliette de la Bretoniere Very well said Ralph! Of course they didn't show Oswald the rifle. They isolated Marina from him and fed her the 'rifle in the blanket' story in order to brainwash the public. Look at the affidavit. The most significant part is 'a rifle' getting associated with 'a blanket in the garage'. They needed Marina for this association. Oswald would ruin this plan. And you're right: Marina was being cooperative, she's a decent person.

Ralph Cinque But, something happened to her to enable her to say all those terrible things she said about Oswald to the WC. It was bizarre. She recited a narrative that was complete fiction; grotesque lies. How could she do it? There had to be mind control; MK-ULTRA, and drugs involved. Of course, she had a huge amount of money thrown at her as well, but that wasn't enough. Just think: at first, she knew nothing about Oswald owning a rifle; she knew nothing about the Backyard photos; she knew nothing about a trip to Mexico, and then it all came back to her? They turned her into a Manchurian Candidate assassin, and the one she assassinated was her own husband, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Thursday, December 28, 2017

I think I found something that is very interesting, and I doubt it has been considered before. That is: they showed the rifle to Marina, but they didn't show it to Oswald. So, how come?

Here is Marina's affidavit. Notice that it says: "Today at Police Station, they showed me a rifle."

It must have been the alleged murder weapon, right? What else would they have shown her? This would have been about 4 to 4:30 on Friday afternoon. Oswald may have been doing his first lineup. I don't think that they told him that his wife was there. Presumably, he would have asked to see her if she was. And whether she asked about seeing him, I don't know. 

But, getting back to Oswald, we know that they asked him if he owned a rifle, and he said no. He said that he used to own one- in Russia, which is the same thing his wife when she first was asked. They didn't show him the rifle, but they did show him the Backyard photo, and he denied posing for it. He said it was trick photography and that he could show them how it was done. 

Let's consider that if Oswald was innocent, and of course he was, there were only two possibilities concerning the rifle. Either he didn't own it,  OR, he did own it, but he didn't use it. Either way, he'd tell the truth, right? Wouldn't you? If police suspected you of shooting someone, which you didn't do, but then they produced a weapon you owned, you'd admit to owning the weapon, right? You'd say, "Yes, that's my weapon, but I didn't use it to kill anyone. Somebody must have stolen it and done it to frame me." You wouldn't lie about owning the weapon, first because you're innocent, and you're not going to lie about anything. You have no need to, and that's because you're innocent. But second, you would also know that it would be futile to lie, that if it's your gun, they're going to be able to confirm it, and very likely your own wife would confirm it. So, you're simply not going to lie. Therefore, we have no reason to think that Oswald lied. Hence, since he said he didn't own that or any other rifle at that time, he must not have.

If they were able and willing to show the rifle to his wife, it makes no sense that they didn't show it to him. It would have been the perfect follow-up to his denial. "So, you're saying that this is not your rifle, and you have never seen it before." Let him commit to that. And then, after he denied it, they could have proceeded to the paperwork from Klein's Sporting Goods, where he supposedly ordered it, which, for some reason, was at their fingertips. There is no account of them presenting that to him either. Nor did they ask him about his alleged P.O. Box. It would have been a very reasonable question to ask him why he needed a P.O. Box. Whatever he was expecting to receive at the P.O. Box, why couldn't it be delivered to his home? And I strongly suspect that Oswald would have denied renting the P.O. Box as well. But, they didn't even ask him. So, as far as we know, they asked him if he owned a rifle, and he said no, but he used to own one. And they showed him the Backyard photo, showing him holding a rifle, and he denied that that was him and that he did that. And that's it. In 13 hours, there was no other discussion about the rifle.

Oswald denied owning a rifle. He denied bringing any rifle to work. He was never asked if he swiped paper and tape from the mailing station and made a bag from it. Just look at all they didn't tell him and show him. They could have showed him the rifle. They could have showed him the bag. They could sought to retrieve the bag he said he carried in with his lunch inside. They could have sought to retrieve the scraps from the lunch he claimed to have eaten. What do you figure? Wax paper? crusts of bread? an apple core? It should have all been in the trash can in the domino room if he was telling the truth. So, why didn't they look?  Obviously, if they had found that, it would have meant that he was telling the truth, right? But, they didn't look. Columbo would have looked.  

So, why didn't they show Oswald everything they had supporting their contention that he owned the rifle? Why were they so evasive about it? I think it's because they knew he was going to deny that it was his. Why give him a chance to deny it twice? And, he may have thought of something very adamant to say. But then, they did show him the Backyard photo, which had to have been brought to the police station at the same time Marina was brought there. And I would say that someone, who didn't know better, may have thought that showing him that photo would jar him into admitting that the rifle was his. 

Of course, these are all speculations. We really don't know why they showed the rifle to his wife but not to him. So, why show it to his wife? 

If you read her statement carefully, she NEVER says that Oswald owned a rifle. She says she was aware of "a" rifle being stored in the garage, wrapped in a blanket, but she never it was his, or that he was the one storing it. Eventually, of course, she said all the things they wanted her to say in a bizarre burst of fictional fabrication.  But, on the 22nd, she didn't do that. Still, I have to assume that they showed her the rifle because they thought there was a chance that she would confirm it was his. She really didn't. She said it was like the rifle her husband had. How was it like it? It was dark like it. Isn't that true of practically all rifles? Then, she didn't recognize the sight. To me, it sounds like she was trying to be cooperative, but she really didn't have anything to tell them. 

So, we are left with the simple fact that they showed the rifle to Marina but not to Lee, and it is very significant. It shows that the rifle was there and accessible. If they could show it to her, then they could show it to him. So, they were willfully and methodically choosing not to show him the rifle- because they thought that, with him, it could do more harm than good to show it to him- that is, to the case against him.  
This is from a forum in which someone questioned whether LHO was really shot in the garage. He points to things like the two horn honks, one when Oswald first came out and the other right before the shooter rushed in.

So, what do you make of that? The Dallas Police signalling Jack Ruby? How could they be signalling Ruby? If their response was to pounce on him, arrest him, charge him, prosecute him, etc. how could they be working together? Who "conspires" like that? 

"OK, Jack. You rush in and shoot Oswald; then, we'll arrest you and see that you get the death penalty. What do you say?"

So, if they were signalling somebody, it could not have been Ruby. It means that I am right that the shooter wasn't Ruby. 

And, there are a lot of comments, and most of them are supportive, such as this one:

Re: Was Oswald really shot?

Postby Castacoldeye on March 21st, 2012, 11:29 pm
This is an interesting post and I would like to add a couple of items that trouble me.
Captain Fritz recorded in his so-called notes how Lee was cold and requested a sweater.
He was given a choice of two, he chose the black one . It was Lees choice. If you cant see blood on Lees white t-shirt, it his own fault apparantly. We are told he innocently picked a sweater whose colour prevented anyone being able to see blood. Possibly the most important suspect in a hundred years and this captain records this very minor detail while failing to record almost anything of substance.

I have looked at the sequence of events on video and the transfer seems to unfold like this....
1. Lee is to be moved ia an armoured car for everyones safety. When they go to back the vehicle down the ramp they find it is too big. So they abandon that idea. (Why could Lee not walk up the ramp?)
2. They remove the armoured car to allow the other car reverse down the ramp. They back it down and just as it arrives the horns honk and Lee is shot.
3. Out with the car and in with the ambulance, which arrives down the other ramp. When it goes to leave we find its path is obstructed by the armoured car again. They went and backed it in again? Why?
4 When the ambulance does leave it seems to be a different car arriving at Parkland. One has O'Neals written on the door and the other doesn't!

Just one other aspect at the mo., is the reaction of everyone after the 'shooting'.
The police move with speed and complete professionalism.... to block the camera!
You are supposed to have a lot of people reacting to an unforeseen event, yet a number of them seize Lee and remove him from sight. The number of people (2 -4?) who carry him around the corner don't have a discussion about should they move him? Or where to? Nobody says get a doctor or anything. There doesn't seem to be any doubt or panic on this issue. This small group of men act in unison, at speed and as one remove Lee in the bat of an eye.
But why remove him at all?
To get air?
Surely not in that open basement.
For dignity in death?
They wheel him out with his arm trailing along the floor right in front of the camera!
For medical attention?
I would say not.
It just smacks of being pre-planned, with Lee being complicit of course to make it work.
But that is another avenue....

In my post about the movie Madame X, I made the point that any time an innocent person is being prosecuted for a crime (and we know it has happened quite a lot in the good ol' USA; just ask the Innocence Project) that the defense lawyer should, rightfully, express outrage to the jury. With fervor, he should express outrage, and so should his innocent client. And, a defense lawyer should ALWAYS have his innocent client take the stand. I mean always. It is absolutely stupid not to let an innocent defendant speak to the jury.  Who can vouch for his innocence more convincingly than he can? 

But, JD Alexander, a supporter of mine, made the interesting comment that Oswald's case is even more outrageous than that of most innocent defendants. And, he is right. 

We'd like to think that most of the time, when it happens, that it's a mistake; that the DA and the Police are just mistaken and misled into thinking that the guy did it. But, in Oswald's case, it involved the direct malfeasance of the Dallas Police Department and the FBI. How could a rifle that was dusted for prints twice- by the Dallas Police and the FBI- resulting in a memo issued late on November 23 stating that no usable prints were found, then turn up a partial print, supposedly of Oswald's, on the trigger guard? 

And how could it show up just there? You say Oswald wiped the rifle down? When? According to the story, he barely had time to get down to the lunch room ahead of Baker. (And he was ahead of Baker. Who got into the lunch room first? Oswald or Baker? Oswald. Therefore, Oswald was ahead of Baker.)  According to Dr. David Wrone, the WC had to cheat in order to fit Oswald's flight down to the lunch room into the 75 second time frame from the last shot. They cheated by not having their runner stash the rifle the way it was supposedly stashed by Oswald, and that was in order to save time. But, they didn't have him wipe the rifle down either. 

And then a palm print shows up but only after Oswald was dead? They couldn't find something as big as a palm print the first time? 

But wait. If he wiped the rifle down to remove fingerprints (except for the one on the trigger guard) then how did the wiping not do away with the palm print? 

And what about the paper bag? This is the bag that Detective Montgomery brandished in Dealey Plaza. And when has it ever happened before or since that a policeman walked around the site of a crime showcasing a piece of evidence? Who told him to do that? 

How could Oswald have made that out of paper and tape? And when could he have made it? He was working all day on Thursday. It's wild enough to suggest that he could steal the paper and tape without being noticed and seen. But to actually build a bag? He did that, and nobody noticed? Nobody saw him doing it? And why WHY WHY would he make a bag at all? What did he need a bag for? Why not just grab some paper and tape, and when he got to the rifle, just put the rifle parts down on the paper and then fold the paper around it and tape it up? In other words, wrap it up, as you would a present. Why go to the trouble of actually making a bag? Who would do that? But, the worst thing is: How could he possibly make a bag that good? Does that look like something that Lee Harvey Oswald jimmied together on the spur of the moment from paper and tape? And remember: he didn't have any training in bag making. Who does? Would you know how to make one? 

And consider Buell Frazier actually describing Oswald's alleged handiwork as looking like a bag from the grocery story. Frazier actually thought it was a commercial, manufactured bag- one from the grocery store. He never said that it looked like some paper Oswald used to jimmy a bag. It struck him to be a real bag- a real grocery bag- like one from the grocery store. But, how could Oswald do that? If I gave YOU some paper and tape, do you think YOU could produce a bag that was comparable to a grocery store bag? You know, one from the grocery store? And, you probably think you're smarter and handier than Oswald, don't you? So, let's assume you are.  So, if you couldn't do it, then why assume that he could? 

And look at that bag of Wes Montgomery again, and notice that it has a flat bottom. (he has it inverted) So, how could Oswald do that? 

And notice that it's not even the slightest bit torn. Not even a little. We are talking about metal rifle parts in paper and then being jostled while carried. We are not talking about sandwiches in a bag. We are talking about pointed, jagged rifle parts, and the bag was made of paper. Don't you think one of those parts was going to tear through the paper? And what about when Oswald supposedly was ready to start assembling the rifle? What, was he careful not to tear the paper? To remove the parts from the bag without tearing it? Wouldn't he have been in a hurry? Doesn't it seem like he would have just ripped the bag open? So, what are they suggesting, that he carefully removed the tape and then removed the parts from the bag without tearing it? He didn't want to tear it, eh? Waste not; want not. His Mama taught him well.  

By the way, the bag flaunted by Montgomery quickly got replaced with a much more crude and un-grocery store looking one.

Somebody with a higher pay grade must have realized that that other bag was too damn good for Oswald to have made it. So, they downsized. But this other "bag" which stuck doesn't even look like paper; it looks like cardboard. 

So, how do you think all this would have played out at trial? Oh My God. Let me tell you: a real trial of the living Lee Harvey Oswald would have looked NOTHING like that circus in Houston by those clown lawyers. Oswald's real lawyers would have spent the whole time attacking the evidence against him. They wouldn't have given a shit about Kennedy's wounds and his movements and reactions. They would have attacked the evidence against Oswald. And they would have destroyed every last bit of it: the rifle, the bag, the prints, the paper trail, even the P.O. box. All of it, every single bit of it, would have been destroyed. They would have turned the case into a trial of the Dallas Police and the FBI.

And that's why they could never let it happen. They could never let Oswald be tried. They couldn't even let Oswald speak to a lawyer.

And then what? They got lucky with Jack Ruby? Did they? Is that what you think? Luck had nothing to do with it. And neither did Jack Ruby, except for being the witless patsy who was played.  The Dallas Police killed Lee Harvey Oswald, and they framed the witless, hapless, hopeless Jack Ruby, poor man.  May God have no mercy on their souls.    

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

I watched Law and Order tonight, and in it, a Senator was charged with murdering his daughter. And he did kill her, he stabbed her to death. But, he claimed it was self-defense, that she had a knife, and she was trying to kill him. And, he did have some abdominal stab wounds, though they were very superficial. Her fatal wounds were deep, and there 13 of them. 13. 

And, a medical examiner testified that she thought that his superficial wounds were self-inflicted. 

In her closing argument, the prosecutor, a woman, had some kind of prop, and she had a knife, and as she spoke to the jury, she slammed the knife into the prop 13 times. He had to stab his daughter 13 times to stop her. He was 6 foot, 200 pound man, and she was 5'3" 110 pound woman. 12 stabs wasn't enough, eh? He got convicted. 

And now, let's talk about Jack Ruby. We have multiple films of the shooting, and what we see in the films is that the shooter approached Oswald from the side. It was quite a sideways angle. And there is no doubt about it because the bullet traveled from left to right across Oswald's abdomen; so, the shot had to have been taken from the side. 

But after firing, the shooter pivoted around so that he was in front of Oswald with his back to the camera. And then he dove into the  waiting arms of the police. And he didn't say a word. We know he didn't say a word because we don't hear him say anything, and we don't see him talking. All of that is confirmed by multiple films. 

But, Jack Ruby claimed to talk. He claimed he said, "What are you doing? You know me; I'm Jack Ruby." One account even had him saying, "I am not a criminal."

What's clear from that is that Jack Ruby was surprised that police were attacking him, and he did not know why they were attacking him. Didn't he know that when you shoot someone that police don't take kindly to it, that they immediately subdue you, with extreme prejudice, and they put you in restraints? 

How old do you have to be to recognize that shooting someone is wrong? I was thinking about that today, and at first I was going to say 3. But, I changed my mind. Make it 2. That's right. Even a 2 year old knows that shooting someone, for real, is a very bad thing to do.

So, if Jack Ruby had shot Oswald, he would have known why the police were attacking him. He certainly was as smart as a 2 year old, wasn't he? He wouldn't have to ask them. He wouldn't be befuddled and bewildered. He would know exactly why they were doing what they were doing. 

So, why did Jack Ruby say those things? Those things we know the Garage Shooter did not say? He said them because, at the time, he was unaware of having done anything. 

And look what his lawyers concluded from it: that he shot Oswald due to psychomotor epilepsy without consciousness or awareness. I watched the interview of the autopsy doctors after Ruby died, and they said that dissecting his brain showed that he had no epilepsy. Of course, he didn't.

His stupid lawyers. His incredibly stupid lawyers. So taken were they with Americana that they couldn't see what was staring them in the face: that Ruby was unaware of shooting Oswald BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SHOOT HIM.



It's the holidays, a time that people often go to the movies, so let's have a movie review. And this one is about a courtroom drama, involving murder. It's called Madame X, starring Lana Turner, from 1966.  

It's based on a French play of the same title from 1908. And it had already been made into a movie, several times. Lana Turner plays a run-down, haggard woman who murders a man, the man she was living with. She shoots him with a pistol. Then she tells someone who responded to call the police because she had shot the man. And while she was waiting for the police to arrive, she burned everything she had with her name and identification on it. And when the police arrive, she refuses to say anything. It was the exact opposite of Lee Harvey Oswald who talked to the police for 13 hours. She wouldn't even give her name. When they asked her to sign a confession, she did, but with an X, hence her designation, Madame X.

This movie was made by Lana Turner, by her own production company, and it was a few years after the real-life event of her daughter Cheryl murdering her mobster boyfriend, Johnny Stompanado, with a knife, but it was to save her mother's life, and Cheryl was acquitted. In Madame X, they had to age Lana and really make her look washed out. She made a funny joke about it. "I've had some bad mornings in my time, but I've never looked like this."

She was assigned a public defender, a young man fresh out of law school, and this was his first case. She refused to tell him anything either. Still, he pled her Not Guilty, and at trial, he fought valiantly to try the victim, who was a no-good, hustling gigolo, who had been in and out of jail his whole life, for various and sundry crimes. But, near the end of the trial, something happens that makes her suddenly realize that this young defense lawyer of hers was her own biological son. And so she decides she wants to speak. She wants to tell the court why she killed the man. So, they swear her in, and she testifies. And what she said was very understandable as a motive for murder; it was definitely sympathetic; however, it did not rise to the level of justifiable homicide. At least, I don't think it did. 

But then, her lawyer (who is her son but doesn't know it) gives the most rousing and stirring closing argument to the jury as to why they should acquit her. It really was brilliant. I won't tell you the outcome, in case you want to see it, and I encourage you to.  

This movie is what you call "melodrama". The emotions are painted on thick. It is over-acted and over-played. Still, it didn't ruin it for me. I got into it. I was affected by it. I was moved. 

And I kept comparing this trial to the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald which recently happened in Houston. In the movie, she had an impassioned lawyer who argued for her with fervor. At the mock trial, two of Oswald's lawyers had no interest in him at all; they were just JFKing- trying to establish multiple shooters and conspiracy. The third took up his defense, some, but not with the passion and fervor that this young lawyer had for his client- not even close.      

And, it made me realize that when a lawyer is defending an innocent person, he or she needs to express OUTRAGE to the jury. Outrage- that the person was ever even charged. And it IS an outrage for an innocent person to be charged for a crime he didn't commit. In the movie, since the woman did it, her lawyer didn't express outrage at her being charged, but, he at least expressed passion for why she should be acquitted. But, the lawyers in Houston had every right to express outrage that Oswald was charged because there was no evidence against him. The prosecutor didn't present any. He claimed that the rifle found on the 6th floor was Oswald's and that it was the murder weapon, but he didn't present any proof that it was Oswald's. He didn't present any evidence about it at all. He just acted like everybody accepts that it was Oswald's rifle. So, you might say that he pitched a slow-ball right down the middle of the plate to the defense. But, they didn't act on it. They were too busy talking about Kennedy's head movements and his reactions and getting doctors to talk about it. That 's such fun stuff.

Watch Madame X. You won't regret it.    


Tuesday, December 26, 2017

This song, BECAUSE OF YOU, is one of Tony Bennett's signature songs, and it was his first major hit,  in 1951, reaching Number One on the Billboard chart and staying there an incredible ten weeks.  The lyrics were written by Arthur Hammerstein, the father of Oscar Hammerstein, who is probably the most famous and celebrated  lyricist of all time.  And these are lovely lyrics, so you can see where the talent came from. In 2007, Tony recorded it again as a duet with K.D. Lang, and it came out beautiful. It inspired me to want to record it myself. So here is BECAUSE OF YOU, with melody by Dudley Wilkinson, not to be confused with the song by Kelly Clarkson of the same name.

This video concerns Jack Ruby, and it was made by the late investigator/shock reporter Rick Thorne. It maintains that Jack Ruby was involved in the JFK assassination, which was done by the Mob, and this same Mob ordered him to shoot and kill Oswald.

Near the beginning, it features G. Robert Blakey, the HSCA attorney, who sums up the JFK assasssination by saying, "All the evidence together: the Mob did it." And then he adds that they ordered Ruby to kill Oswald. 

Of course, the whole idea that the Mob did it, killed Kennedy, is ridiculous. If it was the Mob, then why and how could the mainstream media push the lone nut idea? They just got it wrong, did they? Does Mr. Blakey, who is still alive, really think that he is smarter than all of them? 

My despisal of the HSCA, embodied by Blakey and also by Bob Tannenbaum, the idiot lawyer who made a mockery of Oswald innocence at the recent mock trial in Houston, is every bit as great as my despisal of the Warren Commission. In fact, Blakey is much more stupid than the Warren Commissioners. They were cunning, shrewd, and methodical as they went about their Stalinist show trial, but Blakey is just a bumbling idiot. 

You hear the announcer say, "The Mob ordered the hit on President Kennedy and then assigned Jack Ruby to kill Oswald." Assigned? Nobody would take an "assignment" which involved the complete total utter destruction of his own life. Jack Ruby did that? Or else what? What else could be as nightmarish as what he got? What could he possibly have sought to avoid by destroying everything in his life? Harm to his family, you say? But wait. He was concerned about that even after the killing of Oswald. He was afraid for his brothers and his sisters, etc. After he supposedly killed for the Mafia, the threat to his family would have persisted, with him in jail and powerless to do anything about it. The "actually doing it" option would have been an insane choice to make. Would G. Robert  Blakey kill for the Mafia if they threatened his family? No, you say? In that case, you freaking moron, why does it make sense to you that Jack Ruby would?  

It is amazing to me that Rick Thorne, of all people, would base his expose' on the Idiot Blakey. Didn't he know that it was just Government Story #2? This is the government's alternative to people who don't want to accept the lone nut story. It came from the government. 

But, what I really wanted to find out is what evidence is there for any of it? Blakey goes on and on about Ruby being given the "contract" to kill Oswald. The contract? Aren't contracts about mutual terms, equal weighings, and fair exchange? How could Blakey, a lawyer, depict this as a "contract" between Jack Ruby and the Mob when Ruby was going to lose everything?

Then, there is a long depiction of Ruby as mobster, that he worked for Al Capone in Chicago as a teenager. Evidence? None provided. Then, he moved to Dallas in 1947 to help his sister in her nightclub business, and they claimed that Ruby was arrested by Dallas Police 9x. 9x? How could a guy who became as cozy and friendly with the Dallas Police as Ruby was have been arrested by them 9x? We know about the time in 1954 in which he was arrested for not having a proper liquor license, which resulted in this mug shot:

So, let's see the other 8 mug shots from those 9 arrests? What a crock o' bull. Blakey, he's just a freaking idiot, but what about Rick Thorne? How could he do this? 

One of the arrests was supposedly for carrying a concealed weapon. But, Ruby went on to always carry his pistol, concealed. So, I guess he didn't learn anything from that arrest. Again: what a crock o' bull. 

Arrest records don't just disappear. Let's see the arrest records on those other 8 arrests of him by the Dallas Police?

Then, Blakey goes on to claim that Ruby accepted the "job" that the Mafia wanted him to do (killing Oswald) with glee, because now he was going to get to be the full-fledged Mafia hit man he always wanted to be. Blakey, you blithering idiot, he brought his dog along! Did I mention that he brought his dog along? Who would do that if he knew he was going to be arrested? 

But, besides his glee, "he also knows that if he doesn't do it, he's dead." (Blakey) But, how would being dead be worse than the fate he got, Blakey? How can you be so stupid?

Then, Blakey claimed that Ruby went to see the Mob on Friday night, and they said, "Jack, we want you to do us a favor." A favor? A favor is when you lend your neighbor your jig saw. Destroying one's entire life is not a "favor." And if someone asked you for that as a "favor" one's response would be, "Are you out of your fucking mind?" 

Alright, that's it? From now, Blakey is Flakey. You hear me? We are changing his name, here and now, and for all time. It's permanent. He is G. Robert Flakey. And he is the flakiest mudderrucker who ever lived. 

Flakey: "Ruby knew: 'I do it or I'm dead.'

Cinque: He was as good as dead, even worse than dead, by doing it, Flakey. So, nobody. You hear me? I said nobody would act on such a threat by the Mafia by actually doing it. Not even you, and you are the dumbest pluck who ever walked the face of the Earth. 

Then, of course, Flakey pushes the fiction that Ruby went to the Dallas PD Friday afternoon. He did not. 

Then, Flakey claims that Ruby went back to the DPD on Saturday afternoon, which is another lie.

Then, Flakey claims that Ruby knew when Oswald was going to be moved on Sunday because "the cops told him." The only thing the cops told anyone was that Oswald was going to be moved at 10 AM. 

So really, Flakey is claiming that not only did the Mafia put Ruby up to shooting Oswald, but that the Dallas Police helped too by telling Ruby the real time that Oswald was going to be moved. What is the evidence for that, Flakey? There is none. 

But then, they stated that before shooting Oswald, Ruby wired $25 to one of his strippers. But, how HOW HOW could Ruby juggle those two things: tending to his night club business, in a rather trivial, mundane way, and shooting Oswald? Didn't he know that once he shot Oswald that his night club business was going bye-bye? That it was over? Gone? Finished? Kaput? And, did I mention that he brought his dog along. He brought his dog along, Flakey, you freakin' flake. 

Then, get this: they feature Ruby's lawyer Joe Tonahill, who says there is no evidence of any premeditation on Ruby's part. But, how could there not be if he had a "contract" with the Mafia to kill Oswald, according to Flakey? Are they too stupid to realize the contradiction in this? 

Then, they brandish the bit about Ruby intimating what he knows, the real truth, but only if he's taken to Washington. How ridiculous. Ruby knew nothing except what he learned from reading Evett Haley's book, A Texan Looks At Lyndon which made the ridiculous claim that LBJ put Oswald up to killing Kennedy. 

Take him to Washington? Why would he be any safer there? If his jailers at the Dallas County Jail couldn't be trusted, why would Washington jailers be any more trustworthy? And since he was publicly threatening to reveal everything, why wouldn't they kill him on the spot? I believe Ruby was ultimately killed, but only after he was granted a new trial.  

What a despicable thing this video is. The whole gist of it, the whole thrust of it is completely, totally wrong. The truth is that Jack Ruby was just a patsy. He didn't shoot Oswald. The Mafia had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting of Oswald. The Dallas Police killed Oswald, and they bamboozled Ruby into thinking that he did it. They are the bad guys in the story, and more monstrous than the Mafia. What the Dallas Police did on November 24, 1963 and thereafter has to be the worst case of police corruption in the history of police corruption. It is so vile, it is unspeakable. And some of those detectives are still alive.