Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 2, 2018 20:35:01 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
Let’s do some more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders WON’T answer.
*******************************************
1) Why was there NO note for the John F. Kennedy (JFK) assassination?
This is a basic, but highly interesting question. We have been told that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) left a note for the General Walker shooting (albeit without a mention of the name Walker in it), but he sets off supposedly to do the shooting of a president and does NOT leave a similar note for Marina? Why was NO one surprised to see the police at the Paines’ house either?
Mr. BELIN. Who asked you to come in?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Detectives Rose and Stovall, plus--because Mrs. Paine was in the house at the time standing next to them.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, we started looking around the house, I think Detectives Rose and Stovall handled most of the interrogation. They asked the questions of Mrs. Paine, and Mrs. Oswald, after we found out who they were and I didn't do any interrogating at the time at all, I just sort of stood and listened, and we started looking around. We asked them where Mr. Oswald was, and various things, and we looked around.
Mr. BELIN. What did Mrs. Oswald say about whether or not you could see her room?
Mr. ADAMCIK. She never did say anything at all. In fact, she showed us where the room was and showed us several things in the room.
Mr. BELIN. What did Mrs. Paine do?
Mr. ADAMCIK. She didn't object at all. They were really very cooperative.
Wouldn’t it be more normal to have some questions asked like, “What are you doing here?” “Why are you here?” Etc…It would seem so to me, but it seems no one bothered to ask them this as IF they already knew why they were there. I love Adamcik’s answer as to why they didn’t bother with the silly detail of getting a search warrant either.
Mr. BELIN. All right, did you have a search warrant when you went out there?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No, sir; we did not.
Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you didn't?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, at the time, we didn't know what we would find. We didn't have any idea what this address meant to us, and we were mainly going over to see who was there. We decided if we were not allowed in the house, invited in, that we could get a search warrant later to go in, whereas at the time we didn't have any idea that that address actually had any connection with these people or with Oswald.
I would imagine most times the police don’t know what they “will find”, huh? Isn’t the whole reason for the search in the first place? I have had discussions about this before with WC defenders and the law is very clear that she could NOT give permission to search LHO’s things so the DPD really needed to have a search warrant, but did NOT have one for their search on 11/22/63, thus, anything they found then could have been barred by a court of law.
Here is the Forth Amendment regarding searches.
Quote on
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Quote off
I have given similar examples of this type of situation to the WC defenders showing them how the court ruled on them. Here they are:
Quote on
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
U.S. v. Waller, 04-5204 (10/24/05)
Defendant stored his personal effects in a luggage bag at his friend’s apartment. The bag was zipped, closed, and stored in a bedroom closet. Defendant did not stay the night at the apartment, but sometimes showered and changed clothes there. Acting on a tip that defendant had guns, the police obtained consent from the friend to search the apartment, found defendant’s bag, opened it, and found two guns. Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, and he moved to suppress the firearms in the district court. The court denied the motion, holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag, and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In assessing whether a defendant maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy in property, the court considers (1)whether the defendant has exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) whether the defendant’s expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. The court held that defendant’s act of zipping, closing and storing his bag in a closet at his friend’s house, without disclosing to his friend the contents of the bag, sufficed to establish both a subjective and objective expectation of privacy in the bag. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s determination.
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
U.S. v. Washington, 08-3317 (7/22/09)
Based on complaints from a landlord, officers entered an apartment without the consent of the tenant and found a firearm in defendant’s possession. At the time, defendant was staying with his uncle, the tenant of the apartment. The uncle was in jail at the time, was behind in his rent, and his lease allowed only one tenant. Upon defendant’s subsequent prosecution, he moved to suppress the evidence and the district court granted the motion. The government appealed, and argued that although defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment, that expectation of privacy was not one which society would recognize as reasonable because defendant was engaged in drug activity in the apartment and the uncle was in violation of the lease.
* Holding: In order to establish standing to challenge a search, a defendant must demonstrate both a subjective and an objective expectation of privacy. First, the court held that the fact that defendant was engaged in drug activities at the apartment did not diminish his Fourth Amendment rights: “A criminal may assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment just as well as a saint.” Second, the court held that the fact that the tenant, defendant’s uncle, may have been in violation of the lease did not render defendant’s privacy rights unreasonable. The proper remedy in the situation would have been for the landlord to take legal action; the alleged lease violations were not grounds for police intrusion. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling was affirmed.
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
U.S. v. Adams, 08-5372 (10/14/09)
Defendant was in a hotel room at a party, and the renter of the room consented to a search by police for contraband. During the search, officers found defendant’s jacket, lifted it, and asked if it belonged to anyone. Defendant did not respond. Officers felt that the jacket contained something heavy, searched, and found a gun. In defendant’s subsequent prosecution, he moved to suppress the firearm. The district court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
Holding: The court held that defendant abandoned his expectation of privacy in the jacket by failing to respond to the officer’s inquiry about it. Accordingly, defendant lacked standing to challenge the search, and the district court’s ruling was affirmed.
LHO was NEVER present to fail "to respond" so this is null and void here.
When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?
The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:
* An individual is stopped for police questioning while walking down the street.
* An individual is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, and the police officer searches the vehicle's trunk.
* An individual is arrested.
* Police officers enter an individual's house to place him or her under arrest.
* Police officers enter an individual's apartment to search for evidence of crime.
* Police officers enter a corporation's place of business to search for evidence of crime.
* Police officers confiscate an individual's vehicle or personal property and place it under police control.
Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement's legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:
* A valid search warrant;
* A valid arrest warrant; or
* A belief rising to the level of "probable cause" that an individual has committed a crime.
("Probable cause" generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, or seize property relating to an alleged crime. Typically, to obtain a warrant, an officer will sign an affidavit stating the facts as to why probable cause exists to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property. Judges issue warrants if they agree that probable cause exists. )
NONE of this happened on 11/22/63.
What if My Fourth Amendment Rights Are Violated?
When law enforcement officers violate an individual's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, and a search or seizure is deemed unlawful, any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated. For example:
* An arrest is found to violate the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause or a valid warrant. Any evidence obtained through that unlawful arrest, such as a confession, will be kept out of the case.
* A police search of a home is conducted in violation of the homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights, because no search warrant was issued and no special circumstances justified the search. Any evidence obtained as a result of that search cannot be used against the homeowner in a criminal case.
Quote off
Again though, why NO note for this alleged attack?
2) Why did the prosectors NOT see the President’s clothes UNTIL they were ready to testify?
Yes, this sounds absurd, but it’s true. IF we go to Volume II, page 364, you will see this testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity to examine the clothing which has been identified for you as being that worn by the President on the day of the assassination?
Commander HUMES - Yes; yesterday, just shortly before the Commission hearing today was begun, Mr. Chief Justice, we had opportunity for the first time to examine the clothing worn by the late President.
In private conversation among ourselves before this opportunity, we predicted we would find defects in the clothing corresponding with the defects which were found, of course, on the body of the late President.
Isn’t the clothing one of the most important parts of the process to show you were the shots entered so you can match it up with the body? Why was this denied to the prosectors? Also, could it have something to do with this comment?
Quote on
…During the course of the spectrographic examinations previously conducted on the fabric surrounding the hole in the front of the shirt, including the tie, NO COPPER WAS FOUND in excess of that present elsewhere in undamaged areas of the shirt and tie. Therefore, NO COPPER WAS FOUND WHICH COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO PROJECTILE FRAGMENTS.
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0011b.htm
Quote off
I’m sure it did. They didn’t want any poking around clothing to see what John Gallagher saw I’m sure, but let’s leave it open for the WC defenders. Can you tell me why the prosectors did NOT have access to the clothing during their autopsy?
3) Why would LHO use 19-year old ammunition that did NOT fire two out of three times for the biggest feat of his life?
We know from Stewart Galanor’s work the ammunition in question was 19-years old based on what the company that manufactured it said (Olin, Winchester-Western Division), but Mark Lane got further evidence showing that it did NOT fire more than it did. He gave this to the WC too in his testimony.
Mr. LANE. …I do know it probably was some time after the Italian carbine was manufactured, since it is an extremely old weapon, manufactured back in 1938, as I recall There seems to be an agreement that the period of time was between 5 and 6 seconds from the first shot to the last shot.
There is a serious question in the minds, I think, of persons who have fired that pistol--that rifle first of all, as to its ability to be fired that quickly accurately with a telescopic sight, and secondly, in reference to the ammunition which is available. Various persons have tested various lots of ammunition. Someone from the National Rifle Association told me that he tested more than 30 rounds, a little over 30 rounds of the Italian 6.5--
Mr. RANKIN. When you refer to these people, will you tell us the names of any of them that you can? It might be of help to us.
Mr. LANE. I should remember this gentleman, because I just spoke with him.
That is another name I am going to have to supply for you.
Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.
Mr. LANE. He is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. He purchased for one of the television networks some 30 rounds, a little over 30 rounds, and told me that 20 of them did not fire at all, and 6 of them were guilty of hanged fire, which is a phrase I don't know anything about, but he tells me that means it did not fire fully, and, therefore, could not be accurate. Therefore, a very small percentage of the ammunition was of any value.
Mr. Ed Wallace talked about making a similar test in the New York World Telegram and Sun, in a feature article, and I think he said that he went with an expert, and they got 20 rounds of this ammunition, and of those 17 did not fire--only 3 fired. It was very old ammunition.
So in addition to using an old, cheap, shoddy rifle, LHO supposedly compounded the difficulty by using 19-year old ammunition that had a 1 in 3 chance of firing! This was still not tough enough though if we believe the WC’s version of events as he would shoot over a tree in his line of sight with a rifle with a LEFT-HANDED scope that was LOOSE; a fragile firing pin that could break at any time; deal with difficult angles that involved a moving car that was headed AWAY FROM HIM; and of course the issue of ONLY having four bullets meaning ONLY one or two tops would fire!
Of course none of this dealt with the difficult bolt on the rifle that was very hard to work, and the fact that the rifle itself was prone to jamming per the experts who did the recreation later on.
Can any WC defender tell me why LHO would deal with all of this instead of simply acquiring the rifle he was most familiar with—the M-1 rifle? I don’t want to hear about money as LHO said he had NO money for ANY rifle, so if you are going to continue to claim he purchased one, why NOT the one he was most comfortable with?
We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
Let’s do some more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders WON’T answer.
*******************************************
1) Why was there NO note for the John F. Kennedy (JFK) assassination?
This is a basic, but highly interesting question. We have been told that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) left a note for the General Walker shooting (albeit without a mention of the name Walker in it), but he sets off supposedly to do the shooting of a president and does NOT leave a similar note for Marina? Why was NO one surprised to see the police at the Paines’ house either?
Mr. BELIN. Who asked you to come in?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Detectives Rose and Stovall, plus--because Mrs. Paine was in the house at the time standing next to them.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, we started looking around the house, I think Detectives Rose and Stovall handled most of the interrogation. They asked the questions of Mrs. Paine, and Mrs. Oswald, after we found out who they were and I didn't do any interrogating at the time at all, I just sort of stood and listened, and we started looking around. We asked them where Mr. Oswald was, and various things, and we looked around.
Mr. BELIN. What did Mrs. Oswald say about whether or not you could see her room?
Mr. ADAMCIK. She never did say anything at all. In fact, she showed us where the room was and showed us several things in the room.
Mr. BELIN. What did Mrs. Paine do?
Mr. ADAMCIK. She didn't object at all. They were really very cooperative.
Wouldn’t it be more normal to have some questions asked like, “What are you doing here?” “Why are you here?” Etc…It would seem so to me, but it seems no one bothered to ask them this as IF they already knew why they were there. I love Adamcik’s answer as to why they didn’t bother with the silly detail of getting a search warrant either.
Mr. BELIN. All right, did you have a search warrant when you went out there?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No, sir; we did not.
Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you didn't?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, at the time, we didn't know what we would find. We didn't have any idea what this address meant to us, and we were mainly going over to see who was there. We decided if we were not allowed in the house, invited in, that we could get a search warrant later to go in, whereas at the time we didn't have any idea that that address actually had any connection with these people or with Oswald.
I would imagine most times the police don’t know what they “will find”, huh? Isn’t the whole reason for the search in the first place? I have had discussions about this before with WC defenders and the law is very clear that she could NOT give permission to search LHO’s things so the DPD really needed to have a search warrant, but did NOT have one for their search on 11/22/63, thus, anything they found then could have been barred by a court of law.
Here is the Forth Amendment regarding searches.
Quote on
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Quote off
I have given similar examples of this type of situation to the WC defenders showing them how the court ruled on them. Here they are:
Quote on
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
U.S. v. Waller, 04-5204 (10/24/05)
Defendant stored his personal effects in a luggage bag at his friend’s apartment. The bag was zipped, closed, and stored in a bedroom closet. Defendant did not stay the night at the apartment, but sometimes showered and changed clothes there. Acting on a tip that defendant had guns, the police obtained consent from the friend to search the apartment, found defendant’s bag, opened it, and found two guns. Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, and he moved to suppress the firearms in the district court. The court denied the motion, holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag, and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In assessing whether a defendant maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy in property, the court considers (1)whether the defendant has exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) whether the defendant’s expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. The court held that defendant’s act of zipping, closing and storing his bag in a closet at his friend’s house, without disclosing to his friend the contents of the bag, sufficed to establish both a subjective and objective expectation of privacy in the bag. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s determination.
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
U.S. v. Washington, 08-3317 (7/22/09)
Based on complaints from a landlord, officers entered an apartment without the consent of the tenant and found a firearm in defendant’s possession. At the time, defendant was staying with his uncle, the tenant of the apartment. The uncle was in jail at the time, was behind in his rent, and his lease allowed only one tenant. Upon defendant’s subsequent prosecution, he moved to suppress the evidence and the district court granted the motion. The government appealed, and argued that although defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment, that expectation of privacy was not one which society would recognize as reasonable because defendant was engaged in drug activity in the apartment and the uncle was in violation of the lease.
* Holding: In order to establish standing to challenge a search, a defendant must demonstrate both a subjective and an objective expectation of privacy. First, the court held that the fact that defendant was engaged in drug activities at the apartment did not diminish his Fourth Amendment rights: “A criminal may assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment just as well as a saint.” Second, the court held that the fact that the tenant, defendant’s uncle, may have been in violation of the lease did not render defendant’s privacy rights unreasonable. The proper remedy in the situation would have been for the landlord to take legal action; the alleged lease violations were not grounds for police intrusion. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling was affirmed.
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
U.S. v. Adams, 08-5372 (10/14/09)
Defendant was in a hotel room at a party, and the renter of the room consented to a search by police for contraband. During the search, officers found defendant’s jacket, lifted it, and asked if it belonged to anyone. Defendant did not respond. Officers felt that the jacket contained something heavy, searched, and found a gun. In defendant’s subsequent prosecution, he moved to suppress the firearm. The district court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
Holding: The court held that defendant abandoned his expectation of privacy in the jacket by failing to respond to the officer’s inquiry about it. Accordingly, defendant lacked standing to challenge the search, and the district court’s ruling was affirmed.
LHO was NEVER present to fail "to respond" so this is null and void here.
When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?
The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:
* An individual is stopped for police questioning while walking down the street.
* An individual is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, and the police officer searches the vehicle's trunk.
* An individual is arrested.
* Police officers enter an individual's house to place him or her under arrest.
* Police officers enter an individual's apartment to search for evidence of crime.
* Police officers enter a corporation's place of business to search for evidence of crime.
* Police officers confiscate an individual's vehicle or personal property and place it under police control.
Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement's legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:
* A valid search warrant;
* A valid arrest warrant; or
* A belief rising to the level of "probable cause" that an individual has committed a crime.
("Probable cause" generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, or seize property relating to an alleged crime. Typically, to obtain a warrant, an officer will sign an affidavit stating the facts as to why probable cause exists to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property. Judges issue warrants if they agree that probable cause exists. )
NONE of this happened on 11/22/63.
What if My Fourth Amendment Rights Are Violated?
When law enforcement officers violate an individual's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, and a search or seizure is deemed unlawful, any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated. For example:
* An arrest is found to violate the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause or a valid warrant. Any evidence obtained through that unlawful arrest, such as a confession, will be kept out of the case.
* A police search of a home is conducted in violation of the homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights, because no search warrant was issued and no special circumstances justified the search. Any evidence obtained as a result of that search cannot be used against the homeowner in a criminal case.
Quote off
Again though, why NO note for this alleged attack?
2) Why did the prosectors NOT see the President’s clothes UNTIL they were ready to testify?
Yes, this sounds absurd, but it’s true. IF we go to Volume II, page 364, you will see this testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity to examine the clothing which has been identified for you as being that worn by the President on the day of the assassination?
Commander HUMES - Yes; yesterday, just shortly before the Commission hearing today was begun, Mr. Chief Justice, we had opportunity for the first time to examine the clothing worn by the late President.
In private conversation among ourselves before this opportunity, we predicted we would find defects in the clothing corresponding with the defects which were found, of course, on the body of the late President.
Isn’t the clothing one of the most important parts of the process to show you were the shots entered so you can match it up with the body? Why was this denied to the prosectors? Also, could it have something to do with this comment?
Quote on
…During the course of the spectrographic examinations previously conducted on the fabric surrounding the hole in the front of the shirt, including the tie, NO COPPER WAS FOUND in excess of that present elsewhere in undamaged areas of the shirt and tie. Therefore, NO COPPER WAS FOUND WHICH COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO PROJECTILE FRAGMENTS.
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0011b.htm
Quote off
I’m sure it did. They didn’t want any poking around clothing to see what John Gallagher saw I’m sure, but let’s leave it open for the WC defenders. Can you tell me why the prosectors did NOT have access to the clothing during their autopsy?
3) Why would LHO use 19-year old ammunition that did NOT fire two out of three times for the biggest feat of his life?
We know from Stewart Galanor’s work the ammunition in question was 19-years old based on what the company that manufactured it said (Olin, Winchester-Western Division), but Mark Lane got further evidence showing that it did NOT fire more than it did. He gave this to the WC too in his testimony.
Mr. LANE. …I do know it probably was some time after the Italian carbine was manufactured, since it is an extremely old weapon, manufactured back in 1938, as I recall There seems to be an agreement that the period of time was between 5 and 6 seconds from the first shot to the last shot.
There is a serious question in the minds, I think, of persons who have fired that pistol--that rifle first of all, as to its ability to be fired that quickly accurately with a telescopic sight, and secondly, in reference to the ammunition which is available. Various persons have tested various lots of ammunition. Someone from the National Rifle Association told me that he tested more than 30 rounds, a little over 30 rounds of the Italian 6.5--
Mr. RANKIN. When you refer to these people, will you tell us the names of any of them that you can? It might be of help to us.
Mr. LANE. I should remember this gentleman, because I just spoke with him.
That is another name I am going to have to supply for you.
Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.
Mr. LANE. He is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. He purchased for one of the television networks some 30 rounds, a little over 30 rounds, and told me that 20 of them did not fire at all, and 6 of them were guilty of hanged fire, which is a phrase I don't know anything about, but he tells me that means it did not fire fully, and, therefore, could not be accurate. Therefore, a very small percentage of the ammunition was of any value.
Mr. Ed Wallace talked about making a similar test in the New York World Telegram and Sun, in a feature article, and I think he said that he went with an expert, and they got 20 rounds of this ammunition, and of those 17 did not fire--only 3 fired. It was very old ammunition.
So in addition to using an old, cheap, shoddy rifle, LHO supposedly compounded the difficulty by using 19-year old ammunition that had a 1 in 3 chance of firing! This was still not tough enough though if we believe the WC’s version of events as he would shoot over a tree in his line of sight with a rifle with a LEFT-HANDED scope that was LOOSE; a fragile firing pin that could break at any time; deal with difficult angles that involved a moving car that was headed AWAY FROM HIM; and of course the issue of ONLY having four bullets meaning ONLY one or two tops would fire!
Of course none of this dealt with the difficult bolt on the rifle that was very hard to work, and the fact that the rifle itself was prone to jamming per the experts who did the recreation later on.
Can any WC defender tell me why LHO would deal with all of this instead of simply acquiring the rifle he was most familiar with—the M-1 rifle? I don’t want to hear about money as LHO said he had NO money for ANY rifle, so if you are going to continue to claim he purchased one, why NOT the one he was most comfortable with?
We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.