Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 8, 2018 22:02:34 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/vlcsnap-2015-05-22-19h59m26s119-Copy.png
The Media was knocking each other over to print the stuff the Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the Dallas D.A. were saying about Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO)! Like this!
************************************************
"Police Say Prisoner is the Assassin." -- New York Times
"Evidence Against Oswald Described as Conclusive." -- New York Times
The Philadelphia Inquirer said:
"Police on Saturday said they have an airtight case against pro-Castro Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy."
On the front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/24/63, was the headline "Dallas Police Insist Evidence Proves Oswald Killed Kennedy."
Oh really? And where might this evidence be? I have NOT seen it in the 26 volumes of the WC's conclusion or anywhere else.
The St. Louis Dispatch went on with this statement.
"Dallas police said today that Lee Harvey Oswald . . . assassinated President John F. Kennedy and they have the evidence to prove it. . . . 'The man killed President Kennedy. We are convinced without any doubt that he did the killing. There were no accomplices,' [Captain] Fritz asserted. Police Chief Jesse E. Curry outlined this web of evidence that, he said, showed Oswald was the sniper."
Again, what evidence is this? Have you seen it? I sure have NOT. Notice they say it PROVES he was the killer too! Where are they HIDING this evidence? I love the rush to the conclusion of there are NO accomplices too! How could you know this in such a SHORT TIME? You couldn't, so we see again all we are getting is claims that have NO foundation in reality.
Who was to blame for these leaks to the press?
Much of the blame can go directly to the top law enforcers in Dallas, D.A. Henry Wade, Jesse Curry and Capt. Fritz. During a press conference on the night of the assassination Wade would say the following:
"I figure we have sufficient evidence to convict him" [Oswald] . . .there's no one else but him (24H751).
The next day, 11/23/63, Curry was asked about the guilt of LHO, and he did caution that the evidence was NOT yet positive, he said in various interviews:
"Personally, I think we have the right man" (24H754).
"I think this is the man who killed the President" (24H764).
Capt. Fritz added his two cents to the discussion:
"There is only one thing that I can tell you without going into the evidence before first talking to the District Attorney. I can tell you that this case is cinched -- that this man killed the President. There's no question in my mind about it. . . . I don't want to get into the evidence. I just want to tell you that we are convinced beyond any doubt that he did the killing." (24H787)
Who can blame him for NOT wanting to get into the evidence since NONE of it shows LHO shot anyone! This is still the tactic the WC defenders use today -- AVOID THE EVIDENCE at all costs.
By the way, was this after weeks or months of exhaustive investigating? NO! It was on Saturday, 11/23/63, afternoon! 24 hours or so after the
assassination and he says the case is cinched!
On 11/24/63 we see Curry become even more firm in his assertions:
"This is the man, we are sure, that murdered the patrolman and murdered -- assassinated the President (24H772)."
Now D.A. Henry Wade joined in pronouncing the verdict before trial or indictment:
WADE: I would say that without any doubt he's the killer -- the law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I --
there's no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.
Q. That case is closed in your mind?
WADE: As far as Oswald is concerned yes. (24H823)
This is all TWO DAYS after the assassination!!! Why didn't they teach courses on how to wrap-up capital crimes in 48 hours or less?
On December 1, the Washington Post in a major article told its readers that "all the police agencies with a hand in the investigation . . .insist that [the case against Oswald] is an unshakable one."
Time magazine, in the week before the FBI report was forwarded to the Commission, said of the report, "it will indicate that Oswald, acting in his own lunatic loneliness, was indeed the President's assassin."
Newsweek reported that "the report holds to the central conclusion that Federal and local probers had long since reached: that Oswald was the assassin."
The New York Times was privy to the most specific leak concerning the FBI report. On December 10 it ran a front-page story headed "Oswald Assassin Beyond a Doubt, FBI Concludes." This article, by Joseph Loftus, began as follows:
"A Federal Bureau of Investigation report went to a special Presidential commission today and named Lee H. Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy.
The Report is known to emphasize that Oswald was beyond doubt the assassin and that he acted alone. . . .The Department of Justice, declining all comment on the content of the report, announced only that on instruction of President Johnson the report was sent directly to the special Commission."[New York Times, December 10, 1963, p. 1.]
The FBI had long maintained that their reports did NOT reach or draw conclusions regarding guilt, but this report to the WC was declassified in 1965 and it shows it did just that. In the preface to this once-secret report (released in 1965), the FBI stated:
"Part I briefly relates the assassination of the President and the identification of Oswald as his slayer.
Part II sets forth the evidence conclusively showing that Oswald did assassinate the President. (CD 1)"
Boy, I would love to see that Part II as I still have NOT seen ANY evidence that hints LHO was the killer let alone "conclusively shows" he was! I think the FBI had a different definition for the word conclusive(ly), huh?
This report was leaked to the press and it exasperated the WC. On December 16, Chairman Warren stated:
CHAIRMAN: Well, gentlemen, to be very frank about it, I have read that report two or three times and I have not seen anything in there yet that has not been in the press.
SEN. RUSSELL: I couldn't agree with that more. I have read it through once very carefully, and I went through it again at places I had marked, and practically everything in there has come out in the press at one time or another, a bit here and a bit there.[Transcript of the December 16, 1963, Executive Session of the Warren Commission, p. 11.]
The Commission was NOT happy with the FBI report. The Commission members themselves, in private, grumbled about the unsatisfactory nature of the FBI report, as the following passage from the December 16 Executive Session reveals:
MR. MC CLOY: . . . The grammar is bad and you can see they did not polish it all up. It does leave you some loopholes in this thing but I think you have to realize they put this thing together very fast.
REP. BOGGS: There's nothing in there about Governor Connally.
CHAIRMAN: No.
SEN. COOPER: And whether or not they found any bullets in him.
MR. MC CLOY: This bullet business leaves me confused.
CHAIRMAN: It's totally inconclusive.[Ibid., p. 12.]
Thus, by January 1964, the American public had been assured by both the Dallas Police and the FBI that Oswald was the assassin beyond all doubt. For those who had not taken the time to probe the evidence, who were not aware of its inadequacies and limitations, such a conclusion was easy to accept.
Finally, after LHO was dead there was a voice of reason coming from the New York Times. The N.Y. Times finally did their duty and condemned the assumption of guilt bestowed upon LHO, unfortunately for LHO, it was after he was shot dead in the basement. Here it is:
"The Dallas authorities, abetted and encouraged by the newspaper, TV and radio press, trampled on every principle of justice in their handling of Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . The heinousness of the crime Oswald was alleged to have committed made it doubly important that there be no cloud over the establishment of his guilt.
Yet -- before any indictment had been returned or any evidence presented and in the face of continued denials by the prisoner -- the chief of police and the district attorney pronounced Oswald guilty." (New York Times, November 25, 1963, p. 18.)
After reading all of these comments one could be left with the feeling that was the PLAN all along!
These comments differ from the WC's claims, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/vlcsnap-2015-05-22-19h59m26s119-Copy.png
The Media was knocking each other over to print the stuff the Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the Dallas D.A. were saying about Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO)! Like this!
************************************************
"Police Say Prisoner is the Assassin." -- New York Times
"Evidence Against Oswald Described as Conclusive." -- New York Times
The Philadelphia Inquirer said:
"Police on Saturday said they have an airtight case against pro-Castro Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy."
On the front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/24/63, was the headline "Dallas Police Insist Evidence Proves Oswald Killed Kennedy."
Oh really? And where might this evidence be? I have NOT seen it in the 26 volumes of the WC's conclusion or anywhere else.
The St. Louis Dispatch went on with this statement.
"Dallas police said today that Lee Harvey Oswald . . . assassinated President John F. Kennedy and they have the evidence to prove it. . . . 'The man killed President Kennedy. We are convinced without any doubt that he did the killing. There were no accomplices,' [Captain] Fritz asserted. Police Chief Jesse E. Curry outlined this web of evidence that, he said, showed Oswald was the sniper."
Again, what evidence is this? Have you seen it? I sure have NOT. Notice they say it PROVES he was the killer too! Where are they HIDING this evidence? I love the rush to the conclusion of there are NO accomplices too! How could you know this in such a SHORT TIME? You couldn't, so we see again all we are getting is claims that have NO foundation in reality.
Who was to blame for these leaks to the press?
Much of the blame can go directly to the top law enforcers in Dallas, D.A. Henry Wade, Jesse Curry and Capt. Fritz. During a press conference on the night of the assassination Wade would say the following:
"I figure we have sufficient evidence to convict him" [Oswald] . . .there's no one else but him (24H751).
The next day, 11/23/63, Curry was asked about the guilt of LHO, and he did caution that the evidence was NOT yet positive, he said in various interviews:
"Personally, I think we have the right man" (24H754).
"I think this is the man who killed the President" (24H764).
Capt. Fritz added his two cents to the discussion:
"There is only one thing that I can tell you without going into the evidence before first talking to the District Attorney. I can tell you that this case is cinched -- that this man killed the President. There's no question in my mind about it. . . . I don't want to get into the evidence. I just want to tell you that we are convinced beyond any doubt that he did the killing." (24H787)
Who can blame him for NOT wanting to get into the evidence since NONE of it shows LHO shot anyone! This is still the tactic the WC defenders use today -- AVOID THE EVIDENCE at all costs.
By the way, was this after weeks or months of exhaustive investigating? NO! It was on Saturday, 11/23/63, afternoon! 24 hours or so after the
assassination and he says the case is cinched!
On 11/24/63 we see Curry become even more firm in his assertions:
"This is the man, we are sure, that murdered the patrolman and murdered -- assassinated the President (24H772)."
Now D.A. Henry Wade joined in pronouncing the verdict before trial or indictment:
WADE: I would say that without any doubt he's the killer -- the law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I --
there's no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.
Q. That case is closed in your mind?
WADE: As far as Oswald is concerned yes. (24H823)
This is all TWO DAYS after the assassination!!! Why didn't they teach courses on how to wrap-up capital crimes in 48 hours or less?
On December 1, the Washington Post in a major article told its readers that "all the police agencies with a hand in the investigation . . .insist that [the case against Oswald] is an unshakable one."
Time magazine, in the week before the FBI report was forwarded to the Commission, said of the report, "it will indicate that Oswald, acting in his own lunatic loneliness, was indeed the President's assassin."
Newsweek reported that "the report holds to the central conclusion that Federal and local probers had long since reached: that Oswald was the assassin."
The New York Times was privy to the most specific leak concerning the FBI report. On December 10 it ran a front-page story headed "Oswald Assassin Beyond a Doubt, FBI Concludes." This article, by Joseph Loftus, began as follows:
"A Federal Bureau of Investigation report went to a special Presidential commission today and named Lee H. Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy.
The Report is known to emphasize that Oswald was beyond doubt the assassin and that he acted alone. . . .The Department of Justice, declining all comment on the content of the report, announced only that on instruction of President Johnson the report was sent directly to the special Commission."[New York Times, December 10, 1963, p. 1.]
The FBI had long maintained that their reports did NOT reach or draw conclusions regarding guilt, but this report to the WC was declassified in 1965 and it shows it did just that. In the preface to this once-secret report (released in 1965), the FBI stated:
"Part I briefly relates the assassination of the President and the identification of Oswald as his slayer.
Part II sets forth the evidence conclusively showing that Oswald did assassinate the President. (CD 1)"
Boy, I would love to see that Part II as I still have NOT seen ANY evidence that hints LHO was the killer let alone "conclusively shows" he was! I think the FBI had a different definition for the word conclusive(ly), huh?
This report was leaked to the press and it exasperated the WC. On December 16, Chairman Warren stated:
CHAIRMAN: Well, gentlemen, to be very frank about it, I have read that report two or three times and I have not seen anything in there yet that has not been in the press.
SEN. RUSSELL: I couldn't agree with that more. I have read it through once very carefully, and I went through it again at places I had marked, and practically everything in there has come out in the press at one time or another, a bit here and a bit there.[Transcript of the December 16, 1963, Executive Session of the Warren Commission, p. 11.]
The Commission was NOT happy with the FBI report. The Commission members themselves, in private, grumbled about the unsatisfactory nature of the FBI report, as the following passage from the December 16 Executive Session reveals:
MR. MC CLOY: . . . The grammar is bad and you can see they did not polish it all up. It does leave you some loopholes in this thing but I think you have to realize they put this thing together very fast.
REP. BOGGS: There's nothing in there about Governor Connally.
CHAIRMAN: No.
SEN. COOPER: And whether or not they found any bullets in him.
MR. MC CLOY: This bullet business leaves me confused.
CHAIRMAN: It's totally inconclusive.[Ibid., p. 12.]
Thus, by January 1964, the American public had been assured by both the Dallas Police and the FBI that Oswald was the assassin beyond all doubt. For those who had not taken the time to probe the evidence, who were not aware of its inadequacies and limitations, such a conclusion was easy to accept.
Finally, after LHO was dead there was a voice of reason coming from the New York Times. The N.Y. Times finally did their duty and condemned the assumption of guilt bestowed upon LHO, unfortunately for LHO, it was after he was shot dead in the basement. Here it is:
"The Dallas authorities, abetted and encouraged by the newspaper, TV and radio press, trampled on every principle of justice in their handling of Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . The heinousness of the crime Oswald was alleged to have committed made it doubly important that there be no cloud over the establishment of his guilt.
Yet -- before any indictment had been returned or any evidence presented and in the face of continued denials by the prisoner -- the chief of police and the district attorney pronounced Oswald guilty." (New York Times, November 25, 1963, p. 18.)
After reading all of these comments one could be left with the feeling that was the PLAN all along!
These comments differ from the WC's claims, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.