YUEHD

I keep adding more at the bottom of this page. (every time yeuhd says something Stupid)

Let's examine another of the claims on that page: "Changing transcript
of Oswald's radio debate. CASE DISMISSED"

The transcript of the radio debate was prepared by Mrs. Jeanne Rodgers,
the secretary at radio station WDSU in New Orleans , not by the Warren
Commission:

Here are all the variances in Oswald's words between the sound recording
and the transcript. I have put in capital letters words that appear in one
version and not the other:

Sound recording:
OSWALD: That is correct, and I think those, ah, the fact that I did
live for a time in the Soviet Union ...

Transcript (p. 2):
OSWALD: That is correct and I think THAT those, the fact that I did
live for a time in the Soviet Union ...

Sound recording:
OSWALD: Well, that is OF COURSE A very provocative QUESTION, and I
don't think requires an answer.

Transcript (p. 3):
OSWALD: Well that is very provocative REQUEST and I don't think
requires an answer.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: This I DO NOT think is A subject to be discussed tonight.

Transcript (p. 3):
OSWALD: This I DON'T think is THE subject to be discussed tonight.

OSWALD: WELL, in order to give a clear and concise and short answer to
each of those, well, let's say, questions, I would say that the facts and
figures from, oh, a country like Pakistan or Burma would even reflect more
light upon Cuba in relation to how many TELEVISION sets and how many
RADIOS and all that. This I DO NOT think is the subject to be discussed
tonight. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee, as the name implies, is
concerned primarily with Cuban-American relations.

Transcript (p. 3):
OSWALD: In order to give a clear and concise and short answer to each
of those, well let's say, questions, I would say that the facts and
figures from, oh a country like Pakistan or Burma would even reflect
more light upon Cuba in relation to how many TV sets and how many
RADIO and all that. This I DON'T think is the subject to be discussed
tonight. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee, AND as the name implies, is
concerned primarily with Cuban-American relations.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: This, however -- IT'S very convenient for rightist
organizations to drag out this or that literature purporting to show a
fact which has not been established in law. I have SAID that the Fair
Play Play for Cuba Committee has definitely been investigated.

Transcript (p. 5):
OSWALD: This, however, is very convenient for rightist organizations
to drag out this or that literature purporting to show a fact which
has not been established in law. I have SAY that the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee has definitely been investigated.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: The difference is primarily the difference between a country
like GHANA , GUINEA , Yugoslavia , China or

Russia

Transcript (p. 6):
OSWALD: The difference is primarily the difference between a country
like GUINEA , GHANA , Yugoslavia , China or

Russia

Sound recording:
OSWALD: Many countries such as

Great Britain

display very socialistic
aspects AND characteristics.

Transcript (p. 6):
OSWALD: Many countries such as

Great Britain

display very socialistic
aspects OR characteristics.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: I worked in

Russia

. I was under the protection of the AH, OF
THE AH, I WAS -- that is to say, I was not under the protection of the
American government, but, THAT IS, I was at all times considered an
American citizen. I did not lose my American citizenship.

Transcript (p. 7):
OSWALD: I worked in

Russia

. I was NOT under the protection of the --
that is to say I was not under protection of the american government,
but AS I was at all times considered an American citizen I did not
lose my American citizenship.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: Well, it's a long, drawn out situation in which permission to
live in the Soviet Union granted to a foreign resident is very rarely
given. This REQUIRES a certain amount of TECHNICALITIES, technical
papers and so forth.

Transcript (p. 7):
OSWALD: Well it's a long drawn out situation in which permission to
live in the Soviet Union BEING granted to a foreign resident is rarely
given. This CALLS FOR a certain amount of TECHNICALITY, technical
papers and so forth.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: Well, the VERY obvious answer to that IS that I am back in the

United States

. A person who renounces his citizenship becomes legally
disqualified for RETURNING to the UNITED STATES.

Transcript (p. 7):
OSWALD: Well, the obvious answer to that I am back in the

United
States

. A person who renounces his citizenship becomes legally
disqualified for RETURN to the

U.S.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: As I HAVE stated, it is very difficult for a resident, ah, for
a foreigner to get permission to reside in the Soviet Union .

Transcript (p. 7-8):
OSWALD: As I stated it is very difficult for a resident ALIEN, for a
foreigner to get permission to reside in the Soviet Union .

Sound recording:
OSWALD: The principles of the Fair Play for Cuba consist of
RESTORATION of diplomatic trade and tourist relations with

Cuba

. ... We
are in A minority, surely. We are, HOWEVER, not particularly
interested in what Cuban exiles or rightist members of rightist
organizations have to say.

Transcript (p. 8):
OSWALD: The principals OF THOUGHT of the Fair Play for Cuba consist of
diplomatic trade and tourist relations with

Cuba

. ... We are in THE
minority surely. We are not particularly interested in what Cuban
exiles or rightist members of rightist organizations have to say.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: However, I and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee DOES think
that... Mistakes which are pushing Cuba into the sphere of activity of
let's say a very dogmatic communist country as

China

is.

Transcript (p. 9)
OSWALD: However, I and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee DO think that...
Mistakes which are pushing Cuba into the sphere of activity of let's
say a very dogmatic communist country SUCH as China is.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: I would say that the activities of the

United States

government in REGARD to Batista... As for public sentiment at that time,
I think EVEN AT THAT TIME, even before the revolution, there were
rumblings of official comment and so forth from government officials
against Fidel Castro.

Transcript (p. 9):
OSWALD: I would say that the activities of the

United States

government in REGARDS to Batista... As for public sentiment at that
time, I think even before the the revolution, there were rumblings of
official comment and so forth from government officials er, against
Fidel Castro.

Sound recording:
OSWALD: Well, IN any country emerging from a semi-colonial state...
Nowadays, while Cuba is reducing its PRODUCT as far as sugar cane
goes, it is striving to grow unlimited, and unheard of for Cuba,
quantities of certain vegetables -- sweet potatoes, lima beans, cotton
and so forth -- so that they can become agriculturally independent...

Transcript (p. 9):
OSWALD: Well any country emerging from a semi-colonial state...
Nowadays, while Cuba is reducing its PRODUCTION as far as sugar cane
goes it is striving to grow unlimited, and unheard of for Cuba ,
quantities of certain vegetables SUCH AS sweet potatoes, lima beans,
cotton and so forth, so that they can become agriculturally
independent...

ALREADY ON MY WEBSITE http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm

So people can SEE/HEAR your LIES.

"Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
"#1. He was innocent.
"#2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."

One of the photographs Oswald took in March 1963 of General Walker's home
and the vicinity has a jagged hole in it, obscuring much of the back end
of a car parked behind Walker 's home, including the license plate.

Conspiracy theorists say that this hole appeared only after the photograph
was in the custody of the Dallas Police Dept. and the FBI. As proof, they
point to a DPD photograph of Oswald's possessions found in Ruth Paine's
garage on Nov. 23, 1963. Among the items is the Walker photograph, which
appears to be intact in low resolution reproductions of the DPD photo in
books by Anthony Summers and DPD Chief Jesse Curry.

However, when the DPD photo is seen in a higher resolution reproduction,
it becomes clear that the same jagged hole is there in the Walker photo.
The only difference is that in the DPD photo, the hole in the Walker photo
is resting over a white piece of paper with text or other printing on it,
while in the Warren Commission reproduction of the Walker photo (CE 1351),
the hole is resting over a black background.

Two of the six DPD detectives who found the Walker photos in Ruth Paine's
garage clearly remembered that the photo had a hole in it when they found
it. Marina Oswald did not recall seeing a hole in the Walker photo when
Lee Oswald showed the photo to her circa April 1963, but that was months
before the photo was found, during which time Lee himself may have torn
the photo to obscure the identity of the house, should anyone find the
photo.

In any case, there is no evidence that the DPD or the FBI tampered with
the photo in any way.

More here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/plate.htm

WHY would anyone take the word of a Discredited professor who sends his adversaries computer viruses? SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

We have Marina ’s testimony Proving you WRONG here>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

Let's examine just one of the items listed in your "Case Dismissed"
page, which claims that,

Well, no. JFK's brain was not missing, and would have been available
if needed for Oswald's trial, presumably held in 1964. The HSCA did
extensive investigation on this question and established the chain of
custody:

"The evidence indicates, therefore, that soon after the autopsy of
President Kennedy [November 22-23, 1963], all autopsy-related material
was transferred from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the Executive Office
Building where they were maintained in the custody of Bouck [Robert I.
Bouck, Special Agent in Charge of the Protective Research Division,
U.S. Secret Service] and under the control of Admiral Burkley [JFK's
personal physician]. Specifically, this material included the autopsy
photographs, and the tissue sections of organs and brain. The Secret
Service maintained custody of all this material at all times until its
transfer to the National Archives in [April] 1965."

What happened to the autopsy materials after April 22, 1965, remains
speculative; the HSCA wrote, "The circumstantial evidence would seem
to indicate that Robert Kennedy then decided to retain possession of
all physical specimen evidence and transferred only the autopsy
photographs and X-rays to the Government."

"Consequently, although the committee has not been able to uncover any
direct evidence of the fact of the missing materials, circumstantial
evidence tends to show that Robert Kennedy either destroyed these
materials or otherwise rendered them inaccessible."

Legally, JFK's brain and all the other tissue samples belonged to the
Kennedy family, specifically Jacqueline Kennedy, on whose behalf
Robert Kennedy is believed to have acted as attorney.

In any case, the chain of custody of all the autopsy materials,
including JFK's brain, is known from November 1963 to April 1965, and
the materials would have been available for Oswald's trial.

Originally WCR supporters said it was taken by RFK in the early hours of the 23^rd to bury with the body.

Dr Finke testified he was called Back to Bethesda to Dissect “The Brain”.

> THEN, will you address the authorities "Tampering with Evidence"?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

While you're waiting for Tim to reply, how about addressing the
"Tampering with Evidence" reply *I* gave you several days ago.

> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
> > Seriously, you have a very poor understanding of the rules of evidence
> > and the rules of criminal procedure. You write,
> Rules of Evidence "Ensure" Chain of Possession for the SAME piece of
> evidence.
> In their First Executive Session Transcripts we see that the WC "Suspended"
> the Rules of Evidence.
> They also "Suspended" the Adversary Procedure".
> (Making it a Kangaroo Court)
> It's YOU who has a Poor Understanding of theb rules of evidence.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Oswald Never would have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.
> > #1. He was innocent.
> > #2. The authorities "Tampered" with the evidence repeatedly."
> > (Why the quotation marks around "tampered"?)
> Because it's a "Felony by the authorities".
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Let's look at item #1 on your page. You claim that the issue of
> > "destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office" would somehow, all by
> > itself, cause the entire case against Oswald to be dismissed.
> > Specifically, how would this dismissal happen? Under what Texas rule of
> > evidence or criminal procedure would this dismissal happen? No, we're not
> > talking about the Warren Commission any more, we are talking about your
> > allegation about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial*, where there
> > is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of evidence or criminal
> > procedure.
> Are you suggesting that the authorities "Knew IN Advance" that there would
> be no Trial?
> The FBI took possession of the evidence on Friday night.

Oswald's letter to Hosty was destroyed after Oswald's death. So yes,
when the Dallas FBI office destroyed the letter, the authorities DID
know that there would be no trial of Oswald.

> Considering that Oswald was Paid by CIA/FBI, the latter is MOST probable.http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
> No matter what the letter contained, Destruction of Evidence is a
> Felony!!!!!

What is the article number of the Texas statute re destruction of
evidence? I assume you have read it and are familiar with its contents.
And remember, this is trial is in a Texas court, not a federal court. So,
what is that article number?

> When a suspect has a Police Record, They ALWAYS introduce it in Court
> Trials.

Completely false. Evidence introduced at trial must be relevant to the
issues at trial. I quoted for you, above, the Federal Rule of Evidence
404(b) that generally prohibits "pattern" or "propensity" evidence. A
defendant's criminal record is almost never allowed to be introduced as
evidence at trial. Ask any criminal defense lawyer or prosecutor. You are
perhaps confusing trial with sentencing, at which point a criminal record
*can* be introduced as evidence.

Proof being that the WCR introduced Oswald’s “Defection” to the USSR .

Ø > Let's look at another of your "issues": #3 "Altering Walker back yard
> > photo (3 times)." Again, how would the Walker photos be relevant at trial?
> > We are talking about Oswald on trial for the murders of JFK and Tippit,
> > not for the attempt on the life of Walker . It would be another example of
> > "pattern" or "propensity" evidence if the prosecution tried to introduce
> > it. And once again, the last thing the defense would want to bring up at
> > trial would be *anything* to do with the Walker shooting.
> > If the evidence is inadmissible, the alleged "altering" of the evidence is
> > irrelevant.

Apparently you FORGOT it was the Warren Commission that made the Walker back yard Photo "EVIDENCE".

But we're not talking about the Warren Commission now, are we? You
alleged about what would happen if Oswald were *on trial* -- where
there is no such thing as the suspension of the rules of criminal
procedure or the rules of evidence.

> But just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow the prosecution
> > is able to get past the inadmissibility of irrelevant or
> > pattern/propensity evidence, and attempts to have the Walker photos
> > entered in evidence. The defense can object that the photos were altered,
> > and offer evidence to that claim. At worst, the judge can rule the Walker
> > photos as inadmissible. The whole case isn't dismissed.

The Walker photo was Altered by the authorities. (THREE Times)
ALL the judge can do is "CASE DISMESSED/PROSECUTE"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you still haven't established how the Walker photos would be
admissible *at trial*. We're talking about Oswald's trial, which would
be held under the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal
procedure. You have not established the relevancy of the Walker photos
to Oswald's trial for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy,
they are inadmissible. And if they are inadmissible, any allegation of
their alteration is irrelevant.

The WCR used the Walker back yard photo to point out that Oswald had the mentality to KILL.

> #5 "Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate." Assuming this is even
> > true, how would the radio debate be relevant at trial? Unless Oswald
> > chatted about his plans to shoot JFK, it wouldn't.

> AGAIN;
> The Warren Commission MADE it "Evidence".
> Altering Evidence is a Felony.

But as you yourself said, the Warren Commission was *not* operating under
the rules of evidence or the rules of criminal procedure. Oswald's trial
*would* be operating under those rules. You still haven't established how
Oswald's radio debate would be admissible *at trial*. You have not
established the relevancy of the radio debate to Oswald's trial for the
murder of JFK and Tippit. Without relevancy, a recording or transcript of
the radio debate is inadmissible. And if it is inadmissible, any
allegation of its alteration is irrelevant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> yuehd wrote;

> 1. The Walker photo already had the hole in it when it was found in the
> Paines' garage. And in any case, under the rules of evidence it would not
> have been relevant and admissible at trial to the question of whether
> Oswald shot the president. See Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b), which
> followed an existing body of Texas case law.
> **********

WRONG AGAIN;
Read Marina 's testimony where she said there was NO hole in the photo when the FBI showed it to her.

Marina was wrong. She says the FBI showed her the photo when she was
in Washington , which would be in 1964. But the DPD photo of Oswald's
possessions, taken in late November 1963, before the collection was
transferred to the FBI, shows that the Walker photo already had the
hole at that time: the Walker photo is sitting on top of a letter, and
the writing is visible through the hole, which has the same shape and
size as it did when it was later photographed against a black
background. Two of the six DPD detectives who found the Walker photos
in Ruth Paine's garage clearly remembered that the photo had a hole in
it when they found it.

When the brain turned up Missing for the HSCA, the WC supporters said that
RFK took it when the autopsy finished,
so it could be burried with JFK's body.

We know that's a Lie because Dr. Finke testified to the HSCA that he was
called back to Bethesda a week later to examine the brain.

The chain of custody of all the autopsy materials, including JFK's
brain, is known from November 22, 1963 to April 22, 1965. They were
kept in the Executive Office Building where they were maintained in
the custody Robert I. Bouck, Special Agent in Charge of the Protective
Research Division,
U.S. Secret Service, and under the control of Admiral Burkley, JFK's
personal physician. Therefore, your claim that Oswald's case would
have been "dismissed" because the brain was missing is wrong.

Robert Kennedy did not take possession of the autopsy materials until
April 22, 1965.

Both the transcript *and* the sound recording were submitted in
evidence by the Warren Commission. And in any case, under the rules of
evidence neither the transcript nor the recording would have been
relevant and admissible at trial to the question of whether Oswald
shot the president. All evidence must have relevancy to question in
issue, and tend to prove it, and if not a link in chain of proof, it
is not properly receivable. Therefore, your claim that the radio
debate transcript would have, all by itself, led to the dismissal of
the case against Oswald *at trial*, is wrong.

Are you telling us that the FBI never thought there would be an Official Investigation?

Your argument on your website is that the FBI's destruction of the
Hosty letter would have, all by itself, led to the dismissal of the
case against Oswald *at trial*. ("Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas
FBI Office CASE DISMISSED") Your argument on your website is *not*
about a post-mortem investigation of Oswald, it is about what would
have happened had Oswald lived and gone to trial. ("Oswald Never would
have been convicted at Trial for 2 reasons.") Yet Hosty did not
destroy the letter until *after* Oswald's death.

And you still haven't explained how, under the Texas rules of
evidence, such a letter (or lack of it) would even be entered in
evidence had Oswald gone to trial. The Hosty letter gave no evidence
one way or another on the question at trial of whether Oswald killed
JFK. The Texas rules of evidence (§ 404(b)) clearly forbid admission
of character evidence, i.e., evidence of a trait of character to show
action in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion.
"Propensity" evidence was ruled inadmissible by the U.S. Supreme Court
in Thompson v. Bowie (1866).

By the way, you also claimed above in this thread that the alleged
destruction of evidence was a "crime" and a "felony". What is the
article number of the Texas statutes that says that?

In case McAdams don't post this one;

Does this mean that you believe that Baker LIED on his Other stories of the
lunchroom encounter???

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

"yeuhd" <NeedlesWaxman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bebaab0-d927-4fb6-affb-382168cabedc@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 1:57 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>You asked why Oswald didn`t continue down the steps and out. The
> >>>>>answer was that Oswald suspected the cop would prevent this course of
> >>>>>action, so he opted to duck into the lunchroom.<<<<<
>
> Bud --- Oswald cannot have opted to duck into the lunchroom in
> response to Baker's footsteps on the stairs - Truly was ahead of Baker
> and would have seen Oswald on the landing.

Truly said that he and Baker stood outside the elevator on the first
floor. Truly pushed the elevator button, shouted up the shaft to release
the elevator, then decided they should use the stairs.[1] The elevator
shaft was open on each floor, with only a wood gate blocking its entrance.

My theory is that Oswald was going down the stairs from 3rd to 2nd, or
many have been on 2nd, when he heard Baker and Truly decide to use those
same stairs. He ducked through the door between the stairway and the
hallway by the lunchroom,[2] pulling it closed (it had an air- cushioned
closer), and waited for them to pass. When Oswald heard one of them stop
(Baker said he visually scanned the area on each floor as he went up),[3]
he decided not to be caught just standing in the hallway, and headed to
the door of the lunchroom, when Baker saw him through the window of the
door to the stairway.[2]

Both Baker and Truly said in their WC testimony that they saw nothing in
Oswald's hands, but if they were mistaken and he did have a soda bottle in
his hands, he could have picked up a bottle that was sitting on one the
tables in the lunchroom as he walked in. FBI photos of the lunchroom taken
on a December afternoon show two soda bottles and lunch debris on the
tables.[4]

[1]
Mr. TRULY. I pressed the button and the elevator didn't move.
I called upstairs , "Turn loose the elevator."
Mr. BELIN. When you say call up, in what kind of a voice did you
call?
Mr. TRULY. Real loud. I suppose in an excited voice. But loud enough
that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or
making a little noise. But I rang the bell and pushed this button.
Mr. BELIN. What did you call?
Mr. TRULY. I said, "Turn loose the elevator." Those boys understand
that language.
Mr. BELIN. What does that mean?
Mr. TRULY. That means if they have the gates up, they go pull the
gates down, and when you press the button, you can pull it down.
Mr. BELIN. And how many times did you yell that?
Mr. TRULY. Two times.

[2]
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg

[3]
Mr. BAKER. As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was
ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the
rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this - I
happened to see him through this window in this door.
. . . . .

SENATOR COOPER. Anyway, as you walked up the stairs could you see into
each floor space as you passed from floor to floor?
Mr. BAKER. Partly. Now, this building has got pillars in it, you know,
and then it has got books, cases of books stacked all in it. And the
best that I could, you know, I would look through there and see if I
could see anybody.

[4]
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_wcd81-1_0135.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg