JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

It takes only one man to let Ruby into the basement.

Oswald was supposed to have left the building before Jack Ruby entered the building. The only reason that didn't happen was Oswald insisted on changing sweaters.

Which leads to possibilities.

* A mentally unstable club owner succeeded by dumb luck.
* The Conspiracy chose a mentally unstable amateur shooter. He botched the job by arriving late and succeeded only by dumb luck.
* Oswald was part of the Conspiracy to have himself killed and used his psychic powers to know he needed to delay long enough for the bumbling assassin to get there.

Any Conspiracy answer requires that the Conspiracy be composed of idiots who only succeeded by dumb luck.

That's before we consider that murdering Oswald doesn't help the Conspiracy in any way.

* If Oswald knew too much, he's been replaced by Ruby, who knows too much. The Conspiracy gains nothing.
* If Oswald was just a patsy, he's been replaced by Ruby, who knows too much. The Conspiracy is worse off than before it murdered Oswald.

It is not necessary to corrupt a police department or the FBI or the Secret Service The conspiracy need not involve a cast of thousands.

No one has suggested a cast of thousands, but the Conspiracy does require dozens of people, often from rival organizations.

For example, faking the autopsy would require that everyone present - Army, Navy, Secret Service, FBI, and JFK's personal physician - be part of the Conspiracy

[Pcdunn]

The US Government has put together a Task Force in the House to investigate JFK, RFK and MLK Assassinations. I would advise waiting to see what comes of it.

It will be interesting. I have little hope that this particular Administration will discover the "truth", given they're supported by some people with a distrust of Big Government.

[FISHY1118]

I think they are uncomfortable with having to endlessly refute debunked replies.

IMO there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, involving multiple shooting teams and including the provision of a patsy, by parties who would benefit from Kennedy's removal. The method involved countdown shots (synchronised similar to the 21 gun salute method) and probably some suppressed rifles. There was a separate cover up, to avoid an international incident, aimed at limiting the investigations only to the patsy.

IMO there were 3 shots from the sniper's nest by Malcolm Wallace using the Carcano - The Tague shot to draw attention, and 2 shots that hit Connolly.

I think there was a shot from the rear using a projectile that had previously been fired through the Carcano and was fired thought a 30 calibre rifle using a sabot and possibly a suppresser. This caused the shallow wound, with no exit, in Kennedy's back about 5 inches below the shoulder line.

I think there were 2 shots from the south knoll, the throat shot through the windscreen, and the fatal head shot, using frangible projectiles. On repeatedly watching the Zapruder film, I am considering that there may have been an almost simultaneous head shot from Wallace that may have also hit Connally.

I think that there was at least one shot from the Grassy knoll using a 45 calibre weapon, that missed, possibly deliberately to avoid hitting Jackie.

So Herlock, that's my opinion at this stage. I don't expect a reply as I am confident your will power will prevail.

I'm so glad you mentioned Malcolm Wallace George. The tape recording i posted earlier here in my opinion a game changer .

Its never been proven to be anything but the actual recording ,that directly points the finger at LBJ, whos chief assassin was in fact Malcolm Wallace.

Its been the easiest thing, now 62 year later to completly expose the Warren' Commission lie.

W.C Apologist are totally ignorant of the fact that all they have, and all there ever going to have is s big bunch of lies and coverups. Multiple Changed testimony, false findings, and fake autopsy photos, which have been shown to be part of the biggest lie ever told.

Credit to you for giving us your detailed version of events of that day .

Indeed I agree with you ,it was certainly a extremely well planned and throught out complex assassination of jfk , and the patsy Oswald was the icing on the cake .

The wool was pulled over the eyes of the general public then as it is today.

But as they say "you can't put brains in monuments"

[FISHY1118]

Dr. Robert McClelland Had The Best Close Up View Of JFK's Head Wound Than Any Other Doctor.


Here we see DR Robert McClelland prove the warren commission AUTOPSY PHOTOS ARE A FAKE .


Oh btw ''Actual evidence'' in case anybode ask



Start at the 13 minute mark of the interview video I am posting and hear Parkland surgery doctor Robert McClelland describe "in detail" the wound in the back of JFK's head and how much of JFK's brain matter was truly missing.

The man was just "18 inches" from JFK's skull in his position at the top of the table upon which JFK was laying. And he remained there for what 15, 20 or even 30 minutes?

What other Dr. or other witnesses to see JFK's head that close up within minutes of it's obliteration can one suggest to have had a better view of it, it's wound and brain matter loss including watching brain matter fall out of it right onto the cart/table underneath than Dr. McClelland?

McClelland's fellow surgeon Dr. Jones was right there just a couple of feet away from McClelland at JFK's side in Trauma Room 1 that day and in this interview he doesn't contradict one thing Dr. McClelland describes.

Bethesda Dr. Commander Humes said he didn't know why he nor anyone else failed to weigh JFK's brain upon his removal of it in his autopsy procedure. A procedure so standard in autopsies of criminal action head wound victims it is ludicrous that such an arrogantly confident man like Humes or even assisting Dr. Boswell could have missed this top priority criminal case evidence procedure just by forgetfulness.

Imo it suggest they purposely avoided weighing JFK's brain because it was too significantly blown out.

"The damn thing just fell out into my hands!"

Assisting Bethesda medical corpsman James Jenkins quoted a startled Humes as saying upon removing JFK's brain.

Dr. McClelland's description of the JFK back of the head wound and how much of JFK's brain was honestly missing (including more oozing out during JFK's ER treatment and even the chunk Jackie Kennedy held in her hand to give to another doctor there with McClelland) matches what Bethesda Navy Corpsman Paul O'Conner ( a trained brain removal technician ) described in sworn testimony.

That "for all essential purposes most of JFK's brain was gone!"
1:02:33
NOW PLAYING

[A P Tomlinson]

Plenty of talk about the method of ordering the rifle and the rifle that was actually delivered but let’s ask a simpler question.

Why would a group of conspirators, whose aim was to set LHO Oswald up as the killer, have ordered a rifle in the name of Hidell?it makes zero sense. You want to set up a man as a killer you order the rifle in his own name.

Just ask common sense questions and the case solves itself.

Let's, again, apply that same level of thinking the other way round.
Why would someone use a false identity to order a rifle, then make sure he had that false identity on his person the day he uses that weapon to assassinate the President?
He could have used that fake identity to walk into any gun shop in Texas and walk out with an untraceable rifle, then burn the fake ID.

[GBinOz]

Let's, again, apply that same level of thinking the other way round.
Why would someone use a false identity to order a rifle, then make sure he had that false identity on his person the day he uses that weapon to assassinate the President?
He could have used that fake identity to walk into any gun shop in Texas and walk out with an untraceable rifle, then burn the fake ID.

Exactly. If you're going to set someone up you lay a followable paper trail using a false identity. That makes it look like the person was trying to hide the purchase of the weapon.

Provide a common sense answer and the case solves itself.

[Fiver]

Let's start with a simple piece of bullshit that got exposed... Hoover stated for the record that Ruby had never been a ""paid informant" for the FBI. The truth was that in the EIGHT covert meetings the FBI held with Ruby, he provided NO actionable evidence and therefore was never Paid for information.

Have you got a source for these alleged eight metteing between the FBI and Jack Ruby?

[Fiver]

The Bullet that was "identified" as CE399, was in two places at once according to FBI and Secret Service records... while it was being handed over in the Whitehouse to the FBI, it was already being processed at the FBI.

So you think the Conspiracy was a pack of complete idiots?

They plant a false bullet, then switch it for a different false bullet, and then botch the documentation?

There is no evidence that CE399 was being processed by the FBI before it was received.

[Fiver]

The bullet shown to the men at Parkland who found the bullet was never identified by them as such. A report that never made it to the Warren report showed that senior FBI agent Bardwell Odum had shown the bullet to both Tomlinson (the orderly who found it) and O.P Wright (Personel director who Tomlinson gave it to, and who gave it to the secret Service) said that the bullet they were shown didn't look like the bullet they fund, and that it wasn't a jacketed military round and more like a pointed hunting round.

The report of Odum showing the CE399 bullet to Tomlinson and Wright was published by the Warren Commission.

It also shows that everything you claim that Tomlinson and Wright said is wrong.

Tomlinson said "it appears to be the same one" but he "cannot positively identify the bullet".

Wright "stated that it looked like the one he gave to Johnsen on 11/22/63, but he could not positively identify it."

When questioned by the ARRB, Odum said he had never even seen that bullet, let alone taken it to Parkland for examination. No documents detailing the events that bare his name, bare his signature...

The ARRB did not question Bardwell Odum.

[cobalt]

Scottnapa's comments on Bugliosi's breathless account of the impasse at Parkland were interesting. Bugliosi is clearly a man who likes to 'gild the lily' which presumably served him well in the theatre of the courtroom. However Bugliosi would have understood that the law is only a reflection of political forces within a society; and Bugliosi strikes me as man who likes to be on the side that is winning.

Bugliosi presented himself as a fighter for 'the little man,' familiar enough schmaltz spouted by politically ambitious lawyers. His record suggests otherwise. During a California University 'sit in' in the late 1960s students held chief administrators captive within an office and coerced them into agreeing policies that would now be considered run of the mill in respect of race etc. Despite promises of no recriminations, around two dozen students were put through the legal process and Bugliosi managed to get four of them jail time for 'kidnap.' All perfectly legal I'm sure but not exactly the act of a Robin Hood.

Bugliosi's best known case is the one that made him a recognised public figure and spawned a book and a film entitled 'Helter Skelter.' Taking Charles Manson off the streets was undoubtedly for the good of society but there were few men more 'little' in their lives than Manson. Since Manson had not actually killed anyone himself, Bugliosi had to resort to a Conspiracy Theory to lock him up for life. This CT was wilder than anything dreamt up by JFK CTs, revolving around drug fuelled recollections of Manson's interpretation of a Beatles' soundtrack. Some of Manson's gang have dismissed it all as nonsense but it made for good cinema. This was a boost to Bugliosi's career as his high profile prosecution was heralded by conservative America as an expose of the dark reality behind the counter culture.

Bugliosi's commitment to the 'little man' did not apparently extend to his milkman, who he suspected of stealing around 300 dollars from him. This may sound like a Monty Python sketch or something conjured up by Benny Hill but Bugliosi did attempt to use his office to pursue the man and later paid out a settlement of about 12,000 dollars.

Bugliosi's labelling of George W Bush as a war criminal is sometimes claimed as evidence of him fearlessly seeking justice. But Bugliosi had thrown in his lot politically with the Democratic Party and his book would have gone down favourably with the incoming Obama administration. Had he put Bush in the dock, as Garrison did with Clay Shaw, then that would have been a different matter. I doubt Bugliosi would have welcomed that prospect.

So Bugliosi arguing for the state (or the Warren Commission) against the little man - Lee Harvey Oswald- is par for the course. It was his lifetime work and doubtless paid extremely well. Having said that I am sure Bugliosi was a very competent lawyer and, if forced to take on the Oswald defence, would have no doubt achieved a swift acquittal.

[Fiver]

Secret Service agent Elmer Moore when questioned by the ARRB said he regretted having to strongarm the Parkland staff into saying that the neck wound was a wound of exit, and that Chief Rowley had forced him to.

Elmer Moore was not questioned by the ARRB.

[Fiver]

Let's ignore that paraffin wax evidence used to "prove" he fired a gun that day also showed that he hadn't fired a rifle. And lets forget that historically, being thrown in the bag of a police car is one of the main ways false positives are created in nitrate and gunpowder evidence being on an innocent persons hands.

The paraffin test proves nothing for or against Oswald, as the Warren Commission established.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the paraffin acts as a base to pick up--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It acts as a medium in which the foreign material is picked up from the hands.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you add the reagent, what is considered to be a positive reaction?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It turns a blue color.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the cast? When you say "it," it is the cast?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, specks on the cast.
Mr. EISENBERG. Dots?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, or an area of the cast. The theory of the test is that it is a test for gunpowder residues. Now, that is the theory, and it is fallacious, inasmuch as the reagents used in these two tests are not specific for gunpowder residues. Now, it is true that the nitrates and nitrites in gunpowder residues will react positively with diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine, but they are not specific. They will react--these two reagents will react with most oxidizing agents.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us a few examples?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Urine, tobacco, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, soil, fertilizer--I have a list here of the different families or classes of compounds that will react. In addition to nitrates and nitrites, substances such as dichromates, permanganates, hypochlorites, periodates, some oxides, such as selenium dioxide and so forth. Also, ferric chloride and chromates and chlorates. The list of oxidizing agents is so large that will react--that you cannot specifically say it was a gunpowder residue.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Supposedly it is to determine whether or not a person has fired a weapon. In actuality, in chemistry it is a good indication that an oxidizing agent is present. The reagents have a valid use in a chemistry laboratory.
Representative BOGGS. Let me put the question this way. Given a dozen ordinary people in the ordinary walk of life, what would be the chance of a positive reaction on any one of these 12 people?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excellent, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the FBI performed an experiment to determine this?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we have. The early sets of tests we ran with diphenylamine. And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands. That was the first test we ran.

Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

[Fiver]

Richard Russell tried to voice his concerns at the final meeting of the Commission with concerns that they weren't addressing. He called Johnson to raise the point that he didn't believe Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, and Johnson agreed with him. He went on to become the first. and loudest, member of the commission to criticise its findings and said that he believed there was a conspiracy, but that the FBI were not interested in investigating any further than Oswald, and were not forthcoming with any evidence that might point even tangentially away from their initial findings in November 1963 that "he did it and he did it alone" and that they were more interested in protecting their own public profile than finding the truth.

Russell and LBJ both doubted the Single Bullet Theory. At no point in the recording does Russell express any belief in a Conspiracy or any doubt that Oswald shot JFK.

[Fiver]

Junior counsel Wesley Liebeler sent a raft of concerns in the detailing of both Oswalds ability to do the shooting as presented in the report as well as its inability to put him in the window at the time of the shooting,

Liebeler made a lot of recommendations for rewording the report. Many were nitpicky, but some were more significant.

"The palmprint section must be changed to reflect the latest findings of the FBI that the palmprint had to have been lifted from the barrel because of the marks that appear on the lift that correspond to those on the rifle barrel itself."

"As to any attempt to explain Mrs. Markham's description (so-called) of Oswald as having bushy hair by showing the world a picture of Oswald "taken at the time of his arrest." I suggest that even the slowest of readers would imagine that their hair might be in an uncombed state--which is the suggested explanation of the bushy condition--after they had fought with a dozen policemen in an attempt to resist arrest. In fact Pizzo exhibit 453-C, the evidence for this proposition, shows Oswald with cuts and bruises on his face. I don't think Mrs. Markham's testimony needs much comment and neither does her statement to Lane. Any attempt such as is presently in the report will merely play into Lane's hands and make the Commission look naive."

"This conclusion to this heading reaches the crushing result that "Oswald disposed of his jacket as he fled from the scene of the Tippit killing." I submit that that is really not the conclusion we worked toward. Why not : "Those facts strongly support the finding that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed Patrolman Tippit and then fled through the parking lot adjoining Jefferson Boulevard, disposing of his jacket as he did so."

He explained any fingerprint or fiber evidence only showed that he had touched the rifle at some point, not that he had fired it and certainly nothing to show he had fired it that day. He pointed out that no one saw the rifle in the Paine's garage, only that there had been a blanket that had at some point held the rifle.
He pointed out that the argument that his room HAD curtains rods did not take into account that Oswald said they were for a new apartment, and was looking to move himself and his family into a new apartment.

Liebeler does say those things about fingerprint and fiber evidence, as well as te curtain rods.

He pointed out that if they were to believe Frazier about the existence of the package and the way Oswald carried it, they should not discount his repeated statement abut the size of the package.

Liebeler did not say that.

"The last sentence states: "Frazier could easily have been mistaken when he stated that Oswald held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand, or when he said that the upper end was tucked under the armpit." On the very next page of the galleys, in the discussion of the prints that appeared on the paper bag, it is stated that the palmprint was "found on the closed end of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand in which he carried the long package as he walked from Frazier's car to the building." I am advised that the palmprint is right on the end of the bag, just where it would be if Oswald had carried it cupped in his hand. If we say in the discussion of prints that that print was put on the bag when he carried it to the TSBD (which we don't quite do) and if the print is where it would be if he carried it cupped in his hand, then we must face up on the preceding page and admit that Frazier was right when he said that that is the way Oswald carried it. If the print story is right and the implication left there as to when the print was put on the bag is valid, Frazier could not have been mistaken when he said Oswald carried the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand."

My favourite line from his memos is this "...the testimony of the employees as set forth in that paragraph is also consistent with Oswald having been in Ethiopia at the time of the assassination,"

Here's the Ethiopia quote in context.

"Last paragraph on page 38 (galley), the testimony of the employees as set forth in that paragraph is also consistent with Oswald having been in Ethiopia at the time of the assassination, or with his having used the elevators to get down from the sixth floor. Since those employees did not see either Oswald or Dougherty, their testimony says nothing on the point under discussion. The whole paragraph should be cut."

He tries to get them to address the matter of why Victoria Adams did not see Oswald on the staircase... for some reason the commission requested her filed statements and tape of her evidence be returned to the Commission for "distruction" (It seems that he filing department were either unhappy with this or weren't on the same page, because they replaced the file with the Warren Commissions written request to destroy it... oops) so the report never provided her testimony and based their appraisal of her testimony on a story they created from whole cloth.

Here's what Liebeler said about Victoria Adams.

"When I left the bottom of page 38 I was looking for additional testimony showing that Oswald came down the stairs and not the elevator. After two paragraphs of excellent analysis I am convinced that Victoria Adams either came down the stairs before or after Oswald did and it is clear that that is so because we know that Oswald came down the stairs and not the elevator. I do not understand, however, how the fact that Victoria Adams came down the stairs before or after Oswald did shows that Oswald came down the stairs. If the idea is to show that Adams was not on the stairway when Oswald was I am not convinced by the analysis or speculation in these two paragraphs. Furthermore, if that is the idea it is not clearly set forth. How about a first sentence like: "Victoria Adams testified that she came down the stairway, within about 1 minute after the shots, from the fourth floor to the first floor where she encountered two depository employees--Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady. If Miss Adams was on the stairway at that time, the question is raised as to why she did not see Oswald .... "

But his boldest comment, that tells us everything we need to know about the commissions actual business and purpose was... after tearing holes in the evidence used to support Oswald's ability to do the shooting... this;
"The Commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so."

Here is Liebeler's statement in context.

"It seems to me that the most honest and the most sensible thing to do the present state of the record on Oswald's rifle capability would be to write a very short section indicating that there is testimony on both sides of several issues. The Commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so. It may have been pure luck. It probably was to a very great extent. But it happened. He would have had to have been lucky to hit as he did if he had only 4.8 seconds to fire the shots. Why don't we admit instead of reaching and using only part of the record to support the propositions presently set forth in the galleys. Those conclusions will never be accepted by critical persons anyway."

And here is some very key testimony by Liebeler.

Mr. LIBELER - I think that the Commission's conclusion as to the identity of the assassin and as to the facts that occurred in Dallas on that day, that is to say there was only one person killing the President and it was Oswald and he used that rifle and so on, are correct beyond any doubt, beyond any plausible doubt. It is not possible to reach the conclusion that Oswald did not have contacts with other people, the knowledge of which would be relevant to this matter, about which the Commission did not learn, and the Commission of course never stated that there was no conspiracy. It only stated that it had not been able to develop evidence that suggested the existence of a conspiracy. I debated this issue with Mark Lane at UCLA and many other critics. I don't have any reason to doubt the basic conclusions in the report including the conspiracy question, and even this business of the FBI supposedly destroying a note that Oswald left at the office and that sort of thing does not cause me to have any questions about that. To me it is perfectly clear what was going on in the Bureau at that time. It was clear to most of us st the time.
Mr. FAUNTROY. So that your view is that he acting alone killed Kennedy?
Mr. LIBELER - Yes, sir.
Mr. FAUNTROY - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McKINNEY - Was it ever discussed by you or by others that there was a possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been a CIA agent or informant or FBI informant?
Mr. LIBELER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McKINNEY - Did you think it would have been possible for the CIA and the FBI to keep this information sway from the Commission?
Mr. LIBELER - No.
Mr. McKINNEY - Why?
Mr. LIBELER - I think that that is the kind of issue on which it is quite conceivable that the only persons who would have knowledge of it if that were true would be Oswald who is dead and a very few, presumably as many as only one, but very few people within these organizations and I think that it is quite conceivable that if they wanted to withhold that information they could do so and we would not have any direct way of finding out. One of the ways that the Commission did approach that question was to examine Oswald's financial history and do a financial audit of it which hopefully would have, if there had been unaccounted revenues that he had spent, that would have lent credibility to the proposition that he had been in the employ of these agencies on the assumption that he was not doing it for nothing. The Internal Revenue Service people that worked for the Commission were able to account for all of the expenditures out of the income that he received or was known to have received during this period of time.

[scottnapa]

I have repeatedly cited Texas law showing you are wrong about this.

Oswald was arraigned for the murder of President Kennedy before Justice of the Peace David Johnston at 1:35 a.m., November 23.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, let's pass to the arraignment concerning President Kennedy, and I wish you would dictate into the record the same information you did as to the first one.
Mr. JOHNSTON. All right, sir. This was the arraignment of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder with malice of John F. Kennedy, cause No. F-154, The State of Texas versus Lee Harvey Oswald. The complaint was filed at 11:25 p.m., was accepted by m e at 11:26 p.m. It was filed at approximately 11:25 p.m. by Capt. J. W. Fritz, homicide bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and was accepted by Henry Wade, criminal district attorney, Dallas County, Tex., and was docketed as cause No. 154, F-154 at 11:26 p.m.
Shortly after this is when the defendant was taken to the detail room or the assembly room.
Mr. HUBERT. What happened at this arraignment--was it the same as before?
Mr. JOHNSTON. He was not arraigned at this time. He was then arraigned after he was removed to the detail room where the press was allowed to have their first interview with the defendant, with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Subsequently in a conference between Captain Fritz, Mr. Wade, and two or three of his assistants and myself, and Chief Curry--it was decided to go ahead and arraign him and that arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense. He was also told at both of these instances that he would be given the right to contact an attorney of his choice.

Care to explain why you think you know more about Texas law than DPD Chief Curry, Captain Fritz of the DPD Homicide Bureau, Dallas District Attorney Wade, and Justice of the Peace Johnston?

Golly, you are the only one that doesn't understand. Again.
Is arraignment the same as a trial.? No. Is cutody the same as
Did you read the Wade comment in the post from Henry Wade? No
Do you argue for the sake of argument? Yes.
The body is evidence. EVERYONE understands this but you
if there is no body, there is no evidence from that body admissable at a trial. The point of the post is that the Dallas understand the issue
And you do not. Just as you think the Betheda autopsy was top notch.
Here is what you did not comment on: Evidence removed to the 'FBI was manipulated.
" After Oswald is killed, previously inadmissible evidence can now presented as “facts” for the political WC trial by committee.
Evidence that would be dismissed at a real trial is accepted by WC apologists.
There is sufficient proof of FBI intervention. One, insertion; changing newspaper story in Times Herald. Two, substitution; the Minox camera fraud .3) Destruction; where are Sandra O’Conner’s color autopsy photos?: FBI also presents a photocopy as an original evidence. The Oswald money order only exists as a photograph copy .