HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Subject: Re: Release of JFK files-the truth comes out???
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:19:06 GMT

--
>  I just heard on the radio that the JFK files are going to be released (assu-
>ing I heard the news right). I can only hope that the files will reveal the
>truth.

I for one am not counting on the files revealing too much. They have had 29
years to puge this stuff you know.

This all seemed too easy. 1 movie and a little uproar and now our government - who has resisted the revelation of just about anything regarding the JFK case
to the public for 29 years - seems to repent and graciously release
ALL the archives to us?  

			"THAT DOG DON'T HUNT!"

Lets just say that I'm sceptical but hopefull.

Marty

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 M_Henderson               | "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
 Marty Henderson           |  I find it most intriguing."   ---    Data, 
 Woodland Park, Colorado   |  Star Trek, The Next Generation, "Haven"
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Oswald's Request for a Laywer (JFK)
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:48:02 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <21JUL199214430321@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>(Dave Lyons) writes...
>>mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) wrote:
>>> (Derek Abbott) writes...
>
>>>>What is the official explaination for why Oswald got grilled without a
>>>>lawyer, despite his repeated requests for one?
>
>>>     To answer a question with a question...
>>>     When did the Supreme court mandate that a defending lawyer be
>>>     present during questioning?
>
>>This is pretty misleading, Mitchell.  The Supreme Court's Miranda
>>Ruling specifically states that any accused has the right to a lawyer
>>during questioning. On the other hand, the Miranda Ruling wasn't making
>>new law but rather was spelling out rights that exist in the constitution
>>and therefore Derek's question is valid and deserves an answer.
>
>       Before Miranda, interrogating suspects without having counsel
>       present was a very common phenomina. It still happens, and
>       testimony taken from such interrogations are sometimes allowed
>       as evidence. A review of _Texas v. Randal Dale Adams_ would
>       be helpful reminder.
>
>       As to your assertion that the _Miranda_ ruling didn't give the
>       accused any rights that they already didn't possess, you are
>       dead wrong. All purely legal discussion aside, the _Miranda_
>       rights were not given to the accused *in practice* until
>       the ruling was handed down.
>
>       Before _Miranda_, there was nothing in the Constitution,
>       nor in court decisions, that explicitly gave the accused
>       the various rights asserted by the Superme Court.
>       The Warren Court wove the Miranda rights from Constitutional
>       inferences and from bits and pieces of common law, just as
>       the Marshall Court gave itself the right of supreme judicial
>       review from Constitutional inference and implication.

I remember in the Clay Shaw trial a big deal was made out of the fact
that he didn't have a lawyer present when he admitted to having the alias
"Clay Bertrand."  As a result this bit of evidence was not permitted
in court.

Was this pre or post Miranda?

Were they legally correct in ignoring the "Clay Bertrand" admission?

According to Jim Garrison, he didn't think it was legal. He felt they were
making up the law to suit themselves.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: dlyons@necis.UUCP (Dave Lyons)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Oswald's Request for a Laywer (JFK)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:35:38 GMT
Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA

In article <20JUL199213321418@sigma.tamu.edu>, mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) wrote:
> (Derek Abbott) writes...
> 
>>What is the official explaination for why Oswald got grilled without a
>>lawyer, despite his repeated requests for one?
> 
> 	To answer a question with a question...
> 	When did the Supreme court mandate that a defending lawyer be
> 	present during questioning?

This is pretty misleading, Mitchell.  The Supreme Court's Miranda
Ruling specifically states that any accused has the right to a lawyer
during questioning.  I don't remember the date that ruling was handed
down but it certainly may have been after 1963 and I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt that that's what you're referring to.  On the
other hand, the Miranda Ruling wasn't making new law but rather was
spelling out rights that exist in the constitution and therefore
Derek's question is valid and deserves an answer.
                                    -- Dave --
-- 
***************************************************************************
DaveJ Lyons       DoD #0633         dlyons@necis.nec.com  (603)878-2567 BBS
Opinions expressed are mine. My company doesn't even know I'm here (Shhhh!)
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: howells@bird (Timothy P. Howells)
Subject: Re: is JFK a hero
Organization: Research Computer Facility, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:01:42 GMT


In article <1992Jul30.100146.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
>
>Kennedy gets quite a bit of praise for the Cuban Missle crisis, yet
>had he supported the Bay of Pigs invasion the crisis might never have
>happened in the first place.
>
>If a little boy starts a fire and then calls the Fire department.....
>
>                            IS HE A HERO?


This thread really intrigues me.  Generally this group has been
arguing about whether the JFK assassination was the result of a
conspiracy, and the extent of the conspiracy.  Are you arguing that
there was a conspiracy, but that it was a benevolent conspiracy?  If
you're neutral on the conspiracy issue I suggest you post to
alt.politics.braindamage.

Tim Howells
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:30:00 GMT

In article <schuck.711943601@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...

>Mitchell S Todd    > & >>>
>Bruce Schuck (me) >>

>"Clearly identifiable pieces of metal were scattered about the head
>and brain of the deceased according to x-rays of the shattered head.
>A sizeable piece of metal was shown at the entrance wound, a fact
>strongly indicative of a lead-nosed bullet."

>A semi-jacketed
>bullet with a soft lead nose exposed would be more likely to produce
>the kind of head wound described at autopsy of the President than
>would a metal-jacketed military bullet similar to the undeformed slug
>that was presented as having been found on a stretcher in Parkland
>Hospital"

>    "Medicolegal Investigation of the President John F Kennedy Murder"
>       Charles G. Wilber , Ph.D
>       Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences

>So thats another trained Forensic Pathologist who clearly sees the
>evidence pointing to a soft-nosed hunting bullet as hitting JFK in the
>back of the head.

	Dr Wilber is *not* a forensic pathologist, he's a forensic
	biologist, as more than one reviewer of his book has pointed
	out. Further, Wilber is basing his opinion on written
	descriptions of the wounds, rather than examination of
 	the autopshy photos and x-rays.

	It is interesting to note that the large fragments recovered
	from the limo and attributed to the head shot, as well as 	
	skull test bullets fired by Lattimer and the WC show the
	same type of deformation as soft-nose and hollow-point 
	hunting bullets, most importantly the "peeled back" jacket,
	and full seapration of the core and the jacket.
> 
>>>I don't think 'collar-shaped' is very different that the description
>>>Roffman gives or the Clark Panel.
> 
>>	Last time I checked Webster's, and the OED, there's a big
>>	difference between "collar shaped" and "spherical."
> 
>I checked out the drawing of the fragment in Wilbers book.
> 
>From the side, the fragment is spherical.
> 
>From the front, it is collar shaped.
                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2741 alt.smouldering.dog.zone:32
From: andrew@postmod.NASHUA.NH.US (andrew richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.smouldering.dog.zone
Subject: Re: The Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer story (relations with JFK + Timmy Leary)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:38:37 EDT
Reply-To: andrew@postmod.nashua.nh.us
 <CRATHBUN.92Jul28185731@dante.nmsu.edu> <1992Jul29.025220.16172@tfs.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: fredd's famous computers
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel1

	you guys read the mondo2000 story 'bout ol' mary p. m.?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew richardson                                andrew@postmod.nashua.nh.us
                              hey, steempy...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Bullet Velocities
Date: 26 Jul 1992 22:02:53 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: mingong-ws-2.ucsc.edu


In article <24JUL199216245284@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|In article <schuck.711957791@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
|	The table, this time considering the bone and soft tissue
|	damage:
|
|	location of bullet		velocity (fps)
|	
|	after passing through
|	JFK's neck:			1560-1460
|	after passing through
|	JBC's chest:			1120- 920	
|	after passing through
|	JBC's wrist:			680 - 380
|
|	The velocity of the bullet as it exits Connelly's wrist
|	calculated here is about a half to a fourth of the velocity
|	estimated by the WC; therefore the energy would be a fourth
|	to an eigth of that calculated by Wilber, or about 180 to
|	about 90 foot-pounds.

If you think you have an accurate estimation of the loss of the bullet
speed, then it is not necessary to reduce the 380 by half or any appreciable
amount. We see that the 380 is far to fast to account for a bullet stopping
a few inches into Connally's leg.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: anton@gagme.chi.il.us (Andrzej Borowiec)
Subject: LH's interrogation
Summary: Miranda shmiranda -- where's the beef?
Originator: anton@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:10:20 GMT

Whether LHO had the right to a legal council or not is not really as important
as what happened to the record of his interrogation. Or if there was no record
why weren't the people who interrogated him deposed on what exactly he had said.

Andrzej A. Borowiec
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2686 alt.conspiracy:9414 sci.skeptic:13243
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: How many stairwells in the TSDB?  (JFK)
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:53:57 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Jul23.150416.22935@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) writes:
>--
>>You guys who live in Dallas or have visited the TSDB please tell us
>>how many stairwells there are in the TSDB.
>
>
>>What I'm trying to work out is why Baker & Truly only saw Oswald as they
>>ran up the stairs. How come they didn't encounter the "real" assassin?
>
>>For the conspiracy theories to be true there must be more than one mode of
>>exit from the sixth floor?
>
>>Is there such?
>
>>Conspiracy books I've read on this subject are very vague. They make a big
>>deal out of the fact that Oswald couldn't run fast enough from the sixth floor
>>to see Baker & Truly on the second floor -- but don't explain how the real
>>assassin could magically get away even faster.
>
>>It's not just the WC that resorts to magic :-)
>
>Derek, why do you assume that the killers were out of the building BEFORE
>Baker & Truly arrived? There are other possible means of escape.
>
>If they wore disguises then who couldent they escape by walking right out
>in from of the police? After all - Oswald himself exited via the front door
>right past the cops several min. after the assassination.
>

Yes, but Baker & Truley would have seen SOMEBODY other than Oswald.

The conspiracy books make it sound as if they only found Oswald and the
rest of the building was empty. Is that the case?

>And there is also the possibility of hiding. Perhaps there was somewhere to
>hide?


Hang on. You haven't answered the question on how many stairwells before we
jump into how they might of hidden.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: How many stairwells in the TSDB?  (JFK)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:46:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: pyramid.182760
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Jul23.053027.12698@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|>  
|> What I'm trying to work out is why Baker & Truly only saw Oswald as they
|> ran up the stairs. How come they didn't encounter the "real" assassin?
|> 
|> For the conspiracy theories to be true there must be more than one mode of
|> exit from the sixth floor?
|> 
|> Is there such?
|>
Yes.  There were also elevators.  I don't know if there were other stair
cases.
 
|> Conspiracy books I've read on this subject are very vague. They make a big
|> deal out of the fact that Oswald couldn't run fast enough from the
sixth floor
|> to see Baker & Truly on the second floor -- but don't explain how the real
|> assassin could magically get away even faster.
|> 
|> It's not just the WC that resorts to magic :-)

The logic of your argument, Derek, is that there may not have been ANY
shooters on the 6th floor of the TSBD, since no-one was encountered
immediately escaping.  Films, I think the Hughes film, shows motion and
moving boxes at least in the window next to the E-most TSBD window, both
before and after the time of the shooting.  I believe that the HSCA 
concluded that there was the movement of boxes in this adjacent window 
immediately after the shooting.  (This of course makes a stronger case
AGAINST the 6th floor shooter, if one existed, being Oswald, since it
would require even more of his time to manipulate boxes.)

Personally, I believe there was a 6th floor shooter, but not in the 
E-most TSBD window.  I also believe there was more than one person 
on the floor at the time.  How did they escape?  I don't know.  I'm
not convinced that they needed to or did escape immediately.  The grassy
knoll team, seemed pretty cool under pressure -- they just whipped out those 
secret service badges etc.  The umbrella man just stood there for a 
while until he split.  Some say he was a visual signal used to coordinate
rifle teams, others a political protestor.  There was a ton of confusion
for a long while after the shooting.  Anyone with an ounce of poise and
experience could move around quite easily.  

Sprague explains get-aways in the Taking of America 1-2-3.  Also, the Warren
Report and documents provide lots of floor plans of the TSBD.  You may 
want to check them out.

Paul Collacchi
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2587 alt.conspiracy:9247 sci.skeptic:12972
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: The Year 2029  (JFK)
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:23:11 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

I read in the New York Times about 3-4 months ago that legislation was
being drafted up to release the secret JFK files this year instead of
the year 2029.

Has anyone read anything more about this?

Was I hallucinating or was it real?

Who initiated this coup?

Does it look good that it will pull off ok?

Or is it just a stunt to keep voters happy, and then after the elections
we find that the legislation doesn't get filed/approved?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.smouldering.dog.zone
From: crathbun@nmsu.edu (Chriss Rathbun)
Subject: Re: The Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer story (relations with JFK + Timmy Leary)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul20.173751.21702@cbnews.cb.att.com>
	<1992Jul27.093053.21353@becker.GTS.ORG>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:57:31 GMT

re: kennedy
actually kennedy was an idiot!
he was a power crazed, sex fiend(guess he wasn't all bad),
meglomaniacal fool who brought the world to the brink of nuclear
anhilation several times with his grandstanding politics designed to
make him look good regardless of the threat to peace he caused.
 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Question (J.F.K. brain wound)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:41:00 GMT

In article <schuck.711992007@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
>priotti@torino.maraut.it (Enrico Priotti) writes:

>>In Oliver Stone's "J.F.K." movie is clearly described the President's autopsy.
>>There it is said that half of his brain was taken away by the fatal bullet.
>>Is it credible? Is there anyone who has sure information about this?

>There are many conflicting reports about the damage to the President's
>brain.

>The Neurologist who examined JFK while he was in Trauma Room 1 at
>Parkland Hospital said the Occipital lobe and part of the Parietal Lobe
>on the right side were destroyed.

>The attendant at Bethesda, whose job it was to remove the brain, said
>there was almost nothing left.

>The autospy pictures that have been published show almost no damage to
>the brain.

	A drawing made by the HSCA of an autopsy photo shows that
	most of the right cerebral hemisphere is missing. Dr Lattimer,	
	who has seen the autopsy photos estimates that 70% of the
	right cer. hem. is has been blown away. The drawing shows
	that the wound extends from the occipital lobe to the
	frontal lobe. Because of the shape and size of the wound, 
	it is easy to see why Dr Clark didn't describe damage to
	the frontal lobe, and why Paul O'Connor would say that
	he thought there was little left.
	

>There are no definitive answers about the damage to the brain because
>it was never sectioned. 

	Sectioning woudn't be very valuable at all for describing
	the amount of missing matter. The autopsy photos are the
	most important information, short of having the
	whole brain.
                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: The Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer story (relations with JFK + Timmy Leary)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:13:14 GMT

crathbun@nmsu.edu (Chriss Rathbun) writes:
>re: kennedy
>actually kennedy was an idiot!
>he was a power crazed, sex fiend(guess he wasn't all bad),
>meglomaniacal fool who brought the world to the brink of nuclear
>anhilation several times with his grandstanding politics designed to
>make him look good regardless of the threat to peace he caused.
> 

Feel better now? OK, now please elaborate on how you would have handled the
Missile Crisis. JFK did not invade Cuba, order air strikes against the
installations, or attack the Soviet ships. He merely ordered a blockade
where all ships carrying offensive weapons would be turned back. This is
a minimal response considering the circumstances. (Much to the consternation
of the hawks and Cuban exiles.)

And how was the crisis finally resolved? With *negotiation* and
give-and-take. That radical!

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:16:41 GMT

In article <22JUL199214450858@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> ...
>	Funny. I was generally under the impression that *all* bullets
>	were designed so that they would not scrape off while travelling	
>	down a steel barrel. Sarcasm aside, who would make a bullet
>	that left pieces of metal in the barrel?

  One might better say that gun barrels are designed so they will
not scrape off pieces of the bullet, and then the bullet is designed,
shaped, lubricated, etc., so as to cooperate in not leaving pieces of
itself in the barrel.
>
>	Actually, even hunting bullets are jacketed. In the case of a
>	soft-nose, the jacket extends from the base to just a few
>	millimeters behind the head, exposing the core at the tip of the
>	bullet. A hollow point is fully jacketed, save for a small hole
>	in the very tip of the bullet. Unjacketed ammunition is quite
>	rare, and I've never fired any, nor can I find anyone who has.
        ^^^^

  You probably mean for rifles.  Unjacketed bullets for handguns are
quite common.  For rifles they are much less common, but *many* people
fire them.  

> ...

--henry schaffer  n c state univ