HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Oswald's Request for a Laywer (JFK)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 11:44:19 PDT
Organization: Albedo Communications

fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

> In article <1992Jul23.015104.5922@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@au
> > The point was that he was grilled without a lawyer despite his repeated
> > requests for one. Whether he would have been convicted or not based on
> > the interrogation doesn't matter as he was murdered before that could happe
> 
> He probably would have been convicted.  If he were still alive (I
> think that the death penalty was legal then) in the mid-sixties
> though, he might very well have gotten a new trial with a lot of
> evidence supressed.  === Al Sparks

I think what the original poster wanted to know, though, was NOT whether 
he would have been convicted, by why everybody is reacting to "didn't 
they do something wrong?" with "he would be convicted anyway..."

Taking a step back, what ELSE would you expect to result from "they did 
something wrong!"?  They might be punished by superiors in some way, but 
superiors are likely to be very sympathetic in the event of presidential 
assasination.  Ultimately it was THE superior who was shot, after all.
Well, okay, in a perfect world, somebody should be disciplined/fired for 
abusing a prisoner's rights by denying them counsel.

Also, the prisoner might sue.  This might be infliction of emotional 
distress, and definitely looks like a civil rights violation.  But 
collecting in tort against a police officer at least putatively acting 
within his duties is difficult (getting easier after Rodney King, I bet).
And I don't think the civil rights legislation (that let you sue 
government officials in federal court for this kind of thing) even 
existed.

So, okay, you're the Supreme Court, and some poor schmuck appeals to you 
saying something was done wrong.  What can you do?  You invent the 
"exclusionary rule," which says, whatever else might (but probably won't) 
be done about violations of process, the least the courts can do is not 
use the evidence obtained that way.

A generation, especially of lawyers and television viewers, has grown up 
thinking that that's the main effect of abusing someone's rights while in 
custody.  Sad if true, and it is at least partially.

   Mitch
From: indiana@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Tonight,Tomorrow,This week on A&E
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:54:04 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


     Tonight,Monday,July 27, A&E starts re-run of the 5-part "Trial of
Lee Harvey Oswald".   Showings at 8 p.m.Mon.,and 1 p.m.Tues.A.D.T. which
should translate into 7 p.m.Mon. and 12 noon Tues. E.D.T.
     Good chance to size up the real witnesses.
   Also watch for "Geraldo" and "Now It Can Be Told" re-runs (quite a few
with interesting JFK material.)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Spiro Agnew, Nixon & Scandals.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 22 Jul 1992 09:24 EST  

In article <1992Jul22.060831.22038@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, 
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
>In article <2A6C41A0.313C@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>According to dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott):
>>>[JFK discussion]
> 
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hmmmmmmmmm, since when was a discussion on Nixon & Watergate a JFK discussion?
> 
>Now that could be interesting............:-)

Derek -

I guess that I didn't realize that you were late coming to the party.  A 
couple of months back there were postings implying an association between 
the JFK Assassination and Watergate.  The key to this association is E. 
Howard Hunt.  Mark Lane's _Plausible Denial_ details the Florida trial in 
which E. Howard Hunt's libel suit against a newspaper was overturned (this 
is from memory).  The libel suit was over an article which implicated Hunt 
as a conspirator in the JFK Assassination.  E. Howard Hunt was also one of 
the fine folks who were caught up in the Watergate mess, thus the 
association.  I think that _Plausible Denial_ expands upon the link between 
the assassination and Watergate (if not, then maybe it was _High Treason_). 

JD
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2636 alt.conspiracy:9332 sci.skeptic:13101 misc.legal:14698
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: 23 Jul 92 01:51:04 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <VT10NB2w165w@coriolis.UUCP> mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch) writes:
>dlyons@necis.UUCP (Dave Lyons) writes:
>
>> In article <20JUL199213321418@sigma.tamu.edu>, mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitche
>> > (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
>
>More than that, Miranda was merely about whether you had to be INFORMED
>of rights.  The state argued that it hadn't denied Mr. Miranda access to
>an attorney, he just hadn't asked for one.  The Court figured once you
>have an attorney present, it's his fault if you miss alot of things, but
>until you have that lawyer with you it's a bit unreasonable to require
>you to know that you need not respond to interrogation.
>
>On the other hand, I know nothing about Oswald's story.  Was he
>interrogated?  Did he have a lawyer?  Would he have been convicted
>without the evidence from that interrogation (in which case it would be
>deemed "harmless error," especially in today's judicial climate)?

The point was that he was grilled without a lawyer despite his repeated
requests for one. Whether he would have been convicted or not based on
the interrogation doesn't matter as he was murdered before that could happen.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2637 alt.conspiracy:9333 sci.skeptic:13102 misc.legal:14699
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: 23 Jul 92 01:53:45 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <14id65INNbca@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
>
>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.
>
>Not according to Roffman, who has a source for why this was in fact so
>*unusual*. Recall also that Garrison's case hinged on Shaw's *routine*
>questioning, which was thrown out because no attorny was present. Quite a
>double standard here.

I could be mistaken, but wasn't Shaw post-Miranda and Oswald pre-Miranda ???
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: bill@turing.toronto.edu (Bill Monhemius)
Subject: Re: Where the HELL are those Films??
Keywords: zapruder films
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:54:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.192809.5776@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> hhm@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (herschel.h.mayo) writes:
>Watching a tape of the Zapruder film the other day, I was struck by
>something I had not seen before. Watch the crowd, not the car as it
>passes by. I noticed what appears to be MANY people with still, and 
>movie cameras taking pictures of the motorcade. WHAT HAPPNED to these
>photos, and movies?. There are clearly several people besides Zapruder
>making movies. So far I have only heard that one person had her movies
>confiscated. Clearly, there were others. Where are these films??
>
>
>                                                Larry Mayo
>                                                

Ask the FBI.  They confiscated the film of many onlookers, some with 
excellent vantage points.  All this film just disappeared!  Just another
disturbing fact in this episode...

-Bill

+-------------------------------------------------+
|* * * * * *|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| * * * * * |            Bill Monhemius           |
|* * * * * *|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| * * * * * |            bill@turing.toronto.edu  |
+-----------+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|                        University of Toronto    |
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|                        Turing Language Group    |
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
+-------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2640 sci.skeptic:13111 alt.conspiracy:9338
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 23 Jul 1992 01:11:14 CDT
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
 <MeMSj_e00Vp8A1G3tL@andrew.cmu.edu>
 <1992Jul14.020708.11929@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> <schuck.711734750@sfu.ca>
 <22JUL199214450858@rigel.tamu.edu>

In article <22JUL199214450858@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell
S Todd) says:
>
>                                       Unjacketed ammunition is quite
>        rare, and I've never fired any, nor can I find anyone who has.

Mitchell, so much has been written about the nature of the bullets.  So much
is argued about in this newsgroup about the same.
I have never owned a gun or rifle.  In two short time periods of my life, I
have been acquainted with people who were hunters and who had gun collections.
In my 20's, I often went with others to a practice gallery where we usually
shot hand guns like .45's and .38's.  In my teens, I had friends who often
went hunting with shotguns and .22's.  I have a clear memory of coming over
to one of the hunters house one day and entering the kitchen where he had
a bullet form press.  He was melting lead in a special container on the
gas stove and making bullets in the form.  Since I didn't go hunting with
them at this time, I assume he was making bullets for a rifle.  Was this
possible?  Or were the bullets intended for a hand gun?
I ask this question because it is obvious that these bullets would have
no jacketing, copper or otherwise.  They would not have been treated with
any of the hardening processes that I became vaguely acquainted with later.

Can I assume that bullets could be made for a rifle in one's own home and
have characteristics completely different from any bullets sold on the
market at the time?  Or is this just my ignorance of firearms showing?
ALAN ROGERS
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: SS Agents at TSBD (was How many stairwells in the TSDB? (JFK))
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:25:47 GMT


Derek Abbott writes:  >

>I think we need answers to the following questions:


>1) How many stairwells in the TSDB??

Two. But only one went all the way to the 6th floor.
The other only went up as far as the 2nd floor, where the lunchroom is
that Oswald was in.

>2) How many lift shafts?

Two. They were on the upper floors when Baker and Truly rushed up the
stairs.

>3) How many exit doors (front & back)?

Two. [I think]


One of the really interesting facts about the assassination is the
prescence of 'fake' Secret Service Agents in and around Dealey Plaza.

It is well documented that there were no 'real' SS Agents in Dealey
Plaza [except for those in the motorcade] until Forrest Sorrels of the
Dallas SS office arrived 20-25 minutes after the shots were fired.

Dallas Police Sergeant D. V. Harkness testified that he reached the
rear of the TSBD before 12:36 pm, to make sure the building was sealed
off. When he arrived, "there were some Secret Service agents there. I
didn't get them identified. The told me they were Secret Service
agents." [WCH vol 6 p.312]


So if you want to know where the 'real' assassins were, they were
behind the TSBD by 12:36 masquerading as Secret Service agents.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2631 sci.skeptic:13090 alt.conspiracy:9327
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:34:49 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <92203.234155U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes:

|Mitchell's references to the HSCA photo analysis is well grounded.  This
|section not only gave us the experts opinion's but showed us how they
|came to this opinion. 

Mitchell makes the error of including the photographic expert Groden in
agreeing with the general conclusions of the HSCA, which he did not. Reading
his explanation of what happend is very interesting.

 It still remains whether the HSCA team had
|exhausted the means of determining whether the photos were fake but the
|critic's points were well answered and explained.

Groden claims they did not, nor were the experts as good as he in detecting
fakes.

|And let me emphasize an observation of Paul's on the withholding of the
|spectrographic test results and their interrim data.  Many critics have
|pointed out that if these tests had convicted LHO, officials would have
|been posting them on every form of media available.  They would have been
|leaked to every paper in the nation.  12 years.  Years of exhausting court
|room travail on the part of Weisberg and his lawyers (Fensterwald and Lesar),
|of every trick in the book used to stall and stonewall Weisberg's efforts
|to make these results public. 

What is more fascinating is that the HSCA made it's own spectrographic tests,
and made them public. The problem? The number and type of fragments that were
tested by McGuinn of the HSCA were not the same as examined many years ago.
If the original tests were as conclusive as the later tests, obvioulsy the WR
would use the results. Obviously.

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"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: priotti@torino.maraut.it (Enrico Priotti)
Subject: Assassination hour
Organization: Magneti Marelli, Electronics Division (ITALY)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:39:46 GMT

How do we know that J.F.K.'s assassination occurred
*exactly* at 12:30 p.m.?
My only reference is James T. Tague's: he said that he gazed at the
T.S.B.D. roof clock when the motorcade was coming in and it showed
12:29 p.m..
If anybody has precise information about this, please let me know.
Thanks.
                                 Henry.
                                 Speaking on my own behalf. 

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: mac hypercard stack with JFK conspiracy stuff (incl. Zfilm)
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:37:47 GMT

In <1992Jul28.074848.2292@fys.ruu.nl> sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:

>Recently, I got a Macintosh hypercard stack, with a lot of text,
>photographs, two soundbits and a part of the zapruder film. It's
>called "11/22/63 Extra!". According to the blurb I may give it away
>freely (it's everyware), but not distribute it by way of BBS or so. 
>If you're interested let me know. A mac with at least a 86020 and a few
>megs seems to be necessary.

Last night, our mailgate had some trouble so I could have missed some
requests. Please try again. BTW, indicate which compression method you'd
like: zoo, lharc or unix compress.
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Bullet Velocities
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:03:11 GMT

One of the componenets of the 'magic' bullet theory is that the bullet
slowed down as it made each wound and thats why it was so 'pristine'.

This is a table of data from Charles G Wilbers book "Medicolegal
Investigation of the President John F Kennedy Murder". Wilber is a
forensic pathologist.

The data is from the sworn testimony of Edgewood Arsenal Employees.

Location of Bullet         Velocity in fps       Energy in foot pounds

Muzzle of rifle               2160                      1638
At 60 yards                   1900                      1268
After passing through JFK     1779                      1111
After passing thru rib        1514                       805
After passing thru wrist      1432                       720


After passing through Connally's wrist, the energy of the bullet was
720 foot pounds. Wilber says bullet energy is the key factor in wound
production.

To err on the side of caution, Wilber then cut the 720 in half and
compared it to energy levels of other bullets.


Bullet                                Energy in foot pounds

Bullet entering Connally's thigh             360
.45 Army Auto, muzzle velocity               369
.38 special, muzzle                          265
9 mm Luger, muzzle                           345
.44 special, muzzle                          295
.22 Winchester Magnum, muzzle                365


If the 'magic' bullet theory is valid, the bullet striking Connally in
the thigh should have produced a wound similar to an Army .45 fired at
at near contact range.

Connally's thigh wound was in fact a 1cm puncture wound with a small
fragment of bullet imbedded in the femur. It is nothing like the wound
of a .45 automatic fired at near contact range.

In fact, the Connally thigh wound is what you would expect if a bullet
fragment embedded itself in his thigh, not a complete bullet with
enough energy left to devestate his thigh.


It is very unlikely CE 399 entered Connally's thigh to later fall out
on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital.
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald's Behaviour
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:28:56 GMT
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <schuck.711652234@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> 
|> The use of 'real' Dallas Policeman as the stockade fence shooter would
|> have made it a lot easier to pull off and get away with.

It seems to me that based on the fact that this, as yet, unidentified 
man in a police uniform accompanied another (real) police officer and 
2 vagrants directly into Dallas Police Headquarters that a "real" Dallas 
Policeman was not necessarily needed for the stockade fence shooter.  Of 
course, that doesn't mean he wasn't one.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: CONEGA@APPSTATE.EDU (Greg Cone)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Tippett murder and Oswald revolver
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:22:54 GMT
Organization: APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

I have read a lot about the analysis done to associate the bullet(s)
found in the presidential limo to Oswald's M-C rifle, but what, if any,
analysis was done to link bullets found in or around Tippett's body to
Oswald's revolver (the one he was in possesion of when arrested in the
movie theater)?
From: CONEGA@APPSTATE.EDU (Greg Cone)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Back to the Past
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:58:40 GMT
Organization: APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

I would like to invite the readers of a.c.jfk to take part in a little
imaginary journey back in time.  You suddenly find yourself transported
(never mind how) to Dealy Plaza, Dallas, Texas.  Its late in the morning,
around 11:30 AM, as you gaze out at the gathering crowd awaiting the
presidential motorcade.  With what you know, or at least think you know,
about the events that transpired that day, what would you do?
(no, I'm not fishing for ideas for a book or movie script)
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2680 alt.conspiracy:9407
From: kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch)
Subject: Re: Clay Shaw
Organization: Doomsayers' Anonymous
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 02:57:35 GMT

In article <92206.18554332GCHRG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> <32GCHRG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>Is Shaw still alive...if so coulnd't he be arrested for
>lying in his trial?  Pictures show that he knew David Ferrie,
>yet he claimed that he newver met him.

Clay Shaw died of lung cancer in 1975.  No autopsy was ever performed, although
there have been claims that a body was taken into his house, covered in a sheet,
before the body was taken away.  These claims seem to be from his neighbors,
and generally quite poorly documented.

A local coroner, suspicious of the speed with which Shaw was buried attempted
to obtain an exhumation for the purposes of autopsy, and the request was quick-
ly shot down after the press insinuated quite strongly that Shaw should be 
left in peace having been witch-hunted enough.

Garrison did try to file perjury charges against Shaw after his "case" failed.
-- 
Jerry Kuch (t-gerldk@microsoft.com) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk