From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of information not cited

I have removed the following statements as uncited:

In the wake of the 1963 John F. Kennedy assassination, Bolden contacted the Warren Commission, hoping to testify about an alleged assassination plot in Chicago two weeks before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. He traveled to Washington but before he could testify, Bolden was returned to Chicago.

I have no objection to restoring the information if it can be attributed to a reliable source, preferably with attribution if that facts are disputed. Location ( talk) 19:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

There is NOTHING on the entire page addressing Bolden's current position on his original charge that he was being framed. This is very important because if he still claims he was framed, it gives very good corroborating testimony that JFK was setup by the Secret Service for assassination, yet its absence makes it appear that the page is only here because it "needs to be" but that Wikipedia doesn't really want it to say anything that will contradict that government's and the media's position that "Oswald did it." Let me rephrase. The absence of a recent comment (last 12 years) by Bolden on his guilt or innocence makes this page look like it's only here to appear encyclopedic but not enough to say anything of which the shadow government or the lame stream media would disapprove. Instead of excellence, Wikipedia prefers begging for support and that's why many will never give it.
I'm certain that Bolden has made a comment in the last 12 years regarding his guilt or innocence, especially in light of his original claim and in addition to the fact that there is now so much known evidence that supports his original claim. Since it's been over 40 years since he's been out of prison AND since the man is 79 years old, those comments SHOULD be on this page! 76.6.65.174 ( talk) 07:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article states:
On May 20, [1964], Bolden held a news conference at his home on the South Side of Chicago and denied the charges [of bribery, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy]. In addition, he asserted that he had been framed by the government because he planned to tell the Warren Commission about misconduct on the part of agents assigned to protect Kennedy.
It later states:
In 2007, Bolden reiterated his allegations to Chuck Goudie of ABC News Chicago affiliate WLS-TV; ABC News ran the headline describing his claims as a "New Assassination Plot".
I think it's clear from what is in the article that Bolden's stated position was and still is that he was framed. - Location ( talk) 16:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply


Reading Mr. Bolden's book, I would have hoped for more of a response from Wikipedia than the mere acknowledgement that he claims to have been framed; he claims much more than that. Being framed implies there is sufficient evidence, but evidence was manufactured or the interpretation of the evidence is incorrect. He claims to have been denied a fair trial (even while being framed) by a federal court judge, and denied that fair trial in a manner which is breathtaking, in that he alleges the judge and the prosecution took risks one would have thought irrational in this country, even when trying a black man before an all white jury in the 1960's. He further claims to have been denied access to the transcripts of his case for decades after, and a consequent inability to obtain judicial relief. I fully understand Wikipedia's desire for objectivity, but in my mind this is going a step too far in the search for acceptability to federal authority. 2001:5B0:2918:FC70:71FB:EE61:EC71:3066 ( talk) 22:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) BTW, and further on the same point, when one witness in the case asserts that he committed perjury, and does so on the record, and indicates a second witness, a federal law enforcement person, secured that perjured testimony, and when the author (Mr. B) alleges in his book that the second witness when asked repeatedly if this is true always asserts his fifth amendment right, I think some mention of the facts is appropriate beyond merely that it is the criminal's position that he was framed. I find it incredible that any federal employee in such a case would not face a public investigation and discipline at the very least IF he acted on his own [that might be naive today, but forty years ago it would have been shocking]. If he didn't act on his own, I would hope that someone at Wikipedia would at least remark on the facts. Anyone reading this and having read the book would come away thinking that Wiki is another arm of the Warren Commission, and that their primary aim is to hide the ball. Of course, if the account in Mr. B's book is false, then it should be completely debunked. In a situation like this someone should be standing up. 2001:5B0:2918:FC70:71FB:EE61:EC71:3066 ( talk) 01:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't know what article you have been reading, but the article discusses much more than Bolden's claim that he was framed. The article does discuss Bolden's claim that he did not receive a fair trial and it discusses the appeals court evaluation of those claims. The article does discuss Joseph Spagnoli's claims of perjury and it discusses the appeals court action on those claims. The article also addresses Bolden's claim that there was a plot in Chicago to assassinate Kennedy. On this point, keep in mind that it was not the Warren Commission but rather the HSCA that found no credible evidence to support Bolden's assertions about the Chicago plot. The chairs of the HSCA came into the investigation with preconceived notions that there was a conspiracy and as a group they even concluded that there was a conspiracy. In other words, those most likely to be sympathetic to Bolden's story didn't buy it. - Location ( talk) 05:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
That's a spurious assessment of the HSCA's sympathies. The HSCA had two distinct incarnations. The first, under Richard A. Sprague would have been sympathetic to Bolden, its true, but they didn't write the report. Sprague and his investigators were removed in a politically-motivated putsch (no other way to describe it, it was DC) and his position given to G. Robert Blakey and a few of his lackeys. Blakey was wedded to either Oswald-did-it or if he couldn't sell that, the-mob-did-it. That was the iteration of the HSCA that wrote the report, positing tepidly that if there was a conspiracy, it was perpetrated by "the mob." So the HSCA report writers were not sympathetic to Bolden. Sorry to complicate your neat little world-view with some facts. Detmcphierson ( talk) 23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Still waiting for those "facts" that back-up Bolden's claims. - Location ( talk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abraham Bolden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abraham Bolden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply

2013 ABC 7 Chicago article on 2 Chicago assassination plots in early November 1963

JFK murder plots planned in Chicago before Dallas assassination. November 5, 2013 article. ABC 7 Chicago.

"The I-Team has discovered not just one, but two plots to cut down JFK in Chicago in early November, 1963."

Abraham Bolden info in the article. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Undue weight tag

I removed the undue weight tag that was placed without discussion of what material is thought to be unbalanced. - Location ( talk) 15:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Abraham_Bolden&oldid=1200238249"