Final Conclusion*

[John Iacoletti]

A reasonable person standard has never stood between any CTer and a good yarn.  In that regard, Patrick's theory is no less outlandish and baseless than many of the more commonly accepted JFK theories such as body alterations, Oswald doubles, random citizens lying to implicate Oswald, and all manner of evidence being faked or planted by persons unknown to name just a few.  I give Patrick some credit for at least having a theory no matter how bizarre.  Some of these CTers are just contrarian nitpickers of the evidence against Oswald leaving what they believed happened to our imagination but that is the laziest way to be a CTer (i.e. purport to have no theory but endlessly imply Oswald didn't do it).

I wonder how many different ways "Richard" can say "my story is correct by default unless you concoct a better story".

[John Iacoletti]

So it was just a coincidence that Oswald fit the description of Tippit's murderer, that Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down, that Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant and had bullets that matched the type used to kill Tippit, that Oswald pulled his gun out in the Texas Theatre and said "Well, it's all over now" and tried to shoot the arresting officer?

No, those aren't "coincidences", they are flat out false or unsubstantiated claims.

[Patrick Jackson]

It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.

I have based my theory on direct statements and known evidences. Statements like the one made by Clint Hill that when arrived at Parkland, JFK body was "cold and pinkish" but also of full range of statements inconsistencies. When you take everything into consideration, my conclusion is that it did not happen. For example, three shots, hundreds of people around and none dunked on the first two?

[Andrew Mason]

No, those aren't "coincidences", they are flat out false or unsubstantiated claims.

I am not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated.  There is evidence for each.  In order to reach a rational conclusion that they are "flat out false" you would need strong contrary evidence.  What is the evidence that is contrary to the evidence I have outlined?

[Andrew Mason]

No.  Something is either evidence of guilt or it is not.  A bunch of things that are not evidence at all (like a ring in a cup) do not magically combine into evidence of murder.  All they are is rhetorical padding for a weak case.

Lots of us had a laugh at Patrick's blood cannons the first time he broached the subject.  But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Oswald did it" cult.  It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.

The "Oswald did it" cult at least has evidence that Oswald did it.  Not only is there absolutely no evidence that JFK survived, there is abundant, overwhelming evidence that he did not.  Those who saw the head shot live knew immediately that it was a fatal wound. Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film can see the head rupture and conclude that it was a fatal shot.

[John Iacoletti]

I am not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated.  There is evidence for each.  In order to reach a rational conclusion that they are "flat out false" you would need strong contrary evidence.  What is the evidence that is contrary to the evidence I have outlined?

You didn't outline any evidence, you just made a series of claims.  For example, what is your evidence that Oswald pulled a gun out in the theater and attempted to shoot an arresting officer?  There is testimony specifically contradicting that claim.  McDonald said the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald's hand and they pulled it out together.  Walker said that several hands were on the gun and it was waist high at a 45 degree angle and pointed toward the screen when he heard a click.  Hutson said that the gun was waving around towards the back of the seat when he heard the snap.  So what evidence justifies you cavalierly parroting the myth that Oswald tried to shoot an officer?

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down".  First of all, the jacket was never proven to be Oswald's.  Secondly, it wasn't found in an alley, it was (allegedly) found in a parking lot, though the police couldn't figure out who actually found it.  Thirdly, nobody saw any "Tippit assailant" run into the parking lot.

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant".  What is your basis for knowing what gun "the assailant" carried?  Or what gun (if any) that Oswald "carried"?

[Andrew Mason]

You didn't outline any evidence, you just made a series of claims.  For example, what is your evidence that Oswald pulled a gun out in the theater and attempted to shoot an arresting officer?  There is testimony specifically contradicting that claim.  McDonald said the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald's hand and they pulled it out together.  Walker said that several hands were on the gun and it was waist high at a 45 degree angle and pointed toward the screen when he heard a click.  Hutson said that the gun was waving around towards the back of the seat when he heard the snap.  So what evidence justifies you cavalierly parroting the myth that Oswald tried to shoot an officer?

All the officers said that Oswald and McDonald were in a struggle and that Oswald's gun came out in the struggle.  Here is what McDonald said (3H300):

"And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, “Well, it is all over now.”
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.

Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir ; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. MCDONALD. His left fist.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. MCDONALD. Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction
was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL.. Right hand?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him
on the face, but I don’t know where. And with my band, that was on his hand
over the pistol.
Mr. BALL. Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which hand was-was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. MCDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?
Mr. MCDONALD. My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol-
Mr. MCDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL. From his waist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.

No one contradicted this evidence that Oswald punched McDonald, pulled his gun out and said "Well, it's all over now"? 

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down".  First of all, the jacket was never proven to be Oswald's.

There was evidence that Marina identified it (CE162) as Oswald's jacket (1H122):
"Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee’s-an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes."

What do you want? DNA evidence?

Secondly, it wasn't found in an alley, it was (allegedly) found in a parking lot, though the police couldn't figure out who actually found it. 

Capt. Westbrook testified that it was found under the rear bumper of a car that was parked in the parking lot but backing onto the alley:

Thirdly, nobody saw any "Tippit assailant" run into the parking lot.

Oswald ran down the alley.  He did not have to run into the parking lot to put it under the back of that car (location of the jacket marked on photo 38 above).

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant".  What is your basis for knowing what gun "the assailant" carried?  Or what gun (if any) that Oswald "carried"?

If I recall correctly, the assailant had a revolver that contained bullets and the shells found at the scene of the Tippit shooting were indistinguishable from the shells in Oswald's gun.  It was not possible to positively identify the bullets themselves because they were undersized for the barrel and did not have the characteristic lands and grooves used to make positive identifications.