Last Second in Dallas

[Jon Banks]

Most of the relevant evidence was known within 48 hours.  It all pointed to Oswald just as it does nearly six decades later.  Any reasonable person would conclude from the evidence that Oswald was assassin.  What they didn't want to happen is to be hijacked into WWIII by those who saw a Russians or Cuban conspiracy behind the assassination when there was no credible evidence of such.

By your logic, Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were unreasonable for suspecting that others were involved.

They didn’t even identify Oswald’s palm print on the rifle within 48 hours (I know the Dallas palm print story but the FBI wasn’t aware of it til days later).

Give me a break.

[Jon Banks]

In other words; they ruled out a conspiracy from day two after not having investigated any possible conspiracy and thus not finding any evidence of such....

So, you agree that Oswald was determined, in less than two days, to be a lone gun man based on no evidence whatsoever.   

CSI investigations on TV can be solved in an hour. You mean to tell me it doesn’t happen like that in real life? 

[Rick Plant]

CSI investigations on TV can be solved in an hour. You mean to tell me it doesn’t happen like that in real life? 

   

People are way to quick to dismiss evidence when it doesn't fit with their narrative.

[Richard Smith]

In other words; they ruled out a conspiracy from day two after not having investigated any possible conspiracy and thus not finding any evidence of such....

So, you agree that Oswald was determined, in less than two days, to be a lone gun man based on no evidence whatsoever.   

All the evidence pointed to Oswald.  Then and now.  He worked in the building from which the shots were fired.  His rifle was found there.  Bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired.  He had no credible alibi for the moment at which the shots were fired.  He could not explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene but instead lied about his ownership of it.  He fled the scene within minutes and murdered a DPD officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses.  He resisted arrest and assaulted another police officer.  He was a known political nut.  But it was a "rush to judgement"?  HA HA HA.  Comedy gold.   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

All the evidence pointed to Oswald.  Then and now.  He worked in the building from which the shots were fired.  His rifle was found there.  Bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired.  He had no credible alibi for the moment at which the shots were fired.  He could not explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene but instead lied about his ownership of it.  He fled the scene within minutes and murdered a DPD officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses.  He resisted arrest and assaulted another police officer.  He was a known political nut.  But it was a "rush to judgement"?  HA HA HA.  Comedy gold.

It seems the claim is that because at that early stage they hadn't fully looked into a possible conspiracy - and it's true, they hadn't; the FBI among others was still investigating matters, e.g., Mexico City - then Oswald shouldn't have been charged with the murder of JFK?

But that's silly (surprise): Even after charging Oswald that Saturday night they continued to investigate the crime. This was the murder of the president not the murder of a 7/11 clerk. Again, as we know the FBI, the CIA, the SS were continuing to investigate matters, to determine if he had help. Indicting him didn't end the entire investigation. They simply had sufficient evidence by Saturday night to charge him with the murder of JFK. What did they need to wait for? Whether someone else helped him? Or what exactly?

Even if they found later a conspiracy they could charge his accomplices and Oswald as well with conspiracy and other crimes.

[Jon Banks]

All the evidence pointed to Oswald.  Then and now.  He worked in the building from which the shots were fired.  His rifle was found there.  Bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired.  He had no credible alibi for the moment at which the shots were fired.  He could not explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene but instead lied about his ownership of it.  He fled the scene within minutes and murdered a DPD officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses.  He resisted arrest and assaulted another police officer.  He was a known political nut.  But it was a "rush to judgement"?  HA HA HA.  Comedy gold.

A conspiracy and Oswald’s guilt aren’t mutually exclusive.

President Johnson believed Oswald was guilty but others were involved. Robert Kennedy expressed similar sentiments in private.

The highest levels of government in 1963 didn’t rule out a conspiracy within 48 hours.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

They simply had sufficient evidence by Saturday night to charge him with the murder of JFK.

Evidence you want to share with us?

Sorry, I think that's a "bad faith" question. You're a smart guy even if I disagree with you on this. You know the evidence they had.

You simply think the evidence was planted or faked or manufactured. Fine. You dismiss it. But it existed and they believed in its authenticity.

As to the question again: I do think a fair point can be made that they should have had access to the autopsy report, to the Zapruder film (which I don't think they saw) and other evidence before charging him. They could have charged him with the Tippit shooting (yes, I know you don't think he shot Tippit either) and then waited to indict him for the assassination.

That's my answer and I'm sticking with it <g>. Although I do ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.