Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks Steve!

All six letters he wrote to the FPCC can be read here. I don't see any reference to Hidell although letters two and four are difficult to read.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_1.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_2.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_4.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_5.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_6.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_7.pdf

[Charles Collins]

All six letters he wrote to the FPCC can be read here. I don't see any reference to Hidell although letters two and four are difficult to read.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_1.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_2.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_4.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_5.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_6.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_7.pdf

Thanks again Steve. These links are better copies and easier on my tired old eyes. I went back to Hosty’s book “Assignment Oswald” and have found the proper context for the previous quote from that book. Here is another snip that indicates that Hosty and DeBrueys were looking through evidence collected by the Dallas Police. And that this was just a few days after the assassination. So it appears to me that this letter was in LHO’s personal papers. Perhaps it was never sent to the FPCC or was lost or misplaced? Anyway, it sure seems to me that if the authorities had this letter, it should have been presented to the WC as evidence. Here is the snip (from page 100):

An officer showed DeBrueys and me to Lieutenant Potts’s office, which was next to Captain Fritz’s. Stacked in Potts’s office was all the evidence. Two of our FBI agents, Ural Horton and Ron Brinkley, were already there reviewing it, and it looked as if they had been there for some time. When we told them we had been assigned to relieve them, Horton and Brinkley gave sighs of relief. They were criminal agents, with no expertise in counter-intelligence work, and were having a hell of a time making heads or tails of any of the evidence. They quickly grabbed their suit coats, bid us adios and good luck, and left. DeBrueys and I surveyed the room. The evidence seemed to consist mostly of the personal papers of Lee and Marina Oswald. Nothing was organized; in fact, things were a mess. DeBrueys and I looked at each other, not knowing whether to laugh or cry. We decided it was best to divide the room in half and begin what was clearly going to be a tedious job.

[John Iacoletti]

It is amazing that our resident contrarians will go round and round down the rabbit hole on every subject.  Here the objective of any conspirators to frame Oswald is to link him to the rifle as definitively as possible.  Why use an alias in that scenario to obscure the purchase?  The planners are not attempting to hide Oswald's purchase of the weapons, but to the contrary link him to the weapon.  No need for any alias in that context.  In contrast, if Oswald intends to use the rifle to commit a crime, then he has every incentive to put as much distance between himself and the purchase of that weapon as he can.  So he has every incentive to obscure the trail as much as possible.  The use of an alias in that context is understandable.  This is not rocket science unless someone is playing defense attorney in which it matters less what the truth is than to create doubt by any means.

This line of logic that the use of an alias is consistent with Oswald's desire to distance himself from the rifle and inconsistent with a desire to link him to the rifle doesn't prove Oswald purchased the rifle (the evidence does that) but it lends support to the LNer narrative and undercuts the conspiracy narrative.  Contrarians just ignore this.  This is all just assumptions in a contrarian world in which no fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven.  Most amusing in their Alice-in-Wonderland approach is that they refuse to even entertain the actual implications of their own counternarrative having any validity.  Much less address it.  The game begins and ends by attempting to create any false doubt of Oswald's guilt.  The absurdity of the counternarrative that must result as a direct consequence to explain events if the evidence against Oswald has been fabricated is never a consideration in reaching any conclusion about underlying events.  For example, if there is debate that Scenario A has occurred by claiming instead that Scenario B occurred, and we know that this alternative scenario that event C and D must have happened as consequence of B having validity, then we can look to whether C and D actually happened or make any sense given the avowed purpose to access the validity of alternative B.  Contrarians never reach this step.  They focus solely on Scenario A.

What a really long-winded way of saying “my claims are automatically correct unless you can prove a different thing happened”.

[John Mytton]

Prove to anybody

Well John, 12 anybody's(Dallas Citizens) had a chance to review the evidence in the closest thing to a real trial that Oswald ever had, with actual real eyewitnesses, forensic experts, medical experts, a real Texas Judge and etc. Oswald was defended by one of the finest trial attorney's in America's history Gerry Spence, who gave an excellent defence but the evidence against Oswald was just too overwhelming and those 12 civilians convicted Oswald!
Sorry about that Bro, but the evidence was in fact proved to 12 anybody's and thus you Lose. Next!



Part 1

25 links to videos of the Oswald TV Docu-Trial Trial.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIOubam491Q_OKBOBzfH7RDi

And many thanks to David Von Pein who posted these excellent videos.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Well John, 12 anybodies(Dallas Citizens) had a chance to review the evidence in the closest thing to a real trial that Oswald ever had, with actual real eyewitnesses, forensic experts, medical experts, a real Texas Judge and etc. Oswald was defended by one of the finest trial attorney's in America's history Gerry Spence, who gave an excellent defence but the evidence against Oswald was just too overwhelming and those 12 civilians convicted Oswald! Sorry about that Bro, but you Lose. Next!



Part 1

25 links to videos of the Oswald TV Docu-Trial Trial.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIOubam491Q_OKBOBzfH7RDi

And many thanks to David Von Pein who posted these excellent videos.

JohnM

Sorry about that Bro, but you Lose.

So, you can't prove your own claims and thus simply rely on a mock-trial which may have looked like the real thing but in so many ways wasn't and doesn't prove your claims at all. Got it.

[John Mytton]

Sorry about that Bro, but you Lose.

So, you can't prove your own claims and thus simply rely on a mock-trial which may have looked like the real thing but in so many ways wasn't and doesn't prove your claims at all. Got it.

Listen closely Martin, the most important evidence that I present here was presented to a Jury of our peers and they convicted Oswald, and the "claim" that it wasn't Oswald was soundly rejected.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Well John, 12 anybody's(Dallas Citizens) had a chance to review the evidence in the closest thing to a real trial that Oswald ever had,

LOL, TV show ego trial for Bugliosi.

And speaking of moving the goalposts. I don’t recall Vince’s show trial discussing the Hidell alias at all, or what it is supposed to prove.

But again, nice try.