What Booth Said After He Killed Lincoln

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination.  That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor.  The floor from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window.  Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes.  That leaves only two ways to avoid concluding that Oswald was not the shooter.  1) He has a credible alibi.  He does not.  2) He can explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene.  He did not.  Instead he lied and denied he owned any rifle.  Instead he fled the scene and killed a police officer.  It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence than exists to prove his guilt.  It is stone cold.  Oswald was the assassin.  There is zero credible evidence that he was working with anyone.  Oswald was a strange guy.  There are some loony things in his background because of that like defecting to the USSR.  That is not evidence that he was involved with anyone.  Rather it is evidence that he was a few bricks short of a load.

Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination.   

You really need to stop with this pathetically superficial BS.

Oswald is "linked" to a rifle by virtue of the opinion of an FBI handwriting expert and three photos, taken 8 months prior to the assassination, in which he is holding a rifle.

The rifle found at the TSBB is only "linked" to the assassination because it was discovered on the 6th floor. There is no evidence that rifle was even fired or that the shells found at the sniper's nest were fired by that rifle on that day.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "links" the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos and the rifle found at the TSBD.

That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor.

This is just about the most stupid comment I have seen you make for months and that say a lot. First of all, there is no evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was "his rifle" and secondly, even if Oswald did own a rifle in March 1963, it still doesn't mean that he must have still owned it in November 1963. But even more stupidly, it is completely idiotic to argue that ownership of a rifle used in a crime automatically makes the owner guilty of that crime.

Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes

In his oral history interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Lt Day stated that he wasn't greatly interested in any prints that could be on the boxes, because Oswald worked in the building and part of his job was to handle boxes on the 6th floor. According to Day the prints on the boxes had no real evidentiary value at all.

Instead he lied and denied he owned any rifle.

You have not a shred of evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald lied about anything. It is just your narrowminded opinion!

It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence than exists to prove his guilt.  It is stone cold.  Oswald was the assassin.

Only in your delusional mind. Assumptions and leaps of faith are not evidence! Take those away and you end up with a weak circumstantial case based on superficial evidence that would not be enough to convince an honest prosecutor to take the case to trial.

[Richard Smith]

Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination.   

You really need to stop with this pathetically superficial BS.

Oswald is "linked" to a rifle by virtue of the opinion of an FBI handwriting expert and three photos, taken 8 months prior to the assassination, in which he is holding a rifle.

The rifle found at the TSBB is only "linked" to the assassination because it was discovered on the 6th floor. There is no evidence that rifle was even fired or that the shells found at the sniper's nest were fired by that rifle on that day.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "links" the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos and the rifle found at the TSBD.

That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor.

This is just about the most stupid comment I have seen you make for months and that say a lot. First of all, there is no evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was "his rifle" and secondly, even if Oswald did own a rifle in March 1963, it still doesn't mean that he must have still owned it in November 1963. But even more stupidly, it is completely idiotic to argue that ownership of a rifle used in a crime automatically makes the owner guilty of that crime.

You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI.  What does that even mean?  LOL.  Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number.  That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual.  That individual has no alibi.  That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun.   That's a slam dunk of guilt.  But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times.  The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination.  There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination.  Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination.  No one can prove it was fired that day.  LOL.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means.  They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head.  Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress.  So there must be doubt according to you.

[Martin Weidmann]

You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI.  What does that even mean?  LOL.  Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number.  That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual.  That individual has no alibi.  That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun.   That's a slam dunk of guilt.  But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times.  The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination.  There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination.  Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination.  No one can prove it was fired that day.  LOL.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means.  They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head.  Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress.  So there must be doubt according to you.

You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI.  What does that even mean?  LOL.

Apparently you enjoy laughing at your own ignorance.

Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number.

So, you keep saying, but somehow you are never able to present that "mountain of evidence", which is of course understandable as it only exists in your mind.

That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired.

And here is your superficiality on full display. Even if it is the same rifle (something for which you have no credible evidence), this still does not mean that the rifle was fired that day or that the shells were fired on that day. There, again, is no evidence for that. It may well be that witnesses confirm that shots were fired from the 6th floor, but there were also witnesses who said the shots came from elsewhere, and even if those witnesses you rely on are right, that still does not provide evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was the one that was actually fired. All you are doing is making assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.

Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual.  That individual has no alibi.  That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun.   That's a slam dunk of guilt.

Bla bla bla.... more assumptions. There is no way to know if Oswald had an alibi or not. We don't know what he actually told Fritz and his ilk and their reports are contradictory. Besides, Oswald was killed within 48 hours after the assassination and never had an opportunity to get any kind of detailed explanation about anything. There is also no evidence that Oswald "fleed" the building and it was never conclusively proven that he killed Tippit. All you are doing is making up stuff that sounds bad for Oswald but is in reality nothing more than hot air. Just like your foolish claim that Oswald lied about owning a gun. That's the most idiotic claim of them all. You first have decided that Oswald did own a gun and that it was the one found at the TSBD and then, when he denies owning a rifle, you claim he lied, when in fact it may well be that he didn't. But your massive bias will never allow you to understand that!

But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times.

My "insane contrarian standard of proof" is nothing more than asking you to present the evidence for all the flawed, misleading and untrue claims you have made over the years. Since you don't have any evidence to present that backs up your foolish claims you can only resort to complain about my standard of proof. You sound like Donald Trump and his gang of idiots more and more every day.

The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination.  There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination.  Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination.  No one can prove it was fired that day.  LOL.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means.  They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head.  Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress.  So there must be doubt according to you.

Apples and oranges... A walk through strawman alley, if ever I saw one. This kind of idiotic argument only puts your desperation on full display.

[Joe Elliott]

Literally no one argues that Booth didn’t kill Lincoln. Refer to my previous post for an explanation of why that is.

In contrast, even people who believed Lee Oswald was guilty suspected that there was a conspiracy. Including Lyndon Johnson, who requested the Warren Commission. If people with inside knowledge of the event like President Johnson and Robert Kennedy Sr suspected a conspiracy, it’s perfectly reasonable for anyone else to suspect a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination.

It was argued that the fatal shot could not have been fired by Booth, or by whoever was standing behind Mr. Lincoln, but, based on the location of the entry wound, must have been fired from elsewhere in the theater.

In the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century, it was common to argue that Booth didn't kill Lincoln. That it was actually a U. S. government conspiracy, by Secretary of War Stanton, that resulted in Lincoln being killed. There are even "Two Booths" theories with the real Booth surviving for many years after 1865. Quite similar to the "Two Oswalds" theories. The same nonsense that worked in the 1800's also worked in the 1900's.

There are a lot of parallels between the Lincoln conspiracy theories and the JFK conspiracy theories.

[Jon Banks]

There are a lot of parallels between the Lincoln conspiracy theories and the JFK conspiracy theories.

No there aren’t.

You guys are grasping at straws with this one. 

[Richard Smith]

Free Booth!