The LHO Escape -- Panic and Shock

[John Mytton]

It's easy to concoct a story, ....

Wow, just wow!!!

I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!

Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?

Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts, buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver, faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies, having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?

And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow, just wow!!!

I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!

Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?

Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts, buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver, faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies, having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?

And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!

JohnM

I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!

Oh please, spare me the BS. It's a bunch of questionable claims that do not constitute a mountain of any sort nor do they interconnect. So, yes, I am serious.... the basis for any circumstantial case is a concocted story. This just isn't a very strong or persuasive story.

Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?

What is "illogical" about it? Could it be that you are utterly unable to understand how anybody can come to a different conclusion than you?

Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts, 

How said anything about "grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street"? And what makes you even think that some of Oswald's history was created? And what "assassination attempts" are you talking about.

buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver,

Getting somebody like Oswald to fill out a couple order forms is, in the right set of circumstances, not really difficult at all.

faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies,

Are you really completely incapable to understand that people who control an investigation also have the means to manipulate evidence?

having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?

And yet, we know for a fact that some of those officials did in fact lie.... Go figure!

And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!

I fully understand why you consider it difficult, because the more difficult it becomes the less likely it actually happened.

But with all your grandstanding, there is one thing missing and that's conclusive evidence...... which of course is why you invest so heavily in the concocted circumstantial case. After all, it's easier to make up something to allegedly connect dots that do not exist than it is to actually prove a case.

But, I'm truly sorry, John, that what I have written has gone way over your head.

[John Mytton]

I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!

Oh please, spare me the BS. It's a bunch of questionable claims that do not constitute a mountain of any sort nor do they interconnect. So, yes, I am serious.... the basis for any circumstantial case is a concocted story. This just isn't a very strong or persuasive story.

Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?

What is "illogical" about it? Could it be that you are utterly unable to understand how anybody can come to a different conclusion than you?

Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts, 

How said anything about "grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street"? And what makes you even think that some of Oswald's history was created? And what "assassination attempts" are you talking about.

buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver,

Getting somebody like Oswald to fill out a couple order forms is, in the right set of circumstances, not really difficult at all.

faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies,

Are you really completely incapable to understand that people who control an investigation also have the means to manipulate evidence?

having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?

And yet, we know for a fact that some of those officials did in fact lie.... Go figure!

And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!

I fully understand why you consider it difficult, because the more difficult it becomes the less likely it actually happened.

But with all your grandstanding, there is one thing missing and that's conclusive evidence...... which of course is why you invest so heavily in the concocted circumstantial case. After all, it's easier to make up something to allegedly connect dots that do not exist than it is to actually prove a case.

But, I'm truly sorry, John, that what I have written has gone way over your head.

You're clearly having difficulties comprehending the enormity of the deception that you propose and the fact that you consider that a literal cast of more than you can possibly imagine of unassociated innocent eyewitnesses and officialdom on every conceivable level and from many and varied conflicting departments and agencies, can seamlessly contribute to the guilt of an "innocent" man shows your lack of real World experience which incidentally endearingly contributes to your charming childlike naivety.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

You're clearly having difficulties comprehending the enormity of the deception that you propose and the fact that you consider that a literal cast of more than you can possibly imagine of unassociated innocent eyewitnesses and officialdom on every conceivable level and from many and varied conflicting departments and agencies, can seamlessly contribute to the guilt of an "innocent" man shows your lack of real World experience which incidentally endearingly contributes to your charming childlike naivety.

JohnM

Utter BS and exactly what can be expected from you.

The whole thing is idiotic hyperbole. Just because you can't understand that there doesn't have to be an "enormity of deception", Oswald must have done it alone. There just one problem; you don't have and can't present conclusive proof of that foolish leap of faith.

[Fergus O'Brien]

I said that he left most of his money with Marina.  Not all.  And, of course, Oswald followed the Russian tradition of wearing his wedding ring on his right hand.  Assuming that you are even correct that most of his co-workers didn't know he was married, that is probably because he hardly spoke to anyone and wore his ring on the opposite hand.  Not because he didn't wear his wedding ring on a regular basis.  Instead his own wife confirmed it was the only time he had done so.  She was in the best position to know.

well we are trying to ascertain as best as is humanly possible (and its not always possible i know ) what the true facts of this case are . so what one feels oswald PROBABLY did is not the same as showing he actually did that . a little speculation has its place of course .

no you did not say OSWALD LEFT ALL HIS MONEY FOR MARINA , and i dont believe i said you did , from memory i was talking in general about how lone nut advocates talk about this money that was found at the paines . but the fact i she neither left all or most of his money for marina that morning . the money found was found in an old wallet in which oswald placed much of any monies he had at any time inside it  .from a time dating back atleast even before he and marina ever lived at the paines . it not only contained cash but an unemployment cheque . so we can with all due respect dispense with any notion that oswald left asome or all of his money for marina THAT morning because he believed he would never return .

marina was in a position certainly to speak about oswalds habits at home , but not at work as she was never at work with him .but she did say in testimony that she recalled that he did not like to wear his ring at times , while at work now not at home .

Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him.
I don't know now. He would take it off at work.

but the ring is proof of nothing in terms of the jfk assassination . one can speculate for sure , but that is all . and yes you raise a good point that people may not have realized he was married because he didnt wear his ring on his left hand . that is a valid point . but what is equally as valid is that he at times didnt like wearing his ring at work as it snagged on things , something i understand from personal experience work wise .

[Fergus O'Brien]

From "Marina and Lee". On the morning of the assassination after dressing "Lee kissed the children, who were sleeping. But he did not kiss Marina, as he always did before he left in the morning. He got as far as the bedroom door, then came back, and said "I've left some money on the bureau. Take it and buy everything you and Junie and Rachel need. Bye-bye." Then Lee went out the door.

"Good God", thought Marina, "What has happened to my husband that he has all of a sudden got so kind?"

When she awakened later and "Looked into the bureau, she found the extraordinary sum of $170. It must have been nearly everything Lee had."

He didn't leave the money in his wallet as he normally kept it. He took it out, placed it on the bureau and specifically told her to spend it all on her and the girls. All of it. No worries about tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow......

FROM MARINA OSWALD (not from an author whos connections with cia are questionable )

Mr. RANKIN. Did you usually keep a wallet with money in it at the Paines?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was in the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. One detail that I remember was that he had asked me whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and 1 said no, that I hadn't had any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for June and for the children. This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
I know that the money that was found there, that you think this was not Lee's money. But I know for sure that this was money that he had earned. He had some money left after his trip to Mexico. Then we received an unemployment compensation check for $33. And then Lee paid only $7 or $8 for his room. And I know how he eats, very little.

[Fergus O'Brien]

Yes, nothing to see there.  Oswald takes a singular trip to the Paine home on a Thursday - the night before the assassination - where he just happened to store his rifle.  He leaves his wedding ring for the first time with his wife the next day.  He also leaves a large amount of money.  He carries a long package which he tells Frazier contains curtain rods.  No such curtain rods are ever found at any location he visited that day.  He later denies carrying anything other than his lunch sack.  He flees from the crime scene moments after the assassination - also his place of employment - in the middle of the day to obtain a gun.  This flight from the crime is somehow twisted to mean that Oswald is innocent because if he were guilty, he would have sat down and allowed himself to be arrested.

we have already established that HE DID NOT LEAVE THE MONEY THERE . it was always there in that wallet dating back to even before marina ever lived at the paines .

Mr. RANKIN. Did you usually keep a wallet with money in it at the Paines?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was in the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. One detail that I remember was that he had asked me whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and 1 said no, that I hadn't had any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for June and for the children. This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
I know that the money that was found there, that you think this was not Lee's money. But I know for sure that this was money that he had earned. He had some money left after his trip to Mexico. Then we received an unemployment compensation check for $33. And then Lee paid only $7 or $8 for his room. And I know how he eats, very little.

the ring proves nothing relating to the assassination of jfk . marina gave him no encouragement in terms of reconciliation , she refused to talk to him . why he took his ring off can only be speculated upon in the sense that we cant ask mr oswald . was it frustration ? was it he thought his marriage was over ? was it just spur of the moment ? who can say .marina can of course give her opinion on this but only mr oswald knew for sure , and he cant tell us .

the rifle even when broken down was some 35 or 36 inches long , frazier described the manner in which oswald carried the sack and even the sort of paper it was made from . like a regular paper sack one gets in a store . he described the manner in which he said oswald carried that sack , and unless one has very long arms oswald did not carry a broken down 36 inch rifle .

no mention is given to why oswald might tell frazier he was going to the paines to pick up curtain rods , as opposed to telling wes his marriage was in the crapper . oswald even by your admission kept to himself , he was quiet and volunteered little information to people , even wes said really the only thing he could lee to talk about was his kids . so i see no reason that oswald would have told wes his marriage might be over and that he was going to try and talk to marina and try to save his marriage . and he didnt volunteer that information did he ? .

i dont know if oswald was innocent or guilty , i dont know if he played no part , a small part or was guilty as charged .but i do know i want truth and facts to guide me not speculation , agenda or bias or anything like that .