If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[John Iacoletti]

Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!

McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.

That's a brilliant regurgitation of the unverifiable story.

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't say that.

True. You said nothing of significance at all. Instead of actually providing any evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill (who carried the revolver) were together all the time and/or that Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" until it was marked by several officers, you, rather childishly complained that I didn't believe you anyway. Since you didn't offer any evidence, what do you expect me to do? Just believe something because you said it? Really?

The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.

BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?

No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.

What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!

Care to try again?

MT: I didn't say that.

MW: True. You said nothing of significance at all.

Neither did you. Just your usual attempt to declare yourself the victor.

MW: The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.

Once again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. I said that Carroll was the "first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol", and so is the person where the chain of custody started. I didn't say he was the the only one. I also said that he was present until the pistol was turned over to the Homicide guys. You've confused these two things.


No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.

If McDonald was actually standing rather than sitting down while he was in the room, then Carroll's statement is true. It's also quite possible to be aware of someone's presence nearby while not paying attention to what they're actually doing. Such as, you're busy writing a report with someone else while some other person is standing (or sitting, or kneeling, or laying, or playing tiddly-winks, or what-have-you) behind you and your co-author. That would also lead to a Carroll's statement being true. He's not so stupid to lie about it, then contradict himself in the next sentence.


What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!

What photograph is this? You keep talking about it, but seem quite shy to show it.  And, in any case, the photos taken inside the police HQ hallways have a field of view of only a few feet due to the close quarters. Carroll could be less than five feet away from Hill and still be out of frame.

[Mitch Todd]

Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver.  You claimed that Carroll was in the presence of the Hill the entire time and when challenged for evidence for YOUR claim, you shifted it to demand proof that Hill ran off with the revolver.

JI: Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver. 

It is exactly what he's arguing, whether he realizes it or not;  that Hill had the pistol and just disappeared with it for some amount of time. Otherwise, Martin's argument makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the hyperbole confused you.

[Zeon Mason]

So is this Both a pre planned AND a post event coverup conspiracy?
I’m still stuck on resolving how (and why) that MC rifle was placed  in between the boxes on the 6th floor TSBD if Oswald was not the shooter.
It had be either pre planted or post planted by a conspirator shooter if not by Oswald.
My only explanation so far is that the conspirator shooter must have either gone to great lengths to order the MC  rifle, to set up Oswald ,or he found out that Oswald was a kooky guy who took a picture of himself with the rifle, and somehow he stole the rifle from Oswald.

That issue of CE399 chain of custody vs O.P. Wright having found a pointed bullet forces the CT option that the conspirator shooter used a different rifle. (presuming there is just one shooter of course)

So if the conspirator is using a different rifle, why does  the conspirator expend extra time and energy to steal Oswald’s rifle just to plant it, knowing that will  only temporarily cast suspicion on Oswald for a few hours after the event?

If a post event coverup going on, would the investigators go so far as to substitute  one revolver for another, or take prints from Oswalds hand at the morgue to transfer to the barrel of the MC? Or construct a bag and force Oswalds hand to touch  the middle of the bag to put a print on that bag?

[Ted Shields]

Quite simple really.

One "lone wolf" whos willing to give his life. Take two steps across Main St and shoot JFK in the head at point blank range.

Then get killed by the cops or the Secret Service. Done.

No need for hundreds of people involved, fake coffins, homeless people, two brains, tapping up marines from the mid 50s sending them to Russia, multiple shooters etc.

[John Iacoletti]

JI: Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver. 

It is exactly what he's arguing, whether he realizes it or not;  that Hill had the pistol and just disappeared with it for some amount of time. Otherwise, Martin's argument makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the hyperbole confused you.

I’m not confused. I see exactly what you’re doing. You made a claim you have absolutely no evidence for, so you’re trying to turn it around and shift the burden.

This “unambiguous custody” thing is a contrivance too. Where did you pull that out of? And if the chain of custody began with Carroll (who didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from) then why did McDonald initial the gun later?

[Tom Graves]

I’m not confused. I see exactly what you’re doing. You made a claim you have absolutely no evidence for, so you’re trying to turn it around and shift the burden.

This “unambiguous custody” thing is a contrivance too. Where did you pull that out of? And if the chain of custody began with Carroll (who didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from) then why did McDonald initial the gun later?

Iacoletti,

How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?