If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Dan O'meara]

Dan, you are my new favorite poster!Fine, but I do think my thread about "Is this a plausible conspiracy theory?" - which received little attention - is simpler. Some person or persons in Mexico City suggest to Oswald that the assassination of JFK will make him a hero to Castro and ensure his entry into Cuba. Perhaps they even suggest they will be waiting, either near Dallas or in Mexico, to ferry him to Cuba when the deed is done. Perhaps it's all BS or perhaps they are sincere. It's a conspiracy, albeit not a very sexy one. Oswald remains the lone gunman whom LNers know and love.

Good effort but in order to maintain the crown I'm going to have to call "foul".
Technically your scenario isn't actually a conspiracy.
It's more like coming up with a motive for Oswald's actions than it is a genuine conspiracy.
Oswald is still a Lone Nutter.
You had me on the ropes for a second there

To me, it's just inconceivable to explain the events of 11-22 in terms of Oswald as a patsy. Even in your scenario, I can't imagine how he would have been allowed to live. Shelley claims to have seen him doing the deed, wrestles the rifle from him as he attempts to escape, and nails him at the elevator - much cleaner, it seems to me.

I would have to argue that the first thing that cements Oswald's guilt in the eyes of everyone is him leaving the scene of the crime. He is confronted on the 2nd floor 90 seconds after the shooting, which is almost as good as an alibi as no one is going to believe that a fleeing assassin stopped off to get a Coke. If he held his nerve he could bluff his way to freedom but he runs and it is this that seals his fate.
Having him on the run is crucial to establishing his guilt.

As for Shelley, he would need a cast iron alibi, so he would have to be visible to everyone on the front steps at the time of the shots. Within seconds a motorcycle cop was on the scene scuppering any chance of dealing with Oswald if that's what he wanted to do but, according to Oswald, it seems it was Shelley who told him to run along. Something Shelley obviously denied.

[Martin Weidmann]

As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?

Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Police that carrying a revolver and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!

Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.

JohnM

As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?

The receipt from the evidence room shows that Officer Davenport submitted the revolver.
Hill testified that he kept the revolver on his person all the time, but he wasn't the one who submitted it.
And you have to ask what I am trying to say?

Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Police that carrying a revolver

According to the interrogation Oswald did indeed admit to carrying a revolver, which he said he bought in Fort Worth.

and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!

Really? What makes you think Oswald was sent a revolver?

Oops, I've done it again... ask John a question he will never be able or willing to answer.   

[Lance Payette]

So when the LNs claim that Oswald is guilty it's not an absolute claim?

Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."

Wow! You believe that evidence is credible and inferences are reasonable and that the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman is a logical and reasonable conclusion.

As we are dealing with the subject of belief, do you also believe that whatever you believe could possibly be wrong?

Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.

One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.

It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well. It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.

[John Mytton]

and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!

Really? What makes you think Oswald was sent a revolver?

Oops, I've done it again... ask John a question he will never be able or willing to answer.   

As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.



So let's recap;

Oswald ordered a revolver.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying his revolver.
Whenever Hill submitted the revolver has zero influence on the above.
BTW why plant a revolver which is extremely difficult to match with the expended bullets? wouldn't the idea of planting a weapon rely on being able to accurately match the weapon to the bullets? DOH!
When in fact the only person who would order an oversized barrel would be the person who intended to use it so he couldn't be linked with his crime, i.e. Oswald!

I'm starting to realize why Richard doesn't want to debate you, it's because you rarely if ever have a compelling thought out argument for any of your accusations and all you want to do is flap your gums and pretend that your suspicions actually go somewhere, when in fact all you do is spout hot air.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.



So let's recap;

Oswald ordered a revolver.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying his revolver.
Whenever Hill submitted the revolver has zero influence on the above.
BTW why plant a revolver which is extremely difficult to match with the expended bullets? wouldn't the idea of planting a weapon rely on being able to accurately match the weapon to the bullets? DOH!
When in fact the only person who would order an oversized barrel would be the person who intended to use it so he couldn't be linked with his crime, i.e. Oswald!

I'm starting to realize why Richard doesn't want to debate you, it's because you rarely if ever have a compelling thought out argument for any of your accusations and all you want to do is flap your gums and pretend that your suspicions actually go somewhere, when in fact all you do is spout hot air.

JohnM

As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.

So let's recap;

Oswald ordered a revolver.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying his revolver.
Whenever Hill submitted the revolver has zero influence on the above.
BTW why plant a revolver which is extremely difficult to match with the expended bullets? wouldn't the idea of planting a weapon rely on being able to accurately match the weapon to the bullets? DOH!
When in fact the only person who would order an oversized barrel would be the person who intended to use it so he couldn't be linked with his crime, i.e. Oswald!

Wow, what a perfect display of how to ignore details..... There's a lot to unpack here, but anybody who claims Hill submitted the revolver when in fact the DPD receipt from the evidence rooms proves he didn't is a complete waste of my time.

But I'll say this; yes, according to the reports Oswald did admit he carried a revolver, but he said he bought it in Fort Worth.

I'm starting to realize why Richard doesn't want to debate you, it's because you rarely if ever have a compelling thought out argument for any of your accusations and all you want to do is flap your gums and pretend that your suspicions actually go somewhere, when in fact all you do is spout hot air.

Well, you know all there is to know about spouting hot air. But if you don't want to debate me, then just don't. You would be doing me a favor as I can only handle so much dishonest BS at one time.

Btw, the real reason why "Richard" doesn't want to debate (and still tries to do it by responding to other posts) is that he understands that he isn't getting anywhere with his pathetic arguments and claims.

[Martin Weidmann]

Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."
Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.

One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.

It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well. It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.

Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."

I'm glad you disagree with the more extreme elements of the LN community, because for them Oswald's guilt is in fact a cult like absolute belief.

Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.

So, you agree that Oswald's guilt or innocence is nothing more than an opinion based on the best assessment (by that individual) of the evidence?

One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.

So do I, but I also understand that not every person has the same level of education and/or comprehension skill to justify their "justifed beliefs"

It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well.

If that's one of your "justified beliefs", then I have no other alternative but to conclude that your beliefs are in fact dead wrong.

It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.

It seems your beliefs are getting the better of you, because all I have tried to do so far is enter into a discussion with you, which you seem desperate to avoid. I think it's called paranoia.

You claim to be a former lawyer, but when I tried to pick your brain you instantly became highly defensive and refused to enter into any kind of debate. I can only wonder why.....

[John Mytton]

Wow, what a perfect display of how to ignore details..... There's a lot to unpack here, but anybody who claims Hill submitted the revolver when in fact the DPD receipt from the evidence rooms proves he didn't is a complete waste of my time.

From Martin Weidmann, which was added after I started my reply.
"Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!"

So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!

Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.

BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.

JohnM