If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Lance Payette]

   Stop with the ballyhooing. In sports, thy have an expression. It's, "Act like you belong". Put your "Beaver Skin" away, (Cub Scouts), and let your work speak for itself.

Martin repeatedly used the phrase "claim to be a lawyer" in reference to me. That phrase suggests, and was clearly intended to suggest, "not really a lawyer." As lawyers are wont to do, I shoved Martin's innuendo up his ass. Case closed.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin repeatedly used the phrase "claim to be a lawyer" in reference to me. That phrase suggests, and was clearly intended to suggest, "not really a lawyer." As lawyers are wont to do, I shoved Martin's innuendo up his ass. Case closed.

So paranoid.... I don't care what you think the phrase suggested. All I saw you do on this forum was claiming to be a lawyer, so when I used the phrase "claim to be a lawyer" it did not imply or suggest anything more than that.

As lawyers are wont to do, I shoved Martin's innuendo up his ass.

Oh boy..... oh well, there are lawyers and then there are lawyers.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Thanks for the lecture, but I am pretty well-informed about the case. There are indeed aspects I find problematical and even troubling, but I'm satisfied I'm as well-informed about the case as a human can reasonably be and, as you suggest, I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it except in the broadest epistemological terms. Epistemology is the last place most CTers want to go. Most of them don't even seem to CARE whether what they say makes any logical sense, which suggests to me they aren't dealing with "cognitive faculties operating as they were intended to operate" (as famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga insists is necessary for beliefs to be epistemologically justified).

Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.

Your "perfectly plausible and simple" theory does involve direct involvement by LBJ, with LBJ conceiving the plot and instigating and organizing the Dallas trip ... David Harold Byrd agreeing to make it happen in return for a massive LTV contract ... Jack Cason of the TSBD being brought into the plot ... Cason knowing of Bill Shelley's (highly dubious and unlikely) CIA connections and bringing him into the loop to make it happen ... and Shelley finding a sniper and somehow doing the patsy thing with Oswald.

Hello? Perhaps not so simple? LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think? There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me. On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world terms - i.e, all the issues raised by my goofy original post. What the hell happened - did Shelley completely drop the ball? Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway? Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation? By the time this was put through a thought exercise like my original post, I think you'd find it would have had to involve far more than five people and would scarcely look "simple and perfectly plausible." Idiotic, perhaps?

Any plausible conspiracy theory is going to have Oswald as at least one of the gunmen, simple as that. You can have him duped into thinking he's conspiring with fellow pro-Castroites when in fact they are anti-Castroites, but the patsy-framed-duped thing just goes nowhere IMO.

I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it

Well, I guess in some galaxy it must make complete sense to join a public forum to not debate the subject matter of that forum. 

Hilarious!

[Mitch Todd]

For what it's worth....

In their Supplemental Offence Report,  Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers  to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau" 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/

Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill

From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.
 

[Martin Weidmann]

For what it's worth....

In their Supplemental Offence Report,  Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers  to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau" 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/

Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill

From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.

In their Supplemental Offence Report,  Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers  to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau" 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/

This seems to be correct as it matches the receipt issued by the evidence room, which does in fact name Capt. Doughty as one of the officers that received the items.

Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill

From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.

This does indeed clear up the discrepancy, even though it doesn't match what Hill said in his WC testimony.

Thanks Mitch 

This is a perfect example of how a discussion between men who don't always agree should be. 

[John Mytton]

For what it's worth....

In their Supplemental Offence Report,  Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers  to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau" 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/

Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill

From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.

Thanks Mitch,

This is how an argument should be presented with actual links to the primary evidence instead of the usual "trust me I'm a pretend defence attorney", it's like trusting someone to state the actual times but on closer inspection after my own research I quickly realized that one of the disputed times came from a months later recollection which quite specifically specified "approximately", so again thanks Mitch for doing the required research which seems to be a bit too much for members who at the merest face value want to cry foul for the slimmest of dishonest reasons.

This whole episode reminds me of Earlene Roberts who says that Oswald came in to the rooming house at around 1PM and stayed for "not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.", which somehow equates to meaning that Oswald left at precisely 1:04PM. And some members even try to dispute the whole getting and zipping up the jacket because Roberts was blind in one eye, but in the real World she could see well enough to do her job and watch television, I just guess some members are truly pathetic!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Thanks Mitch,

This is how an argument should be presented with actual links to the primary evidence instead of the usual "trust me I'm a pretend defence attorney", it's like trusting someone to state the actual times but on closer inspection after my own research I quickly realized that one of the disputed times came from a months later recollection which quite specifically specified "approximately", so again thanks Mitch for doing the required research which seems to be a bit too much for members who at the merest face value want to cry foul for the slimmest of dishonest reasons.

This whole episode reminds me of Earlene Roberts who says that Oswald came in to the rooming house at around 1PM and stayed for "not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.", which somehow equates to meaning that Oswald left at precisely 1:04PM. And some members even try to dispute the whole getting and zipping up the jacket because Roberts was blind in one eye, but in the real World she could see well enough to do her job and watch television, I just guess some members are truly pathetic!

JohnM

This is how an argument should be presented with actual links to the primary evidence

Learn from it, because the last person on this forum to ever do something like this is you!

Mitch (with whom I seldom agree) provided an answer and I instantly accepted it, as it cleared up the obvious discrepancy.

And that, dear John, colors you as the pathetic clown you really are!