A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[John Mytton]

But Charles, the outline that Rankin presented in a January 11, 1964 memo had a section titled "Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy".  This was before they took a single bit of testimony.

Take off your rose coloured CT glasses for just a sec and look at a fraction of the basic facts that were accumulated by that time.

Oswald owned the rifle that killed the President. In most cases this is a slam dunk. But there is so much more.
Oswald carried a long package to work, a long package with his prints and a long package Oswald lied about.
Oswald's close description was given by Brennan and was all over the Police radio within 15 minutes of the assassination.
Oswald in his frenzied flight killed a Police Officer and tried to kill more Police Officer's when arrested.
Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

In the World we live in that is Solid Evidence of Guilt but since your World is somehow different you try to introduce doubt and in the process of this fantasy diversion you throw multiple good decent people under the bus and create a conspiracy of biblical proportions, yet here we are 60+ years later not one CT has produced a shred of evidence to overturn any of these facts. Why is that, John?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Take off your rose coloured CT glasses for just a sec and look at a fraction of the basic facts that were accumulated by that time.

Oswald owned the rifle that killed the President. In most cases this is a slam dunk. But there is so much more.
Oswald carried a long package to work, a long package with his prints and a long package Oswald lied about.
Oswald's close description was given by Brennan and was all over the Police radio within 15 minutes of the assassination.
Oswald in his frenzied flight killed a Police Officer and tried to kill more Police Officer's when arrested.
Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

In the World we live in that is Solid Evidence of Guilt but since your World is somehow different you try to introduce doubt and in the process of this fantasy diversion you throw multiple good decent people under the bus and create a conspiracy of biblical proportions, yet here we are 60+ years later not one CT has produced a shred of evidence to overturn any of these facts. Why is that, John?

JohnM

Oswald owned the rifle that killed the President.

Not true. It was never proven that the rifle found at the TSBD was owned by Oswald. It was no more than an assumption based upon questionable and contradictory "evidence"

Oswald carried a long package to work, a long package with his prints and a long package Oswald lied about.

You mean a package that fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and was not big enough to conceal a broken down rifle.
It has never been proven that the package found at the TSBD was the one that Oswald carried. That's just one more assumption which ignores crucial evidence provided by Buell Wesley Frazier.
And there is no verbatim record of what Oswald said, which means you can't argue that he lied about anything. All you think you know is what his interrogators wrote in partially contradictionary reports

Oswald's close description was given by Brennan and was all over the Police radio within 15 minutes of the assassination.

If Brennan's description was "close" than why did he fail to identify Oswald at the line up?
There is no evidence that Brennan's description was ever broadcast by the Police radio.

Oswald in his frenzied flight killed a Police Officer and tried to kill more Police Officer's when arrested.

Assumptions aren't facts.

Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

And yet more assumptions. Due to the incompetence of the interrogators, you haven't got a clue what Oswald really said.
You have been told a story which you prefer to believe.

In the World we live in that is Solid Evidence of Guilt

Calling the above points "Solid evidence of guilt" only demonstrates your bias and naivete.

yet here we are 60+ years later not one CT has produced a shred of evidence to overturn any of these facts. Why is that, John?

Calling your opinions "facts" doesn't make them so. There is no reason to produce evidence to overturn your opinions, when you can only make a case by misrepresenting the actual evidence.

[John Mytton]

Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

And yet more assumptions. Due to the incompetence of the interrogators, you haven't got a clue what Oswald really said.
You have been told a story which you prefer to believe.

Not this crap again! If the interrogators were dishonest and got together later they could have well and truly shafted Oswald but instead just recalled the facts as given.

For instance, they could have said;

Oswald said he owned the rifle.
Oswald said he took the long brown package to work.
Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time.
Oswald said at the last interrogation on Sunday morning that he actually shot the President.
Oswald said at the last Sunday interrogation that he killed Tippit.
Oswald said he was actually in the backyard photos.
And when Ruby shot Oswald and Oswald was dying, they could have said he confessed, but they didn't.

It's clear that with so many different agencies in the interrogations that they all were compelled to the best of their abilities, to tell the truth.

BTW if you don't trust the interrogations, then why do you always bring up Oswald's "confession" that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth? Doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Not this crap again! If the interrogators were dishonest and got together later they could have well and truly shafted Oswald but instead just recalled the facts as given.

For instance, they could have said;

Oswald said he owned the rifle.
Oswald said he took the long brown package to work.
Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time.
Oswald said at the last interrogation on Sunday morning that he actually shot the President.
Oswald said at the last Sunday interrogation that he killed Tippit.
Oswald said he was actually in the backyard photos.
And when Ruby shot Oswald and Oswald was dying, they could have said he confessed, but they didn't.

It's clear that with so many different agencies in the interrogations that they all were compelled to the best of their abilities, to tell the truth.

BTW if you don't trust the interrogations, then why do you always bring up Oswald's "confession" that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth? Doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

JohnM

If the interrogators were dishonest

Who said that the interrogators were dishonest?

It's not about trusting the interrogators, it about questioning the way the interrogations were conducted and (not properly) documented.
It's the assassination of the President of the United States and the DPD can't find a recording device anywhere? Really?
Even worse, they did not even make contemporary notes and relied on memory when writing their reports after Oswald was killed.

Doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

I'm doing exactly what you are constantly doing with one exception;

I take something Oswald is supposed to have said and try to verify one way or the other.

I'm doing so with Oswald seeing Jarman and Norman walking towards the elevators to go to the 5th floor.

First of all, the reports are contradictory, but agree on one point; the reports place Jarman and Norman at the lunchroom location where Oswald said he saw them.
And Jarman and Norman do basically confirm that they were indeed at the location a few minutes before the shots were fired.
Combined, this justifies the conclusion that the interrogators' reports, although wrong on some of the details, can be believed on the point of Oswald telling them about being in the first floor lunchroom.

As for the revolver, iirc several reports mention Oswald telling them that he bought his revolver in Fort Worth. This would be a crucial detail in any honest investigation, yet it was never investigated by anybody, which is a stark contrast to the massive investigation conducted to track down the origine of a label in Oswald's grey jacket. The mere fact that no follow up investigation was conducted could very well be construed as a manipulation of the investigatory record. That, in turn, actually makes the interrogators' report relevant on this point.

Unlike me, what you do, is just accept blindly what's in the interrogators' reports without any kind of verification.

So, no, it doesn't make me a hypocrite at all.

It's clear that with so many different agencies in the interrogations that they all were compelled to the best of their abilities, to tell the truth.

Who said that they were not trying to tell the truth?

This is not a black or white thing. I am sure that the interrogators tried to tell the truth. The problem is that, because of the inadequate way the interviews were documented, there is no way to resolve the clear discrepancies between their reports. If this case had even gone to trial the defense would have had a field day with the lack of a verbatim record.

[Lance Payette]

But Charles, the outline that Rankin presented in a January 11, 1964 memo had a section titled "Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy".  This was before they took a single bit of testimony.

Where I find the JFKA debate ultimately tedious and boring is that the majority of CTers uncritically accept and parrot factoids as though they were facts.  Factoid Busting is fun in small doses just for mental exercise since I did spend my entire professional life busting fallacious legal arguments, but Conspiracy World is almost nothing but a near-impenetrable forest of factoids.

Have you ever seen Rankin's outline? I'm betting you haven't because it's damn hard to find.

Rankin's January 11, 1964 "Memorandum for Members of the Commission" was just a short cover memo to which was attached a "Progress Report" that Warren had asked him to prepare, to wit:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files%20Original/W%20Disk/Warren%20Commission/File/Item%2003.pdf.

The Progress Report referred to a "Tentative Outline of the Work of the President's Commission" that was attached as Appendix C. The description of the outline in the Progress Report, alas, does not match any version of the Tentative Outline that I've been able to find. For example, the PR says the TO includes a section on "Oswald's Foreign Activity (Military Excluded)," which the versions I have seen do not. Such a section could obviously encompass possible conspiratorial contacts by Oswald.

The TO does, however, include the following in the section on "Lee Harvey Oswald as the Assassin of President Kennedy:"

H. Evidence Implicating Others in Assassination or Suggesting Accomplices
     1. Evidence of shots other than from Depository?
     2. Feasibility of shots within time span and with use of telescope
     3. Evidence re other persons involved in actual shooting from Depository
     4. Analysis of all movements of Oswald after assassination for attempt to meet associates
     5. Refutation of allegations
 
Moreover, on March 24, 1964, Redlich submitted to Rankin a "Proposed Outline of Report" that included the following:

K.  Evidence of any Accomplices in Assassination

and

D.  Link to Domestic Left-Wing Groups
     1.Fair Play for Cuba
     2.Communist Party
     3.Conclusions to be Drawn from such Links
E.  Link to Right-Wing Groups
F.  Possible Agent of Foreign Power
G. Possible Link to Underworld

This doesn't quite fit your preferred narrative, does it? (The partial TO and Redlich's memo can be found as Appendices A and C of Howard Roffman's conspiracy-oriented Presumed Guilty, https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.pdf.)

Did the WC operate on the presumption Oswald was guilty? Well, yeah - duh. By January of 1964, there was a mountain of evidence that he was. If Rankin's TO had been framed in any other way, he would've looked like an incompetent fool. But the WC certainly investigated and considered the possibility that Oswald had not acted alone. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

CTers insist on living in some wacky fantasy world whereby the WC should have proceeded as though it were dealing with a blank slate (Oswald, who's Oswald?), Oswald was treated as a criminal defendant who was presumed innocent, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence should apply, every witness should be intensely cross-examined, and all inferences should be drawn in favor of Oswald's innocence and the existence of a conspiracy. It's just goofy.

[John Mytton]

As for the revolver, iirc several reports mention Oswald telling them that he bought his revolver in Fort Worth. This would be a crucial detail in any honest investigation, yet it was never investigated by anybody, which is a stark contrast to the massive investigation conducted to track down the origine of a label in Oswald's grey jacket. The mere fact that no follow up investigation was conducted could very well be construed as a manipulation of the investigatory record. That, in turn, actually makes the interrogators' report relevant on this point.

Unlike me, what you do, is just accept blindly what's in the interrogators' reports without any kind of verification.

What's with this holier than thou garbage? They tracked down every detail about Oswald's revolver, the same revolver Oswald was arrested with and the same revolver he admitted to be carrying.
Oswald had no choice but to admit he was carrying his revolver because it was taken from him just after he attempted to kill more Police Officers.
There is a solid paper trail from the original mail order coupon, through to Seaports record and then the shipping company.









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

[Martin Weidmann]

What's with this holier than thou garbage? They tracked down every detail about Oswald's revolver, the same revolver Oswald was arrested with and the same revolver he admitted to be carrying.
Oswald had no choice but to admit he was carrying his revolver because it was taken from him just after he attempted to kill more Police Officers.
There is a solid paper trail from the original mail order coupon, through to Seaports record and then the shipping company.


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

What's with this holier than thou garbage?

Were you looking at a mirror when you wrote this?

They tracked down every detail about Oswald's revolver, the same revolver Oswald was arrested with and the same revolver he admitted to be carrying.

Show me the evidence that the revolver now in evidence is in fact "Oswald's revolver".
Show me that the revolver now in evidence is the one Oswald was arrested with.
And show me that Oswald ever admitted carrying the revolver now in evidence.

Oh wait, you can't, because if you could you would already have produced it.

Oswald had no choice but to admit he was carrying his revolver because it was taken from him just after he attempted to kill more Police Officers.

According to the interrogators Oswald admiited to carrying a revolver, so there is no dispute there,
Now show me where Oswald was shown the revolver now in evidence and he confirmed that was indeed his revolver.

There is a solid paper trail from the original mail order coupon, through to Seaports record and then the shipping company.

There is nothing solid about the paper trail for the revolver. For one thing, the shipping documents required a payment of 19,95 C.O.D. and there is no evidence that amount was ever paid. Ergo, without that payment there was no delivery of the revolver!

You do understand there is a difference between somebody admitting to carry a revolver and somebody being show a revolver and accepting it is the one he was carrying, don't you?