A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[John Mytton]

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?

Here we go yet again, more liars and more faked paperwork, I'll just add these to your Mountain of failed accusations!! Yawn!

And in the revolver case it's all for what, to swap a revolver which is extremely difficult to match the fired bullets with another revolver which is extremely difficult to match the fired bullets, geez your conspirators are definitely Mensa material!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Here we go yet again, more liars and more faked paperwork, I'll just add these to your Mountain of failed accusations!! Yawn!

And in the revolver case it's all for what, to swap a revolver which is extremely difficult to match the fired bullets with another revolver which is extremely difficult to match the fired bullets, geez your conspirators are definitely Mensa material!

JohnM

Here we go yet again, more liars and more faked paperwork,

Who lied and what faked paperwork are you talking about? You really are not getting any of this, aren't you?

I asked you to show me; (1) the evidence that the revolver now in evidence is in fact "Oswald's revolver" (2) that the revolver now in evidence is the one Oswald was arrested with and (3) that Oswald ever admitted carrying the revolver now in evidence.

You clearly can not show me any of this because it's all assumptions. Who cares about evidence when you have assumptions, right?

And in the revolver case it's all for what, to swap a revolver which is extremely difficult to match the fired bullets with another revolver which is extremely difficult to match the fired bullets, geez your conspirators are definitely Mensa material!

What's difficult about swapping a revolver with another one that actually fired bullets?

That's why the chain of custody is so important. If the revolver taken from Oswald in the Texas Theater is the same one now in evidence, the chain of custody will prove it!

But wait, here we have a revolver that was given to Hill by Carroll, who told him it was taken from Oswald, despite the fact that he testified that he did not know who gave him that particular revolver.
And then we have Hill walking around with that revolver for some two hours before he had it marked by various officers who were never part of the chain of custody to begin with,

It's the same as with the jacket, which was described as "white" in radio traffic, for which there is no chain of custody whatsoever. The same goes for the wallets (either the one found at the Tippit murder scene or the one taken from Oswald in the car.
All we know is that Gus Rose was given a wallet, by an unidentified officer, and he was told it was Oswald's wallet. And of course that wallet contained the Hidell alias... Go figure!

[John Mytton]

The same goes for the wallets (either the one found at the Tippit murder scene or the one taken from Oswald in the car.
All we know is that Gus Rose was given a wallet, by an unidentified officer, and he was told it was Oswald's wallet. And of course that wallet contained the Hidell alias... Go figure!

Hahahaha! So the Dallas Police who are supposedly trying to frame Oswald, suppress Oswald's wallet at the Tippit crime scene? Brilliant absolutely brilliant! LOL!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Hahahaha! So the Dallas Police who are supposedly trying to frame Oswald, suppress Oswald's wallet at the Tippit crime scene? Brilliant absolutely brilliant! LOL!

JohnM

Sorry Johnny, but you are so far out of your league that I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

But I'll play your little game;

Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.

Who was the patrolman that gave Rose the billfold? And how did he get it when Bentley took it from Oswald in the car that took them to DPD HQ?
Where is the chain of custody?

It's just a simple question which I am sure you can answer, right?

[John Mytton]

Sorry Johnny, but you are so far out of your league that I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

But I'll play your little game;

Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.

Who was the patrolman that gave Rose the billfold? And how did he get it when Bentley took it from Oswald in the car that took them to DPD HQ?
Where is the chain of custody?

It's just a simple question which I am sure you can answer, right?

What's the purpose of this pointless diversion, I made a simple observation, yet you have no answers. Hilarious!

Let me repeat what should have an easy answer for a man in your league, and this time focus!

"So the Dallas Police who are supposedly trying to frame Oswald, suppress Oswald's wallet at the Tippit crime scene?"

Try again and next time don't make me laugh!

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

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.

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


Lance, since it appears you have a knack for these things, do you have an idea where I could find a memo to the Warren Commission from Rankin dated May 12, 1964? This is some of what Howard Willens wrote about it in his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:

The memorandum summarizing the depositions went to the commission on May 12. Rankin told the members that this “is just a brief statement regarding each witness” and offered to provide the full testimony of any witness if any member wanted that. The fifty-two page memorandum listed the 288 witnesses deposed by the staff through May 7. Every one of these depositions required long hours of preparation—reading documents, consulting the testimony of other witnesses, assessing expert opinions and physical evidence—so that the questions put to the witness would seek to elicit everything the witness knew pertinent to our investigation. The summaries of the testimony were succinct, but provided the commission members with what we hoped was a useful overview of the investigation to date.64

[Michael Capasse]

January 11, 1964 memo had a section titled "Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy"