The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish

[Richard Smith]

Imagine if this was the standard in any other criminal case:

"There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not.  It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony."

Oswald's rifle is found at the scene of a shooting.  It is found on the same floor from which several witnesses saw a rifle in the window at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald's prints are the only ones found on that rifle.  Its serial number links it to him.  There is no evidence that his rifle was in the possession of any other person. His prints are also on the boxes in front of the window from which the shots were fired. His prints are also on a bag found next to the SN for which there is no other explanation other than being used to carry the rifle.  Oswald has no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting.  He lies about his ownership of the rifle, flees the crime scene and shoots a police officer.  Oswald provides no explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor.  In any other case, this would be considered conclusive of his guilt.  Here we learn that there apparently is doubt because there is no film of Oswald committing the crime.  If that is the standard, then it would be impossible to convict almost anyone of a crime because most criminals make some effort to conceal their involvement in a crime.  Very few are dumb enough to allow themselves to be filmed committing a crime.  All the more true in 1963 when there were fewer security cameras and fewer individuals with immediate access to a camera.

[Royell Storing]

  You guys need to realize that You LOSE the Jury when you go "War and Peace" to get your point(s) across.  Think your position(s) through and then repeat that same process. No matter how fervent your opinion on a subject might be, you gotta consider the "reading" attention span of the audience.

[Lance Payette]

The only thing Lance is Dedicated to are the findings of the Warren Commission Sham which he defends like the good, little Zealot he is.

Etc., etc., etc.

We here at the Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies are unworthy of so much attention from someone of Dan's stature and are nonplussed and dismayed at the extent to which our little contributions seem to have brought pain to his fragile psyche in this instance. Since our very mission is to spread weirdness-oriented joy and light in our wake, our own fragile psyches are pained by Dan’s apparent lack of joy and light. The good news is, help is available. Trained AIWS counselors who promise not to giggle at you are standing by at 1-800-IMA-WACKO.

The source of Dan’s pain is not clear to us, and we have pondered his words deeply. A few weeks ago, he was promoting a conspiracy in which Bill Shelley had recruited a sixth-floor hitman at the behest of Jack Cason and had personally held Oswald in a headlock in a first floor anteroom during the shooting, playfully administering noogies to Oswald’s noggin. Here, he argued that the witnesses establish a strong circumstantial case that Oswald was not the sixth-floor gunman, which dovetails nicely with his noogies-noggin theory. He further accused our beloved founder, a Serious and Dedicated Researcher, of not dealing in substance in his responses.

Deeply pained, our beloved founder undertook a diligent review of all the said witnesses and established that only 18-year-old whiz kid Arnold Rowland said anything seriously inconsistent with Oswald being the sixth-floor shooter. Rowland, moreover, was talking about a man with a rifle at the opposite end of the sixth floor and, moreover moreover, his first several accounts said nothing about an overshirt and were not at all inconsistent with the man, if there was one at all, being Oswald.

Our beloved founder thought his most recent contribution was rather substantive on his part and demonstrated that Dan’s strong circumstantial case had pretty much gone poof. In any event, if Dan insists his strong circumstantial case has in fact not gone poof and that our beloved founder is just a Lone Nut zealot meanie, we shall humbly accept this verdict rather than push the matter and risk the infliction of more psychic pain. Indeed, several of our board members fear that Dan seems to be morphing into Martin Weidmann before their very eyes, but perhaps this is just their overactive imaginations and we have admonished them not to start seeing sock puppets under every rock.

Wishing you all, and especially Dan, peace, joy, love, etc., etc., we remain
The Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies

[Tom Graves]

We here at the Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies are unworthy of so much attention from someone of Dan's stature and are nonplussed and dismayed at the extent to which our little contributions seem to have brought pain to his fragile psyche in this instance. Since our very mission is to spread weirdness-oriented joy and light in our wake, our own fragile psyches are pained by Dan’s apparent lack of joy and light. The good news is, help is available. Trained AIWS counselors who promise not to giggle at you are standing by at 1-800-IMA-WACKO.

The source of Dan’s pain is not clear to us, and we have pondered his words deeply. A few weeks ago, he was promoting a conspiracy in which Bill Shelley had recruited a sixth-floor hitman at the behest of Jack Cason and had personally held Oswald in a headlock in a first floor anteroom during the shooting, playfully administering noogies to Oswald’s noggin. Here, he argued that the witnesses establish a strong circumstantial case that Oswald was not the sixth-floor gunman, which dovetails nicely with his noogies-noggin theory. He further accused our beloved founder, a Serious and Dedicated Researcher, of not dealing in substance in his responses.

Deeply pained, our beloved founder undertook a diligent review of all the said witnesses and established that only 18-year-old whiz kid Arnold Rowland said anything seriously inconsistent with Oswald being the sixth-floor shooter. Rowland, moreover, was talking about a man with a rifle at the opposite end of the sixth floor and, moreover moreover, his first several accounts said nothing about an overshirt and were not at all inconsistent with the man, if there was one at all, being Oswald.

Our beloved founder thought his most recent contribution was rather substantive on his part and demonstrated that Dan’s strong circumstantial case had pretty much gone poof. In any event, if Dan insists his strong circumstantial case has in fact not gone poof and that our beloved founder is just a Lone Nut zealot meanie, we shall humbly accept this verdict rather than push the matter and risk the infliction of more psychic pain. Indeed, several of our board members fear that Dan seems to be morphing into Martin Weidmann before their very eyes, but perhaps this is just their overactive imaginations and we have admonished them not to start seeing sock puppets under every rock.

Wishing you all, and especially Dan, peace, joy, love, etc., etc., we remain
The Arizona Institute for Weirdness Studies

*Oswald's being

The Gerund Takes the Possessive.

[Lance Payette]

Imagine if this was the standard in any other criminal case:

"There is no physical evidence telling us who was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting so we must rely solely on eye-witness testimony.
Many Nutters have convinced themselves that, because Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, it is proof Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting. It is not.  It is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Oswald took the shots. Nothing more.
There is no film/photographic evidence showing anyone identifiable on the 6th floor so we must rely on eye-witness testimony."

Oswald's rifle is found at the scene of a shooting.  It is found on the same floor from which several witnesses saw a rifle in the window at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald's prints are the only ones found on that rifle.  Its serial number links it to him.  There is no evidence that his rifle was in the possession of any other person. His prints are also on the boxes in front of the window from which the shots were fired. His prints are also on a bag found next to the SN for which there is no other explanation other than being used to carry the rifle.  Oswald has no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting.  He lies about his ownership of the rifle, flees the crime scene and shoots a police officer.  Oswald provides no explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor.  In any other case, this would be considered conclusive of his guilt.  Here we learn that there apparently is doubt because there is no film of Oswald committing the crime.  If that is the standard, then it would be impossible to convict almost anyone of a crime because most criminals make some effort to conceal their involvement in a crime.  Very few are dumb enough to allow themselves to be filmed committing a crime.  All the more true in 1963 when there were fewer security cameras and fewer individuals with immediate access to a camera.

I didn't see this before, Richard, but you are spot on.

I was introduced to criminal defense tactics in a misdemeanor DUI case in a local magistrate court. The tiny woman defendant admitted she had consumed a pitcher of beer. She stumbled and dropped her purse leaving the restaurant, dropped her keys and stumbled again when the parking valet handed them to her, was observed by police running over a curb, and of course badly failed the field sobriety tests. Her defense attorney, who had no case, tried asking the jury "Folks, have you ever stumbled ... ever dropped your keys or purse ... ever run over a curb? Of course, you have." The answer, of course, was that you've never done all those things in the space of ten minutes when you weren't badly impaired.

Parsing things in this manner, as though they were all unrelated, is standard Defense Tactics 101. This is what I have said about Dan's approach here: He wants to consider each item of evidence in isolation and without regard to whether what he is suggesting makes any sense in the context of the other evidence and the event as a whole. When this is pointed out, he then shifts to ad hominem attacks as to how his accuser is delusional and a mindless LN zealot.

[Royell Storing]

I didn't see this before, Richard, but you are spot on.

I was introduced to criminal defense tactics in a misdemeanor DUI case in a local magistrate court. The tiny woman defendant admitted she had consumed a pitcher of beer. She stumbled and dropped her purse leaving the restaurant, dropped her keys and stumbled again when the parking valet handed them to her, was observed by police running over a curb, and of course badly failed the field sobriety tests. Her defense attorney, who had no case, tried asking the jury "Folks, have you ever stumbled ... ever dropped your keys or purse ... ever run over a curb? Of course, you have." The answer, of course, was that you've never done all those things in the space of ten minutes when you weren't badly impaired.

Parsing things in this manner, as though they were all unrelated, is standard Defense Tactics 101. This is what I have said about Dan's approach here: He wants to consider each item of evidence in isolation and without regard to whether what he is suggesting makes any sense in the context of the other evidence and the event as a whole. When this is pointed out, he then shifts to ad hominem attacks as to how his accuser is delusional and a mindless LN zealot.

   Sounds like the "work" of a Public Defender.

[Dr Alan Howard Davis]

I think the meaning of this thread has somehow got lost - 'The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish''
The lone gunmen 'theorists' are absolutely correct when they assert that Oswald would have been convicted. Factual evidence shows that it was his rifle, his fingerprints and had no alibi.  a slam dunk! But that was because the assassination was so well planned and executed -it wasn't 'sloppy and amateurish' at all.  Oswald had no idea he was being set up, and by whom, and is the reason he described himself as a 'patsy'. Lieing about the gun is probably what anyone would have done in the predicament Oswald found himself in. Shooting a police officer before he arrests him, which would with absolute certainty lead to his conviction and certain death would be a rational decision to make. There are some who suggest he was on his way to the Texas Theatre to meet up with his co-conspirators, but he was walking in the opposite direction, towards the Greyhound bus stop which would have taken him to Mexico, another logical and rational decision. All rationality was lost once he shot JD Tippit, he was already stressed, but this put him into complete panic mode, rushing from the scene, looking for somewhere to hide.