S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll

[Royell Storing]

Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.

You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.

    "....we don't need to know......". Revealing and Sad at the same time.

[John Corbett]

    "....we don't need to know......". Revealing and Sad at the same time.

No, it is understanding the reality of the situation. There are things we can't possibly know but that doesn't mean we have to disregard what we do know. Since conspiracy hobbyists lost their grip on reality a long time ago, I'm not surprised you can't grasp that.

You express beliefs about things you couldn't possibly know, such as your belief that Oswald had somehow figured out something had gone wrong with the plot. You confuse belief with knowledge, but that seems to be a requirement for those who insist Oswald didn't fire the shots that killed JFK.

[Royell Storing]

   A lot of this uncertainty could have been avoided if Officer Baker had "patted down" Oswald inside the lunchroom. Baker was searching the building for an active shooter. He see's a man walking away from him, and he then just lets the guy go because the guy works there? If Baker had found that Phony ID on Oswald, and you believe that Oswald acted alone, then everything ends right then. This includes the Tippit shooting.

[John Corbett]

   A lot of this uncertainty could have been avoided if Officer Baker had "patted down" Oswald inside the lunchroom. Baker was searching the building for an active shooter. He see's a man walking away from him, and he then just lets the guy go because the guy works there? If Baker had found that Phony ID on Oswald, and you believe that Oswald acted alone, then everything ends right then. This includes the Tippit shooting.

So you acknowledge Oswald murdered Tippit. We are making progress.

"If" is one of the most useless words in the English language. It doesn't count for squat. It's easy to second guess Baker after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20. Baker was under the impression that the shots came from the roof and he was racing up the stairs to see if he could find that person before he came down. He saw someone on the second floor. His curiosity was aroused when he saw someone walking away from him. Once Truly vouched for him, Baker made the judgement call that he should continue up the stairs toward what he though was the source of the gunfire. When a cop pats down a suspect, it's usually to determine if the suspect has a weapon or contraband. With Truly vouching for Oswald, what reason would he have to check Oswald's ID. Truly had just old him he was an employee.

I'm sure Baker wishes he had detained Oswald longer after he found out he was the assassin and that he had killed Tippit. Baker had to act based on the information he had at the time and I don't fault him for letting Oswald go and returning to his trip up the stairway.

[Royell Storing]

So you acknowledge Oswald murdered Tippit. We are making progress.

"If" is one of the most useless words in the English language. It doesn't count for squat. It's easy to second guess Baker after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20. Baker was under the impression that the shots came from the roof and he was racing up the stairs to see if he could find that person before he came down. He saw someone on the second floor. His curiosity was aroused when he saw someone walking away from him. Once Truly vouched for him, Baker made the judgement call that he should continue up the stairs toward what he though was the source of the gunfire. When a cop pats down a suspect, it's usually to determine if the suspect has a weapon or contraband. With Truly vouching for Oswald, what reason would he have to check Oswald's ID. Truly had just old him he was an employee.

I'm sure Baker wishes he had detained Oswald longer after he found out he was the assassin and that he had killed Tippit. Baker had to act based on the information he had at the time and I don't fault him for letting Oswald go and returning to his trip up the stairway.

  Baker did Not "act". He did the opposite.
  This is not 2nd guessing. There is protocol for these situations.
  When a cop "pats" someone down, they automatically check their ID. If the person is Not carrying an ID, that's a problem. Especially in a situation involving an unknown "active" shooter(s).

[Tom Graves]

Baker did not "act." He did the opposite. This is not second guessing. There is protocol for these situations. When a cop "pats" someone down, they automatically check their ID. If the person is not carrying an ID, that's a problem. Especially in a situation involving an unknown "active" shooter(s).

Dear Royell,

Was Police Officer Cop Officer Baker just wasting time when he asked Truly if Oswald worked there?

-- Tom

[Steve Howsley]

Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.

You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.

Excellent points