Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists? That's a good one. How would an Oswald apologist  act differently than coming here day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after year defending him? Literally thousands of posts, hundreds of hours defending him. What would a "real" apologist do differently?

I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent. But Oswald? This miserable wife beater? He was a traitor, he was willing to aid the Soviets. And abandon his family. He wanted to go to Cuba. And leave his pregnant wife and child behind. He turned his back on his family, his friends and his country.

And people spend their time defending this miserable person?

There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists?

Yes, indeed, but that's probably way above your head. The WC apologists will swallow anything the WC told them no matter how questionable it is and will do anything to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. There are no Oswald apologists because in order to be one you first need to accept that he was guilty and then defend him nevertheless. I don't know anybody who actually believes he's guilty and still defend him. Personally, I couldn't care less about Oswald. If he did it, I'm not going to apologize for him, but it needs to be proven - not just assumed - that he did it.

Oswald apologists only exist in the mind of die hard WC apologists.

As far as the remainder of you post goes, you've just exposed the emotional side of your argument. To somebody like you Oswald needs to be guilty because you actually hate somebody who you don't know and has been dead for more than half a century. It's Salem stuff.... take a step back and consider what you just said and ask yourself if that's a reasonable stance!

I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent.

Dreyfus was innocent. It has nothing to do with this case.

[Bill Chapman]

There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists?

Yes, indeed, but that's probably way above your head. The WC apologists will swallow anything the WC told them no matter how questionable it is and will do anything to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. There are no Oswald apologists because in order to be one you first need to accept that he was guilty and then defend him nevertheless. I don't know anybody who actually believes he's guilty and still defend him. Personally, I couldn't care less about Oswald. If he did it, I'm not going to apologize for him, but it needs to be proven - not just assumed - that he did it.

Oswald apologists only exist in the mind of die hard WC apologists.

As far as the remainder of you post goes, you've just exposed the emotional side of your argument. To somebody like you Oswald needs to be guilty because you actually hate somebody who you don't know and has been dead for more than half a century. It's Salem stuff.... take a step back and consider what you just said and ask yourself if that's a reasonable stance!

I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent.

Dreyfus was innocent. It has nothing to do with this case.

Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.

Awww... poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-hoo.

Edited: 8:00am EST

[Richard Smith]

Which only shows that you have learned nothing and have no respect for normal police procedures and the legal requirement to provide a credible chain of custody for each piece of evidence.

rebut the actual evidence linking it to Oswald,

This is by far the most idiotic comment in your pathetic rant. The chain of custody's main purpose is to credibly link a piece of evidence to a suspect. Such a link is not automatically assumped as you seem to believe or favor. It is not necessary to rebut evidence without a credible chain of custody. Just how ignorant are you?

Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation?  You haven't even managed that.  You just keep repeating the claim.  And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer. An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.

Aw, poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-boo.

Edited: 8:00am EST

It's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission....". It's like a cult mantra. The WC was carried out by dozens and dozens of individuals, people like Norman Redlich and others. But the Oswald defenders and conspiracists don't like to talk about the actual people who conducted the investigation. They want to chant "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..."

It's been more than half a century; we've had numerous investigations AFTER the Warren Commission including both government and media ones, e.g., CBS News, PBS, the Washington Post, ABC. Investigative journalists and historians have done investigations or works on the major figures - Robert Caro on LBJ, books on Hoover, Tim Weiner on the CIA. And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.

But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."

[Martin Weidmann]

Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.

Aw, poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-boo.

Edited: 8:00am EST

I am not sure where you get this crap from, but it has very little to do with my post. And please stop whining. It's pathetic.

It's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission....". It's like a cult mantra. The WC was carried out by dozens and dozens of individuals, people like Norman Redlich and others. But the Oswald defenders and conspiracists don't like to talk about the actual people who conducted the investigation. They want to chant "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..."

It's been more than half a century; we've had numerous investigations AFTER the Warren Commission including both government and media ones, e.g., CBS News, PBS, the Washington Post, ABC. Investigative journalists and historians have done investigations or works on the major figures - Robert Caro on LBJ, books on Hoover, Tim Weiner on the CIA. And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.

But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."

Oh boy another whiner. What is it with you LN lot? If you can't get your way, you start crying like a spoiled brat who had his toy taken away. Grow up will ya.


And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.

Garbage in, garbage out. You can't expect a different result when you put in the same information.

But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."

Nothing is ignored. That's just you being dramatic and whining. There is only one investigation that took place and that's the one done by the FBI for the Warren Commission. All the others that followed merely focused on the question whether the WC had it right or not. Most investigations in the Kennedy case are either political in nature or driven by monetary gain.

You are appealing to authority. It's a fallacy. If you need it to stay in your comfort zone that a lone nut killed a President then stay in that comfort zone.

It may well be the the WC got it right, but it's going to take a hell of lot more credible evidence, for their case against Oswald to be proven, than they have presented so far.

[Martin Weidmann]

Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation?  You haven't even managed that.  You just keep repeating the claim.  And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer. An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

Why should I show you evidence for something you should already know, or are you telling me that you are taking part in this conversation without knowing what you are talking about? Btw you are just about the last person in the world I will ever show a piece of evidence to, because you never ever produce any evidence or even answer a straight question yourself. If you want to find out something you already should know, then look it up yourself.

And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer.

So what? Police have murders on their hands every day of the year. It's is a pathetic excuse to accept that normal procedures required by law were not followed and complied with just because the victim was the President of the United States. Stop trying to mitigate the dismal job the DPD did in handling the evidence.

An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

So you keep saying, rather stupidly, while at the same time ignoring that Hill walked into the personnel office of the DPD, told the people present that this was "Oswald's revolver" and marked it, when he was only told by Bob Carroll (who gave him the revolver in the car) that it was Oswald's. Even worse, Carroll himself testified that he took the revolver from somebody's hand but he couldn't say who the hand belonged to. That's a little more than "an alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol".

But then you will accept and forgive anything as long as it keeps Oswald in play as the killer. It's almost like you have a personal emotional investment in Oswald's guilt, that's clouding your judgment.

[Richard Smith]

Why should I show you evidence for something you should already know, or are you telling me that you are taking part in this conversation without knowing what you are talking about. Btw the last person I will ever show a piece of evidence to is you, because you never ever produce any evidence or even answer a straight question yourself. If you want to find out something you already should have know, then look it up yourself.

And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer.

So what? Police have murders on their hands every day of the year. It's is a pathetic excuse to accept that normal procedures required by law were not followed and complied with just because the victim was the President of the United States.

An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

So you keep saying, rather stupidly, while at the same time ignoring that Hill walked into the personnel office of the DPD, told the people present that this was "Oswald's revolver" and marked it, when he was only told by Bob Carroll (who gave him the revolver in the car) that it was Oswald's. Even worse, Carroll himself testified that he took the revolver from somebody's hand but he couldn't say who the hand belonged to. That's a little more than "an alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol".

But then you will accept and forgive anything as long as it keeps Oswald in play as the killer. It's almost like you have a personal emotional investment in Oswald's guilt, that's clouding your judgment.

Translation:  Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence.  But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963.   I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman?  I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence.  If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim.  Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact. 

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.