JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Iacoletti on November 30, 2022, 07:08:09 PM
-
The members of the cult of the WC often like to point to their prophet Bugliosi and his "53 pieces of evidence" supposedly pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt in the assassination of John Kennedy. If you examine the list, you'll find that 46 of them are not evidence at all, they are lawyer rhetoric and speculative confirmation bias. 4 items point to a particular weapon, not a person. 8 items are questionable or tainted in some way. Some items fall into more than one category.
Key:
NE - not evidence with regard to JFK's murder
PW - points to a weapon, not a shooter
TQ - tainted or questionable
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - NE
2. Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods - NE
3. Oswald told Frazier he wouldn't be going home with him on Friday - NE
4. Oswald was not chatty about Kennedy's upcoming Dallas visit on Thursday evening - NE
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - NE
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat of Frazier's car - NE
7. Frazier said it was the first time Oswald did not bring his lunch - NE
8. Oswald walked ahead of Frazier to the building from the parking area - NE
9. Oswald did not read the newspaper in the domino room that morning - NE
10. Oswald asked Jarman why people were gathering outside and then which way the president was coming - NE
11. Howard Brennan told the FBI on December 18 that he was "sure" that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window, after initially failing to make a positive identification - TQ
12. We know that Kennedy’s assassin was at the subject sixth-floor window - NE (not even true)
13. Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination - (this isn't even true)
Givens (over 4 months later) placed Oswald on the 6th floor at 11:55 - NE
Oswald (supposedly) preferred Dr Pepper to Coke - NE
14. Why would Oswald go up to get a Coke after hearing all the commotion? - NE
15. Oswald was apparently uninterested in watching the motorcade outside - NE
16. Oswald left work within minutes of the shooting - NE
17. Oswald walked east and got on a bus heading back toward the TSBD - NE
18. Oswald got off the bus after a few blocks - NE
19. Oswald wasn't chatty with the cab driver - NE
20. Oswald had the cab driver drop him off a few blocks past his rooming house - NE
21. Roberts said Oswald seemed to be in a hurry - NE
22. Oswald allegedly picked up his revolver at the rooming house - NE
23. Oswald allegedly changed some of his clothing at the rooming house - NE
24. Oswald was allegedly chosen by Markham (in the unfair lineup) as the one who killed Tippit - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
25. Oswald looked funny to Brewer - NE
26. Oswald allegedly “ducked in” to the theater without buying a ticket - NE
27. According to McDonald, Oswald said "it's all over now" - NE
28. Oswald allegedly punched McDonald and reached for a gun in his waistband - NE
29. Oswald didn't sufficiently cooperate with police after arrest - NE
30. Oswald showed reporters his handcuffed hands and his fist was clenched - NE
31. Oswald supposedly refused to take a lie detector test - NE
32. Marina thought his eyes looked guilty - NE
33. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Klein's order coupon - TQ
34. The 2 large fragments supposedly found in the limo and CE399 were fired by C2766 - PW, TQ
35. The shells supposedly found by the window were fired by C2766 - PW
36. Two of Oswald's prints were found on a wrapper that was supposedly found by the window - NE
37. Oswald's prints were found on boxes near the window - NE
38. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Seaport Traders coupon for the CE143 revolver - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
39. 1 of 8 firearms experts thought one Tippit bullet was fired from CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
40. Cartridge cases supposedly found near 10th and Patton were matched to CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
41. Paraffin test on Oswald’s hands indicated the presence of nitrates - TQ
42. Oswald supposedly left his blue jacket in the TSBD - NE
43. Police supposedly found a light-colored jacket in a Texaco parking lot - NE
44. A clipboard attributed to Oswald with unfilled orders was supposedly found on the 6th floor a week later - NE
45. Oswald allegedly denied purchasing the Carcano rifle - NE
46. Oswald allegedly questioned the authenticity of a backyard photograph - NE
47. Oswald allegedly said he had never seen the photograph before, but handwriting analysts said it was his writing on the DeMohrenschildt print that turned up 4 years later - NE
48. Oswald allegedly denied ever living at the Neely apartment - NE
49. Oswald allegedly denied telling Frazier he was getting curtain rods - NE
50. Oswald allegedly denied putting a long package on the backseat of Frazier's car - NE
51. Oswald allegedly told Fritz that the only package he brought to work contained his lunch - NE
52. Oswald (by Fritz's account) allegedly said he had lunch with Jarman and another employee, but Jarman said he did not have lunch with Oswald - NE
53. Oswald allegedly said he bought his handgun in Fort Worth - NE
-
This entire thread: NE.
-
"the cult of the WC often like to point to their prophet Bugliosi"
You can tell folks beginning to have fun at Christmas provokes this atheist.
-
Let's go through the list in the way that a reasonable person would analyze this evidence with the totality of context rather than every event happening in its own separate universe (Contrarian world):
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - Marina confirms he kept his rifle at this location. It would turn out to have the same serial number as the one left at the crime scene with Oswald's palmprint on it.
2. Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods - No such curtain rods were needed or taken by Oswald that morning. This would turn out to be a lie. Why would Oswald lie about the contents of a long bag that morning unless it contained something incriminatory.
3. Oswald told Frazier he wouldn't be going home with him on Friday - Oswald's usual pattern would have been to travel wilth Frazier on Friday. Any variation in that pattern is important.
4. Oswald was not chatty about Kennedy's upcoming Dallas visit on Thursday evening - If Ruth Paine and Marina or others intended to frame Oswald, this would be an odd thing to say.
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - This demonstrates foreknowledge on Oswald's behalf that he would not be returning home. The only reason for that was because he planned to assassinate JFK that day.
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat of Frazier's car - Yes, his rifle!
7. Frazier said it was the first time Oswald did not bring his lunch - Another variation from usual routine on the day of the assassinaiton. And Oswald lies about his to DPD telling them he carried his lunch that morning.
8. Oswald walked ahead of Frazier to the building from the parking area - He had things to do like hide the rifle on an upper floor.
9. Oswald did not read the newspaper in the domino room that morning - Another variation. And Oswald planned on making the news that day.
10. Oswald asked Jarman why people were gathering outside and then which way the president was coming - Playing dumb or confirming his understanding of the motorcade.
11. Howard Brennan told the FBI on December 18 that he was "sure" that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window, after initially failing to make a positive identification - Witness confirmation of Oswald as the assassin
12. We know that Kennedy’s assassin was at the subject sixth-floor window - Multiple witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination. Other evidence links Oswald to that location including prints, bullet casings from his rifle, witness ID
13. Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination - (this isn't even true)Oswald confirmed he was in the building from which the shots were fired
Givens (over 4 months later) placed Oswald on the 6th floor at 11:55 - NE
Oswald (supposedly) preferred Dr Pepper to Coke - NE
14. Why would Oswald go up to get a Coke after hearing all the commotion? - And why get a drink it he planned to immediately leave and get on a bus.
15. Oswald was apparently uninterested in watching the motorcade outside - Oswald had a lifelong interest in politics and had read JFK's book but no interestin the motorcade or assassination. It's move time!
16. Oswald left work within minutes of the shooting - Fleeing the crime while he had the chance.
17. Oswald walked east and got on a bus heading back toward the TSBD - He was getting out of Dodge as quickly as possible
18. Oswald got off the bus after a few blocks - Suddenly in a hurry. Wonder why?
19. Oswald wasn't chatty with the cab driver - Exercising his right to remain silent
20. Oswald had the cab driver drop him off a few blocks past his rooming house - Making sure the coast was clear before entering his boardinghouse. Suggests that he had cause to believe the police may have already ID him as the suspect.
21. Roberts said Oswald seemed to be in a hurry - He was for good reason as the most wanted man in the world.
22. Oswald allegedly picked up his revolver at the rooming house - Oswald admitted this and his revolver when arrested. Did he think he would need it in broad daylight on the way to the movies?
23. Oswald allegedly changed some of his clothing at the rooming house - Probably not.
24. Oswald was allegedly chosen by Markham (in the unfair lineup) as the one who killed Tippit - Witness links Oswald directly to the crime. No "allegedly" about this.
25. Oswald looked funny to Brewer - We know this true because Brewer followed him. Do you think Brewer went around following lots of peopel. Oswald had good cause to look "funny" having just killed the president and a police officer with the cops on his tail.
26. Oswald allegedly “ducked in” to the theater without buying a ticket - No allegedly about it. He was so suspicious he was drawing the attention of random citizens.
27. According to McDonald, Oswald said "it's all over now" - Why would he say this instead of just asking what is going on if he had done nothing?
28. Oswald allegedly punched McDonald and reached for a gun in his waistband - Resisting arrest and attempting to kill a cop is a crime itself. And no reason unless he believed there was no other choice.
29. Oswald didn't sufficiently cooperate with police after arrest - see above
30. Oswald showed reporters his handcuffed hands and his fist was clenched - Proud of his act. Commie revolutionary celebrating his triumph. An innocent person might be a bit overwhelmed by the attention and fact that they were under arrest for murder.
31. Oswald supposedly refused to take a lie detector test - Lucky for him.
32. Marina thought his eyes looked guilty - His own wife accepted his guilt.
33. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Klein's order coupon - No doubt about it. Also used a known alias and his PO Box for delivery. The rifle he was sent can't be accounted for in any other way except to be sent to Oswadl
34. The 2 large fragments supposedly found in the limo and CE399 were fired by C2766 - Speaks for itself. Links the bullets to Oswald's rifle.
35. The shells supposedly found by the window were fired by C2766 - Same
36. Two of Oswald's prints were found on a wrapper that was supposedly found by the window - Link to location of shooting.
37. Oswald's prints were found on boxes near the window - Same
38. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Seaport Traders coupon for the CE143 revolver - Links Oswald to the murder of a police officer less than an hour after the assassination.
39. 1 of 8 firearms experts thought one Tippit bullet was fired from CE143 - Links Oswald's gun to the murder.
40. Cartridge cases supposedly found near 10th and Patton were matched to CE143 - Same
41. Paraffin test on Oswald’s hands indicated the presence of nitrates - Confirmation that he had fired a gun (as he had)
42. Oswald supposedly left his blue jacket in the TSBD - Gotta go fast.
43. Police supposedly found a light-colored jacket in a Texaco parking lot - Seen leaving the boardinghouse with a jacket. Arrested without a jacket. Attempt to change appearance.
44. A clipboard attributed to Oswald with unfilled orders was supposedly found on the 6th floor a week later - Oswald puts it down to retrieve the rifle.
45. Oswald allegedly denied purchasing the Carcano rifle - Lie about the murder weapon.
46. Oswald allegedly questioned the authenticity of a backyard photograph - Lie to avoid being connected to murder weapons
47. Oswald allegedly said he had never seen the photograph before, but handwriting analysts said it was his writing on the DeMohrenschildt print that turned up 4 years later - Links Oswald to murder weapons
48. Oswald allegedly denied ever living at the Neely apartment - Lie because he didn't want to be associated with BY photos
49. Oswald allegedly denied telling Frazier he was getting curtain rods - Lie to cover up carrying long narrow package.
50. Oswald allegedly denied putting a long package on the backseat of Frazier's car - Same
51. Oswald allegedly told Fritz that the only package he brought to work contained his lunch - Same
52. Oswald (by Fritz's account) allegedly said he had lunch with Jarman and another employee, but Jarman said he did not have lunch with Oswald - Lie to provide an alibi. No one else saw him
53. Oswald allegedly said he bought his handgun in Fort Worth - Lie as confirmed by documents
-
Let's go through the list in the way that a reasonable person would analyze this evidence with the totality of context rather than every event happening in its own separate universe (Contrarian world):
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - Oswald's confirms he kept his rifle at this location. It would turn out to have the same serial number as the one left at the crime scene with Oswald's palmprint on it.
2. Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods - No such curtain rods were needed or taken by Oswald that morning. This would turn out to be a lie. Why would Oswald lie about the contents of a long bag that morning unless it contained something incriminatory.
3. Oswald told Frazier he wouldn't be going home with him on Friday - Oswald's usual pattern would have been to travel wilth Frazier on Friday. Any variation in that pattern is important.
4. Oswald was not chatty about Kennedy's upcoming Dallas visit on Thursday evening - If Ruth Paine and Marina or others intended to frame Oswald, this would be an odd thing to say.
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - This demonstrates foreknowledge on Oswald's behalf that he would not be returning home. The only reason for that was because he planned to assassinate JFK that day.
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat of Frazier's car - Yes, his rifle!
7. Frazier said it was the first time Oswald did not bring his lunch - Another variation from usual routine on the day of the assassinaiton. And Oswald lies about his to DPD telling them he carried his lunch that morning.
8. Oswald walked ahead of Frazier to the building from the parking area - He had things to do like hide the rifle on an upper floor.
9. Oswald did not read the newspaper in the domino room that morning - Another variation. And Oswald planned on making the news that day.
10. Oswald asked Jarman why people were gathering outside and then which way the president was coming - Playing dumb or confirming his understanding of the motorcade.
11. Howard Brennan told the FBI on December 18 that he was "sure" that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window, after initially failing to make a positive identification - Witness confirmation of Oswald as the assassin
12. We know that Kennedy’s assassin was at the subject sixth-floor window - Multiple witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination. Other evidence links Oswald to that location including prints, bullet casings from his rifle, witness ID
13. Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination - (this isn't even true)Oswald confirmed he was in the building from which the shots were fired
Givens (over 4 months later) placed Oswald on the 6th floor at 11:55 - NE
Oswald (supposedly) preferred Dr Pepper to Coke - NE
14. Why would Oswald go up to get a Coke after hearing all the commotion? - And why get a drink it he planned to immediately leave and get on a bus.
15. Oswald was apparently uninterested in watching the motorcade outside - Oswald had a lifelong interest in politics and had read JFK's book but no interestin the motorcade or assassination. It's move time!
16. Oswald left work within minutes of the shooting - Fleeing the crime while he had the chance.
17. Oswald walked east and got on a bus heading back toward the TSBD - He was getting out of Dodge as quickly as possible
18. Oswald got off the bus after a few blocks - Suddenly in a hurry. Wonder why?
19. Oswald wasn't chatty with the cab driver - Exercising his right to remain silent
20. Oswald had the cab driver drop him off a few blocks past his rooming house - Making sure the coast was clear before entering his boardinghouse. Suggests that he had cause to believe the police may have already ID him as the suspect.
21. Roberts said Oswald seemed to be in a hurry - He was for good reason as the most wanted man in the world.
22. Oswald allegedly picked up his revolver at the rooming house - Oswald admitted this and his revolver when arrested. Did he think he would need it in broad daylight on the way to the movies?
23. Oswald allegedly changed some of his clothing at the rooming house - Probably not.
24. Oswald was allegedly chosen by Markham (in the unfair lineup) as the one who killed Tippit - Witness links Oswald directly to the crime. No "allegedly" about this.
25. Oswald looked funny to Brewer - We know this true because Brewer followed him. Do you think Brewer went around following lots of peopel. Oswald had good cause to look "funny" having just killed the president and a police officer with the cops on his tail.
26. Oswald allegedly “ducked in” to the theater without buying a ticket - No allegedly about it. He was so suspicious he was drawing the attention of random citizens.
27. According to McDonald, Oswald said "it's all over now" - Why would he say this instead of just asking what is going on if he had done nothing?
28. Oswald allegedly punched McDonald and reached for a gun in his waistband - Resisting arrest and attempting to kill a cop is a crime itself. And no reason unless he believed there was no other choice.
29. Oswald didn't sufficiently cooperate with police after arrest - see above
30. Oswald showed reporters his handcuffed hands and his fist was clenched - Proud of his act. Commie revolutionary celebrating his triumph. An innocent person might be a bit overwhelmed by the attention and fact that they were under arrest for murder.
31. Oswald supposedly refused to take a lie detector test - Lucky for him.
32. Marina thought his eyes looked guilty - His own wife accepted his guilt.
33. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Klein's order coupon - No doubt about it. Also used a known alias and his PO Box for delivery. The rifle he was sent can't be accounted for in any other way except to be sent to Oswadl
34. The 2 large fragments supposedly found in the limo and CE399 were fired by C2766 - Speaks for itself. Links the bullets to Oswald's rifle.
35. The shells supposedly found by the window were fired by C2766 - Same
36. Two of Oswald's prints were found on a wrapper that was supposedly found by the window - Link to location of shooting.
37. Oswald's prints were found on boxes near the window - Same
38. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Seaport Traders coupon for the CE143 revolver - Links Oswald to the murder of a police officer less than an hour after the assassination.
39. 1 of 8 firearms experts thought one Tippit bullet was fired from CE143 - Links Oswald's gun to the murder.
40. Cartridge cases supposedly found near 10th and Patton were matched to CE143 - Same
41. Paraffin test on Oswald’s hands indicated the presence of nitrates - Confirmation that he had fired a gun (as he had)
42. Oswald supposedly left his blue jacket in the TSBD - Gotta go fast.
43. Police supposedly found a light-colored jacket in a Texaco parking lot - Seen leaving the boardinghouse with a jacket. Arrested without a jacket. Attempt to change appearance.
44. A clipboard attributed to Oswald with unfilled orders was supposedly found on the 6th floor a week later - Oswald puts it down to retrieve the rifle.
45. Oswald allegedly denied purchasing the Carcano rifle - Lie about the murder weapon.
46. Oswald allegedly questioned the authenticity of a backyard photograph - Lie to avoid being connected to murder weapons
47. Oswald allegedly said he had never seen the photograph before, but handwriting analysts said it was his writing on the DeMohrenschildt print that turned up 4 years later - Links Oswald to murder weapons
48. Oswald allegedly denied ever living at the Neely apartment - Lie because he didn't want to be associated with BY photos
49. Oswald allegedly denied telling Frazier he was getting curtain rods - Lie to cover up carrying long narrow package.
50. Oswald allegedly denied putting a long package on the backseat of Frazier's car - Same
51. Oswald allegedly told Fritz that the only package he brought to work contained his lunch - Same
52. Oswald (by Fritz's account) allegedly said he had lunch with Jarman and another employee, but Jarman said he did not have lunch with Oswald - Lie to provide an alibi. No one else saw him
53. Oswald allegedly said he bought his handgun in Fort Worth - Lie as confirmed by documents
Let's go through the list in the way that a reasonable person would analyze this evidence
How can somebody who begins with lies at item 1 on the list ever be considered to be a reasonable person?
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - Oswald's confirms he kept his rifle at this location. It would turn out to have the same serial number as the one left at the crime scene with Oswald's palmprint on it.
Nothing of this is even remotely true. Oswald never confirmed he kept a rifle at Irving and there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage (if there was one) is the same as the one found on the 6th floor. Oswald's palmprint only magically appeared about a week after Oswald's death. Lt Day claimed he had lifted the print from the rifle but the FBI lab found no trace of any print when they examined the MC rifle within 24 hours after the murder.
2. Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods - No such curtain rods were needed or taken by Oswald that morning. This would turn out to be a lie. Why would Oswald lie about the contents of a long bag that morning unless it contained something incriminatory.
There is no evidence to determine what was in the package Oswald carried to the TSBD on Friday morning. This alone makes the claim that Oswald did not take curtain rods to Dallas complete speculation. The completely made up claim that Oswald lied about the content of the bag is insignificant as long as we don't know what was actually in the bag.
I'm not going to go through all the items as it is beyond obvious that they are of very little significance and full of Richard's speculation.
But's let pick out a few more;
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - This demonstrates foreknowledge on Oswald's behalf that he would not be returning home. The only reason for that was because he planned to assassinate JFK that day.
Total BS. Oswald leaving his wedding ring behind doesn't demonstrate anything of the kind. It is in fact far more likely and plausible that he left the ring simply because Marina refused to live with him again and he saw that as his marriage being over. Marina and Ruth Paine both testified they believed Oswald came to Irving to make up with Marina and thus save his marriage.
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat of Frazier's car - Yes, his rifle!
Complete speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence. There is in fact evidence that shows that the package wasn't even big enough to contain a broken down rifle. It's a good example of how witnesses were ignored in favor of an unsubstantiated opinion that fits the desired narrative.
12. We know that Kennedy’s assassin was at the subject sixth-floor window - Multiple witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination. Other evidence links Oswald to that location including prints, bullet casings from his rifle, witness ID
There is no credible witness ID that places Oswald at the 6th floor window. Bullet casings allegedly fired by the MC rifle found on the 6th floor tells us nothing about the identity of the shooter. We don't even know if the MC rifle was even fired on 11/22/63. And Oswald's prints on boxes only prove that he touched those boxes. As he worked on the 6th floor and his job was to move boxes and take books from them, any prints found anywhere on the 6th floor are worthless as evidence against Oswald.
14. Why would Oswald go up to get a Coke after hearing all the commotion? - And why get a drink it he planned to immediately leave and get on a bus.
This is one of the most silly arguments. I'm not sure what it is supposed to be evidence of, but the one thing that is for sure is that Oswald was encountered by Truly and Baker inside the 2nd floor lunchroom, which justifies the question what he was doing there - if not getting a Coke - when he could have walked out of the building through the office space before Truly and Baker even got to the lunchroom. Seems odd behavior for somebody who is supposed to be trying to escape from the building.
23. Oswald allegedly changed some of his clothing at the rooming house - Probably not.
A classic example of how utter selfserving speculation based on absolutely nothing is regarded by this LN clown as "evidence. Even worse, how can something that's only "probable" be evidence?
32. Marina thought his eyes looked guilty - His own wife accepted his guilt.
The President of the United States is murdered and BS as this makes it on a list of items to demonstrate Oswald's guilt. Even worse it seems to be the best the "Oswald did it" crowd could come up with. It's just as hilarious as it is pathetic. Any prosecutor who would try to introduce this into evidence at court would probably be thrown out by the Judge for pure incompetence.
But thank you, Richard. At least this gives reasonable people some idea how your warped mind works.... Thumb1:
-
But thank you, Richard. At least this gives reasonable people some idea how your warped mind works.... Thumb1:
Exactly right. Anything and everything becomes “evidence” when you speculate a completely made-up story about what it means.
Oswald wore boxers instead of briefs that day. Aha! That was so he’d be comfortable waiting for the president to arrive so he could murder him.
Oswald drank a cup of coffee that morning. Aha! That was because he was awake all night thinking about killing the president.
This is how ridiculous it gets.
-
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - NE
Actually, the story that Oswald left behind his wedding ring on 11/22/63 is open to serious doubt:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/was-there-a-wedding-ring (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/was-there-a-wedding-ring)
EXCERPT:
Tom Bargas was Shop Foreman at Leslie Welding. He told the FBI that he knew Oswald was married only because it said so on his application. (Oswald 201 File, Vol 3, Folder 9B, Part 1, p. 40) Bargas had interviewed Oswald for the job, (WCH Vol X, p. 163) so we know from this, that Oswald was wearing no wedding ring at the time of the interview—or at work at any other time. . . .
Marina Oswald is the sole witness to a ring left on the dresser that morning and as we can see, her statements about the ring have little or no consistency. Nor were they made early on. The claims did not start emerging until at least a week after the assassination, during a period in the protective custody of the Secret Service. We will look more closely at this later.
The closest statement to the truth made about this subject by Marina was possibly one made to Priscilla Johnson McMillan for her book, Marina & Lee. In this statement, she said that “by some miracle” the police missed seeing it in their search. Since the police took Marina, Ruth Paine and Michael Paine in for questioning immediately after the search, she most likely put her own ring there some time prior to leaving the Paine household for good. In short, it was not there at the time of the police search. This explains the police not taking it. It also explains why she did not lead them to it.
-
And accounts differ on who found it and when it was found. But either way, it’s not evidence of anything.
-
Actually, the story that Oswald left behind his wedding ring on 11/22/63 is open to serious doubt:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/was-there-a-wedding-ring (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/was-there-a-wedding-ring)
EXCERPT:
Oswald wore his wedding ring on his right hand in the Russian tradition. That might be a source of confusion to an American who is used to seeing wedding rings only on the left hand. And likely completely unaware of Oswald's kooky background. There is zero doubt that Oswald wore a wedding ring. According to his own wife, he wore it every day. There are pictures of Oswald wearing his ring. And we were recently told here that no one has ever suggested that family members lied to frame Oswald. Oswald is not wearing the wedding ring when arrested. Sherlock Holmes does not need to be consulted to connect the dots.
-
Oswald wore his wedding ring on his right hand in the Russian tradition. That might be a source of confusion to an American who is used to seeing wedding rings only on the left hand. And likely completely unaware of Oswald's kooky background. There is zero doubt that Oswald wore a wedding ring. According to his own wife, he wore it every day. There are pictures of Oswald wearing his ring. And we were recently told here that no one has ever suggested that family members lied to frame Oswald. Oswald is not wearing the wedding ring when arrested. Sherlock Holmes does not need to be consulted to connect the dots.
Oswald is not wearing the wedding ring when arrested. Sherlock Holmes does not need to be consulted to connect the dots.
Too bad those dots are just imaginary.
In the real world, when a couple breaks up and their marriage is over, it's normal to take of the wedding ring. According to Marina and Ruth Paine, Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina and ask her to live with him again. When she refused, he understood his marriage was over, so he left his ring behind.
It's a far more plausible explanation than "Oswald wasn't wearing his wedding ring which is evidence that he killed Kennedy".
-
The members of the cult of the WC often like to point to their prophet Bugliosi and his "53 pieces of evidence" supposedly pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt in the assassination of John Kennedy. If you examine the list, you'll find that 46 of them are not evidence at all, they are lawyer rhetoric and speculative confirmation bias. 4 items point to a particular weapon, not a person. 8 items are questionable or tainted in some way. Some items fall into more than one category.
Key:
NE - not evidence with regard to JFK's murder
PW - points to a weapon, not a shooter
TQ - tainted or questionable
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - NE
2. Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods - NE
3. Oswald told Frazier he wouldn't be going home with him on Friday - NE
4. Oswald was not chatty about Kennedy's upcoming Dallas visit on Thursday evening - NE
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - NE
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat of Frazier's car - NE
7. Frazier said it was the first time Oswald did not bring his lunch - NE
8. Oswald walked ahead of Frazier to the building from the parking area - NE
9. Oswald did not read the newspaper in the domino room that morning - NE
10. Oswald asked Jarman why people were gathering outside and then which way the president was coming - NE
11. Howard Brennan told the FBI on December 18 that he was "sure" that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window, after initially failing to make a positive identification - TQ
12. We know that Kennedy’s assassin was at the subject sixth-floor window - NE (not even true)
13. Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination - (this isn't even true)
Givens (over 4 months later) placed Oswald on the 6th floor at 11:55 - NE
Oswald (supposedly) preferred Dr Pepper to Coke - NE
14. Why would Oswald go up to get a Coke after hearing all the commotion? - NE
15. Oswald was apparently uninterested in watching the motorcade outside - NE
16. Oswald left work within minutes of the shooting - NE
17. Oswald walked east and got on a bus heading back toward the TSBD - NE
18. Oswald got off the bus after a few blocks - NE
19. Oswald wasn't chatty with the cab driver - NE
20. Oswald had the cab driver drop him off a few blocks past his rooming house - NE
21. Roberts said Oswald seemed to be in a hurry - NE
22. Oswald allegedly picked up his revolver at the rooming house - NE
23. Oswald allegedly changed some of his clothing at the rooming house - NE
24. Oswald was allegedly chosen by Markham (in the unfair lineup) as the one who killed Tippit - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
25. Oswald looked funny to Brewer - NE
26. Oswald allegedly “ducked in” to the theater without buying a ticket - NE
27. According to McDonald, Oswald said "it's all over now" - NE
28. Oswald allegedly punched McDonald and reached for a gun in his waistband - NE
29. Oswald didn't sufficiently cooperate with police after arrest - NE
30. Oswald showed reporters his handcuffed hands and his fist was clenched - NE
31. Oswald supposedly refused to take a lie detector test - NE
32. Marina thought his eyes looked guilty - NE
33. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Klein's order coupon - TQ
34. The 2 large fragments supposedly found in the limo and CE399 were fired by C2766 - PW, TQ
35. The shells supposedly found by the window were fired by C2766 - PW
36. Two of Oswald's prints were found on a wrapper that was supposedly found by the window - NE
37. Oswald's prints were found on boxes near the window - NE
38. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Seaport Traders coupon for the CE143 revolver - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
39. 1 of 8 firearms experts thought one Tippit bullet was fired from CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
40. Cartridge cases supposedly found near 10th and Patton were matched to CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
41. Paraffin test on Oswald’s hands indicated the presence of nitrates - TQ
42. Oswald supposedly left his blue jacket in the TSBD - NE
43. Police supposedly found a light-colored jacket in a Texaco parking lot - NE
44. A clipboard attributed to Oswald with unfilled orders was supposedly found on the 6th floor a week later - NE
45. Oswald allegedly denied purchasing the Carcano rifle - NE
46. Oswald allegedly questioned the authenticity of a backyard photograph - NE
47. Oswald allegedly said he had never seen the photograph before, but handwriting analysts said it was his writing on the DeMohrenschildt print that turned up 4 years later - NE
48. Oswald allegedly denied ever living at the Neely apartment - NE
49. Oswald allegedly denied telling Frazier he was getting curtain rods - NE
50. Oswald allegedly denied putting a long package on the backseat of Frazier's car - NE
51. Oswald allegedly told Fritz that the only package he brought to work contained his lunch - NE
52. Oswald (by Fritz's account) allegedly said he had lunch with Jarman and another employee, but Jarman said he did not have lunch with Oswald - NE
53. Oswald allegedly said he bought his handgun in Fort Worth - NE
Thank you, Mr Iacoletti ....for taking the time to review and evaluate he "list of evidence"
There's not a single item on that list that is proof of Lee Oswald's guilt..... Bugliosi should have been ashamed of producing such a POS.
-
Oswald is not wearing the wedding ring when arrested. Sherlock Holmes does not need to be consulted to connect the dots.
Too bad those dots are just imaginary.
In the real world, when a couple breaks up and their marriage is over, it's normal to take of the wedding ring. According to Marina and Ruth Paine, Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina and ask her to live with him again. When she refused, he understood his marriage was over, so he left his ring behind.
It's a far more plausible explanation than "Oswald wasn't wearing his wedding ring which is evidence that he killed Kennedy".
Oswald was so unlucky that day in your contrarian fantasy world. After being married for many years, we now learn that his marriage ended on the very day of the assassination. HA HA HA. Of course Marina apparently wasn't made aware of this. You should be embarrassed to peddle your nonsense. And it's been explained a dozen times to you that no one is suggesting that not wearing a wedding ring alone is evidence of killing the president as you stupidly and dishonestly have characterized it. The wedding ring is taken in context of the totality of other evidence. Not in a vacuum by itself. Leaving his wedding ring at home that morning when other evidence links him to the crime gives that act greater significance. This would be obvious to any honest person which is where the issue arises.
-
Oswald was so unlucky that day in your contrarian fantasy world. After being married for many years, we now learn that his marriage ended on the very day of the assassination. HA HA HA.
“Richard” thinks this is evidence of murder. HA HA HA.
And it's been explained a dozen times to you that no one is suggesting that not wearing a wedding ring alone is evidence of killing the president as you stupidly and dishonestly have characterized it. The wedding ring is taken in context of the totality of other evidence.
“Explained”. LOL
Several things that are not evidence of anything do not magically combine to become evidence of something. This is just a lame and transparent attempt to substitute quantity for quality in order to prop up a failed argument.
Not in a vacuum by itself. Leaving his wedding ring at home that morning when other evidence links him to the crime gives that act greater significance. This would be obvious to any honest person which is where the issue arises.
Bull. Honest people don’t try to pass off their confirmation bias as evidence.
-
How about a simple example for our contrarians? Let's say there were three people named Martin, Roger, and Otto who all lived in Dallas and left their wedding rings at home on 11.22.63. Would this alone make them suspects in the assassination? Of course not. No one ever has ever made this claim about Oswald. But suppose "Martin" also worked in the building from which the shots were fired, his rifle is found there, his prints were on the SN boxes, rifle, and long bag, he had no credible alibi, fled the scene, got a gun, shot a policer officer, resisted arrest, and told the DPD numerous lies. Martin's act of leaving his wedding ring at home that very day gains greater significance in the totality of context with the other evidence and circumstances. It becomes highly probative that Martin anticipated not coming home again. Why would this have been the case on 11.22.63 if Oswald simply planned on going to work? It demonstrates foreknowledge of the assassination. Something only the assassin could have known that morning. A small child could understand this without assistance but some others either cannot or are intentionally dishonest.
-
There's not a single item on that [53-item] list that is proof of Lee Oswald's guilt..... Bugliosi should have been ashamed of producing such a POS.
Here we have another CTer who is incapable of "Adding Up" the various unusual things that Lee Oswald did on 11/21 and 11/22. (I.E., the things that unquestionably "Add Up" to LHO's guilt in the two murders he committed in Dallas on November 22nd.)
But, then too, I've known for many years (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Walt+Cakebread) that the individual named Cakebread has never been any good at all when it comes to mathematics, especially addition. He takes after his fellow goofy conspiracy fantasist, Ben Holmes (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html), in that regard.
-
Here we have another CTer who is incapable of "Adding Up" the various unusual things that Lee Oswald did on 11/21 and 11/22. (I.E., the things that unquestionably "Add Up" to LHO's guilt in the two murders he committed in Dallas on November 22nd.)
But, then too, I've known for many years (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Walt+Cakebread) that the individual named Cakebread has never been any good at all when it comes to mathematics, especially addition. He takes after his fellow goofy conspiracy fantasist, Ben Holmes (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html), in that regard.
"Adding Up" the various unusual things that Lee Oswald did on 11/21 and 11/22
Translation for "adding up" is making assumptions to "connect" one thing somehow "unusual" with another thing somehow "unusual".
But perhaps you can help us out here, David.
For about six months now, I have been asking Richard Smith to provide evidence for his claims that (1) Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and (2) that he came down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. Richard told me to look at up in the WC report, but I couldn't find any evidence to support either claim in Chapter 4, which deals with the assassin.
All I could find is that the WC somehow considered the presence of the MC rifle (allegedly bought by Oswald) on the 6th floor as proof that Oswald was there when the shots were fired, which is, on so many levels, completely absurd.
Do you, David, know of any evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and/or that he did indeed come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds of the last shot?
-
Do you, David, know of any evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and/or that he did indeed come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds of the last shot?
Yes. That evidence is "Howard Brennan".
I know CTers will forever toss Mr. Brennan into the nearest gutter, practically treating him as if he had witnessed nothing at all in Dealey Plaza, but Brennan's Warren Commission testimony will forever be part of the record of the JFK case, whether conspiracists like it or not.
And if Brennan's WC testimony and positive identification of Oswald as the assassin is to be believed (and I think it is), then that means Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a gun at 12:30 PM, which also therefore has to mean he did manage to get from the sixth floor down to the second floor (unnoticed) in less than (approx.) 90 seconds, because we know (via Roy S. Truly's verification) that Oswald did encounter Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in the lunchroom at approximately 12:32 PM.
Plus, of course, there's also the circumstantial evidence of the JFK murder weapon positively being the C2766 Carcano rifle that was found on the 6th floor. And that's a rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald, whether stubborn CTers want to admit that fact or not. And on any given day--including 11/22/63--please tell me who is MORE likely to be using OSWALD'S gun if not Lee Oswald himself? That's very good circumstantial evidence right there---especially when it's ADDED TO Howard Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.
No conspiracy believer, however, wants to face up to the fact that the "rifle" evidence is, in fact, excellent circumstantial evidence pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the President's murderer.
-
Yes. That evidence is "Howard Brennan".
I know CTers will forever toss Mr. Brennan into the nearest gutter, practically treating him as if he had witnessed nothing at all in Dealey Plaza, but Brennan's Warren Commission testimony will forever be part of the record of the JFK case, whether conspiracists like it or not.
And if Brennan's WC testimony and positive identification of Oswald as the assassin is to be believed (and I think it is), then that means Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a gun at 12:30 PM, which also therefore has to mean he did manage to get from the sixth floor down to the second floor (unnoticed) in less than (approx.) 90 seconds, because we know (via Roy S. Truly's verification) that Oswald did encounter Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in the lunchroom at approximately 12:32 PM.
Plus, of course, there's also the circumstantial evidence of the JFK murder weapon positively being the C2766 Carcano rifle that was found on the 6th floor. And that's a rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald, whether stubborn CTers want to admit that fact or not. And on any given day--including 11/22/63--please tell me who is MORE likely to be using OSWALD'S gun if not Lee Oswald himself? That's very good circumstantial evidence right there---especially when it's ADDED TO Howard Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.
No conspiracy believer, however, wants to face up to the fact that the "rifle" evidence is, in fact, excellent circumstantial evidence pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the President's murderer.
That outta set IaLOLetti's (aka Nick Beef) hair on fire
-
How about a simple example for our contrarians? Let's say there were three people named Martin, Roger, and Otto who all lived in Dallas and left their wedding rings at home on 11.22.63. Would this alone make them suspects in the assassination? Of course not. No one ever has ever made this claim about Oswald. But suppose "Martin" also worked in the building from which the shots were fired, his rifle is found there, his prints were on the SN boxes, rifle, and long bag, he had no credible alibi, fled the scene, got a gun, shot a policer officer, resisted arrest, and told the DPD numerous lies.
In fact, none of those thing are evidence of murder, even if you could actually show that they are true (which you cannot).
Martin's act of leaving his wedding ring at home that very day gains greater significance in the totality of context with the other evidence and circumstances.
No, the “significance” is in the imagination of the person who has just decided that it must be significant.
-
Here we have another CTer who is incapable of "Adding Up" the various unusual things that Lee Oswald did on 11/21 and 11/22.
Doing “unusual” things is not evidence of murder. It’s what people who don’t have any good evidence appeal to and hope that their rhetoric will be persuasive anyway. It’s a form of pounding the table.
-
Yes. That evidence is "Howard Brennan".
I know CTers will forever toss Mr. Brennan into the nearest gutter, practically treating him as if he had witnessed nothing at all in Dealey Plaza, but Brennan's Warren Commission testimony will forever be part of the record of the JFK case, whether conspiracists like it or not.
And Howard Brennan failed to make a positive ID in a lineup that was egregiously unfair and biased to begin with, even after seeing Oswald on TV, and embellished his story more and more every time he told it — whether WC fanatics like it or not.
But just so we’re clear, Brennan’s belated “certainty” is your only evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor during the shooting, right? Unlike “Richard”, are you willing to admit that?
And if Brennan's WC testimony and positive identification of Oswald as the assassin is to be believed (and I think it is), then that means Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a gun at 12:30 PM,
And if it’s not to be believed (and there are good reasons not to) then that means there is no reason to believe that Oswald was on the sixth floor with a gun at 12:30 — one of those reasons being, what plausible way could he have gotten down in that timeframe unnoticed? You’re coming dangerously close to “Richard’s” insipid argument that the evidence Oswald came down the stairs in about 75 seconds unnoticed by at least 12 people along the way is that it happened.
Plus, of course, there's also the circumstantial evidence of the JFK murder weapon positively being the C2766 Carcano rifle that was found on the 6th floor. And that's a rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald, whether stubborn CTers want to admit that fact or not.
Even if you could establish that as a fact (and you cannot), that tells you exactly nothing about where Oswald was at 12:30. You can’t even establish that rifle as the murder weapon, much less who owned it. Being “stubborn” has nothing to do with it. You don’t have the goods, and false bravado hardly makes up for it.
-
The murder weapon is not necessarily needed to convict in this case, the lights on the stairway were dangerously dim, the stairs themselves were creaky as hell, Garner said there was chaos and confusion everywhere, and Brennan died years before his book was even published, leaving his writer wannabe plenty of time to 'get creative'.
-
Yes. That evidence is "Howard Brennan".
I know CTers will forever toss Mr. Brennan into the nearest gutter, practically treating him as if he had witnessed nothing at all in Dealey Plaza, but Brennan's Warren Commission testimony will forever be part of the record of the JFK case, whether conspiracists like it or not.
And if Brennan's WC testimony and positive identification of Oswald as the assassin is to be believed (and I think it is), then that means Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a gun at 12:30 PM, which also therefore has to mean he did manage to get from the sixth floor down to the second floor (unnoticed) in less than (approx.) 90 seconds, because we know (via Roy S. Truly's verification) that Oswald did encounter Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in the lunchroom at approximately 12:32 PM.
Plus, of course, there's also the circumstantial evidence of the JFK murder weapon positively being the C2766 Carcano rifle that was found on the 6th floor. And that's a rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald, whether stubborn CTers want to admit that fact or not. And on any given day--including 11/22/63--please tell me who is MORE likely to be using OSWALD'S gun if not Lee Oswald himself? That's very good circumstantial evidence right there---especially when it's ADDED TO Howard Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.
No conspiracy believer, however, wants to face up to the fact that the "rifle" evidence is, in fact, excellent circumstantial evidence pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the President's murderer.
In other words all you really have as "evidence" are basically two assumptions, of which one is based on a large number of other assumptions.
Any lawyer will tell you that witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence there is. Nevertheless you assume that Brennan's "identification" of Oswald during his WC testimony, months later, is more reliable than his initial failure to identify Oswald in a line up. There is no reason, other than wishful thinking, to place more value on the belated "identification". Even more so because the testimony was given several months later after Brennan, just like everybody else, had been exposed to continuous media reports declaring Oswald's alleged guilt. In addition, Brennan has been proven to be lying about what he was doing when the second shot was fired. He claimed he looked up to the TSBD window, but the Zapruder film shows that he actually was looking at the motorcade. He also lied about where on the wall he was sitting. He claimed he was facing the main entrance of the TSBD (which would place him on Elm street) but photographic evidence show he was in fact sitting facing Houston with his back to Dealey Plaza.
The second assumption you make is that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald. The only justification for that assumption is the opinion of one FBI expert who claimed the Klein's order form was written by Oswald. Never mind that another FBI expert (I can't recall his name instantly) later stated that the handwriting sample (and the fact that the documents were photocopies) made it impossible to make such a determination with any kind of certainty. You also have to assume that Klein's did in fact send a rifle and Oswald received it. There is no evidence for either, expect that Waldman stated that a circle around the letters "PP" (on Waldman 7) means a rifle was send. Next you have to assume that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and kept it in his possession between March and November 1963, which means that you also have to assume that the rifle allegedly stored in Ruth Paine's garage was indeed C2766. There isn't corroborating evidence for any of it.
What it basically comes down to is this; if I register a weapon in your name and leave it behind at a crime scene some six months later, would that be evidence that you were at that crime scene?
You are of course aware of the fact that Jesse Curry is on record saying that they never had any conclusive evidence that placed Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, right? And that fact that Robert Tanenbaum, the former prosecutor and deputy chief counsel of the HSCA, has said that the evidence there was against Oswald was insufficient to secure a conviction.
Your cherry picked "evidence" is paper thin and in fact highly inconclusive.
-
"Adding Up" the various unusual things that Lee Oswald did on 11/21 and 11/22
Translation for "adding up" is making assumptions to "connect" one thing somehow "unusual" with another thing somehow "unusual".
But perhaps you can help us out here, David.
For about six months now, I have been asking Richard Smith to provide evidence for his claims that (1) Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and (2) that he came down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. Richard told me to look at up in the WC report, but I couldn't find any evidence to support either claim in Chapter 4, which deals with the assassin.
All I could find is that the WC somehow considered the presence of the MC rifle (allegedly bought by Oswald) on the 6th floor as proof that Oswald was there when the shots were fired, which is, on so many levels, completely absurd.
Do you, David, know of any evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and/or that he did indeed come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds of the last shot?
"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene! HA HA HA. Imagine any other crime in history where the weapon was left at the crime scene and can be linked to an individual who was known to be in building, who fled the scene, shot a police officer, had no credible alibi and then lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle. What a mystery to solve! But that is "all" the evidence we have. There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it. So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world! And it's just an amazing string of bad luck that Oswald was the only TSBD employee who "worked in the building" who left his prints on the SN boxes, left his wedding ring and a large amount of money with his wife, made an unusual visit to the location where his rifle was kept the night before the assassination, carried his lunch in a bag over two feet long, looked exactly like the assassin and Tippit murderer according to several witnesses. So much bad luck that day!
-
"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene! HA HA HA. Imagine any other crime in history where the weapon was left at the crime scene and can be linked to an individual who was known to be in building, who fled the scene, shot a police officer, had no credible alibi and then lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle. What a mystery to solve! But that is "all" the evidence we have. There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it. So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world! And it's just an amazing string of bad luck that Oswald was the only TSBD employee who "worked in the building" who left his prints on the SN boxes, left his wedding ring and a large amount of money with his wife, made an unusual visit to the location where his rifle was kept the night before the assassination, carried his lunch in a bag over two feet long, looked exactly like the assassin and Tippit murderer according to several witnesses. So much bad luck that day!
"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene! HA HA HA.
Why am I not surprised that a fool makes an utterly foolish bogus claim?
And btw I never said that "Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene". That's just another thing you've made up.
There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it. So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world!
When you have no proof - as you just said - it's not a fantasy to call it an assumption because that's exactly what it is.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that assumptions are not evidence?
-
"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene! HA HA HA.
Why am I not surprised that a fool makes an utterly foolish bogus claim?
And btw I never said that "Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene". That's just another thing you've made up.
There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it. So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world!
When you have no proof - as you just said - it's not a fantasy to call it an assumption because that's exactly what it is.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that assumptions are not evidence?
Comedy gold. Arguing that it is not Oswald's rifle is bad enough. Arguing that EVEN if it is Oswald's rifle, that it still doesn't prove anything is laughable. A rifle found at the scene belonging to Oswald is not evidence of his involvement according to our resident Inspector Clouseau. It is just an "assumption." HA HA HA. Maybe that time machine will be invented one day to solve the crime.
-
BRENNAN
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/GhfWdV5m/Howard-Brennan-in-Zapruder.jpg)
Mr. BRENNAN. And I walked over to this retainer wall of this little park pool and jumped up on the top ledge.
Mr. BELIN. You jumped up on the retaining wall?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I hand you what has been marked as Exhibit 477.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 477 for identification.)
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Will you please tell the Commission what this is?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the Book Store at the corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. By the Book Store, you mean the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Now, do you know what
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the retainer wall which I perched on.
Mr. BELIN. All right. This is. the retaining wall on which you perched. I believe that this is actually you sitting on this retaining wall in a picture that we took in Dallas pursuant to your showing us where you were November 22; we took that picture on this past Friday.
Mr. BRENNAN. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. Which would be the 20th of March. Is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. All right. I hand you now what the reporter has marked as Commission Exhibit 478.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 478 for identification.)
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall and myself sitting on it at Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. You remember that the photographer was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository when that picture was taken On the 20th of March?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; I do.
Mr. BELIN. And the camera is pointed in what direction?
Mr. BRENNAN. South.
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Representative FORD. In both pictures, that is a true--
Mr. BRENNAN. True location.
Representative FORD. True location of where you were sitting November 22d?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, I am going to hand you a negative, which has been marked as Commission Exhibit 479.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 479 for identification.)
Mr. BELIN. This appears to be a negative from a moving picture film. And I will hand you a magnifying glass--the negative has been enlarged. This negative appears to be a picture of the Presidential motorcade on the afternoon of November 22d. I ask you to state if you can find yourself in the crowd in the background in that picture.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. I am sitting at the same position as I was in the picture taken Friday, with the exception, I believe, my hand is resting on the wall, and Friday my hand, I believe, was resting on my leg.
Mr. BELIN. Well, your legs in this picture, Exhibit 479, I notice, are not dangling on the front side there, is that correct?
142
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. BELIN. What were you wearing on November 22d? What clothes were you wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Gray khaki work clothes, with a dark gray hard helmet.
Mr. BELIN. Your head here appears to be the highest in the group, a little bit left of center in the upper part of the picture, is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Does this scene depict the scene as you recollect it on that day, November 22d?
Mr. BRENNAN. It does.
-
I've always found it hard to believe that Brennan was able to "clearly" see from 90 feet away looking upward to a very small window with the pane cracked open halfway that he could identify someone, especially when his eyes - like many people there - were focused on the motorcade. We're talking pandemonium here with the cars and cycles going by, the cheering and so on.
-
I've always found it hard to believe that Brennan was able to "clearly" see from 90 feet away looking upward to a very small window with the pane cracked open halfway that he could identify someone, especially when his eyes - like many people there - were focused on the motorcade. We're talking pandemonium here with the cars and cycles going by, the cheering and so on.
This doesn't seem like a great mystery. Brennan is standing below on the street, hears gun shots, does the logical thing and looks for the source of the noise and sees Oswald with his rifle. If there is anything that is surprising, it is that many more witnesses didn't do the same (although others did see the rifle in that window confirming that is the location of the shooter - unless you believe lunatic things like Oswald was firing blanks etc).
-
I've always found it hard to believe that Brennan was able to "clearly" see from 90 feet away looking upward to a very small window with the pane cracked open halfway that he could identify someone, especially when his eyes - like many people there - were focused on the motorcade. We're talking pandemonium here with the cars and cycles going by, the cheering and so on.
It's implausible that he would've been able to describe the height or weight of the person in the window from his vantage point.
-
This doesn't seem like a great mystery. Brennan is standing below on the street, hears gun shots, does the logical thing and looks for the source of the noise and sees Oswald with his rifle. If there is anything that is surprising, it is that many more witnesses didn't do the same (although others did see the rifle in that window confirming that is the location of the shooter - unless you believe lunatic things like Oswald was firing blanks etc).
Brennan runs up to the police during the chaos and tells them about seeing a man with a rifle in the building. Bad luck for Oswald is that he looked like the shooter. And unfortunately the police found a rifle and shells where Brennan says he saw a shooter. And then other witnesses also say they saw a rifle/man in the window.
Brennan sure got lucky that all of this helped his lies out. Meanwhile, more bad luck for poor Oswald.
Or all of this was made up, Brennan was a CIA asset and et cetera, et cetera.
-
Comedy gold. Arguing that it is not Oswald's rifle is bad enough. Arguing that EVEN if it is Oswald's rifle, that it still doesn't prove anything is laughable. A rifle found at the scene belonging to Oswald is not evidence of his involvement according to our resident Inspector Clouseau. It is just an "assumption." HA HA HA. Maybe that time machine will be invented one day to solve the crime.
Arguing that it is not Oswald's rifle is bad enough. Arguing that EVEN if it is Oswald's rifle, that it still doesn't prove anything is laughable.
Why do you continue to insist in showing off just how big of a fool you are. And what do you think to achieve by completely misrepresenting what was actually said?
A rifle found at the scene belonging to Oswald is not evidence of his involvement according to our resident Inspector Clouseau.
More sleight-of-hand BS! And who said that anyway?
It is just an "assumption."
What isn't an assumption, but instead a fact, is that somebody who constantly makes claims he can't support with evidence, who continuously lies, misrepresents what was said and makes up stuff, like Richard constantly does, hasn't even got the beginning of a credible case!
-
This doesn't seem like a great mystery. Brennan is standing below on the street, hears gun shots, does the logical thing and looks for the source of the noise and sees Oswald with his rifle. If there is anything that is surprising, it is that many more witnesses didn't do the same (although others did see the rifle in that window confirming that is the location of the shooter - unless you believe lunatic things like Oswald was firing blanks etc).
Brennan is standing below on the street, hears gun shots, does the logical thing and looks for the source of the noise and sees Oswald with his rifle.
Except he didn't, because in the Z-film he can be seen watching the motorcade at the time the shots rang out and the shooter was just about completely hidden behind the wall next to the SN window.
This doesn't seem like a great mystery.
What is a complete mystery is how a reasonable person can take anything Brennan said seriously.
-
"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene! HA HA HA.
“Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene”. HA HA HA.
-
I've always found it hard to believe that Brennan was able to "clearly" see from 90 feet away looking upward to a very small window with the pane cracked open halfway that he could identify someone, especially when his eyes - like many people there - were focused on the motorcade. We're talking pandemonium here with the cars and cycles going by, the cheering and so on.
And on top of that, anyone in a position to take aim for the last shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle up to his face.
-
Bad luck for Oswald is that he looked like the shooter.
Unfair and biased lineup. No “bad luck” involved.
-
Why do you continue to insist in showing off just how big of a fool you are. And what do you think to achieve by completely misrepresenting what was actually said?
“Richard” is either an utterly dishonest propagandist or an utter failure at comprehending the written word. My money is on utterly dishonest propagandist.
-
Brennan is standing below on the street, hears gun shots, does the logical thing and looks for the source of the noise and sees Oswald with his rifle.
Except he didn't, because in the Z-film he can be seen watching the motorcade at the time the shots rang out and the shooter was just about completely hidden behind the wall next to the SN window.
This doesn't seem like a great mystery.
What is a complete mystery is how a reasonable person can take anything Brennan said seriously.
What Brennan swore to in his affidavit on 1/22/63 is the truth as he remembered seeing the events at the time of the murder..... He was not lying...... but he may have been confused about some aspects. It was only after seeing Lee Oswald murdered ( who he knew was innocent of shooting JFK) that he saw the light and decided to support the official tale.
-
“Richard” is either an utterly dishonest propagandist or an utter failure at comprehending the written word. My money is on utterly dishonest propagandist.
i] utterly dishonest propagandist.[/i]
Mr "Smith" is far more than an ....i] utterly dishonest propagandist.[/i]
At this late date and all of the information that has surfaced over the years .... I doubt that any rational person could possibly believe the stuff that "Smith" regurgitates
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/GhfWdV5m/Howard-Brennan-in-Zapruder.jpg)
There; Now others can judge for themselves just where they think Brennan
appears to be looking.
Bill Chapman
Dead Oswald Tour
27,598 Views To Date
-
Oswald took a knee. Only Tippit had to worry about a gun in the face.
-
What Brennan swore to in his affidavit on 1/22/63 is the truth as he remembered seeing the events at the time of the murder..... He was not lying...... but he may have been confused about some aspects. It was only after seeing Lee Oswald murdered ( who he knew was innocent of shooting JFK) that he saw the light and decided to support the official tale.
That's an accurate, fair analysis. Brennan was hounded by federal agents to testify that the man he saw was Oswald. Brennan failed to positively ID Oswald even in the grossly rigged police lineup that he was shown, but, after being hounded by federal agents, Brennan later told the WC that the man he saw was Oswald.
Moreover, Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing does not match the clothes Oswald was wearing but does match the description given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired. I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.
Plus, new research regarding the witnesses who were near and/or on the TSBD stairs right after the shooting proves that Oswald did not go down those stairs to get to the second-floor lunchroom, as is detailed in the new documentary JFK Revisited.
-
That's an accurate, fair analysis. Brennan was hounded by federal agents to testify that the man he saw was Oswald. Brennan failed to positively ID Oswald even in the grossly rigged police lineup that he was shown, but, after being hounded by federal agents, Brennan later told the WC that the man he saw was Oswald.
Moreover, Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing does not match the clothes Oswald was wearing but does match the description given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired. I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.
Plus, new research regarding the witnesses who were near and/or on the TSBD stairs right after the shooting proves that Oswald did not go down those stairs to get to the second-floor lunchroom, as is detailed in the new documentary JFK Revisited.
The whole gang was there, covering for each other: Oswald of course... and O.H. Lee, Hidell, and my favourite, Dirty Harvey (I made that one up. I'm very clever.)
Meanwhile:
(https://i.postimg.cc/k40h7vyv/180-CLONES-2.png)
Bill Chapman/Dead Oswald Tour
Above: Gang of Four
Dirty Harry: "Smith, Wesson... and me"
--------------------------------------------
Dirty Harvey: Smith, Wesson... and Lee
-
That's an accurate, fair analysis. Brennan was hounded by federal agents to testify that the man he saw was Oswald. Brennan failed to positively ID Oswald even in the grossly rigged police lineup that he was shown, but, after being hounded by federal agents, Brennan later told the WC that the man he saw was Oswald.
Moreover, Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing does not match the clothes Oswald was wearing but does match the description given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired. I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.
Plus, new research regarding the witnesses who were near and/or on the TSBD stairs right after the shooting proves that Oswald did not go down those stairs to get to the second-floor lunchroom, as is detailed in the new documentary JFK Revisited.
Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin. In fact, it's exactly the opposite, he explained that he did not initially ID Oswald as the assassin because he was fearful to do so.
-
Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin. In fact, it's exactly the opposite, he explained that he did not initially ID Oswald as the assassin because he was fearful to do so.
So why didn't they lie and say he identified Oswald at the time of the lineups? Brennan could be "hounded" to say he did. If they "hounded" him to ID Oswald later why not "hound" him at that time? Or "hound" him to say he did? This was all a sham, a fraud, a setup of Oswald: the lineups were a lie, the identification by the witnesses were all lies. But they "allowed" Brennan to not identify Oswald?
The silliness of conspiracy believers is endless. The conspirators both frame and not frame people, hound and not hound people, do obvious things and not do obvious things, plant evidence but not plant evidence, coverup but not coverup. They are both incompetent and powerless and all powerful and in total control of events.
This is either some weird game they play - "JFK Assassination The Game" where you score points by coming up with the most original idea or claim - or the assassination is the vehicle for these people to express their grievances about the world, the US, "the Establishment", the CIA, the media, the police. For anti-American types - some of these people from the UK are a real hoot - it's the evil US as a whole, whatever monsters they have in their heads.
Multiple generations of Americans - Democrat and Republican and independent, liberal and conservatives, JFK haters and JFK lovers - have gone to Washington over these 60 years or so. They've served in the CIA and other agencies. From top to bottom and in between. And all of them - every single one - has covered up the government's role - the CIA most specifically - in the assassination. Why? There is no reason to do so. They would be recognized as heroes for uncovering this treason. But they didn't. They all have suppressed the truth.
This is, frankly, either gross ignorance about human behavior and human nature or a type of paranoid mentality. What's another explanation?
-
Brennan was an unreliable witness. There's no way he could've identified the suspect's height and weight from his vantage point. That much has been clear for almost 60 years.
-
So why didn't they lie and say he identified Oswald at the time of the lineups? Brennan could be "hounded" to say he did. If they "hounded" him to ID Oswald later why not "hound" him at that time? Or "hound" him to say he did? This was all a sham, a fraud, a setup of Oswald: the lineups were a lie, the identification by the witnesses were all lies. But they "allowed" Brennan to not identify Oswald?
The silliness of conspiracy believers is endless. The conspirators both frame and not frame people, hound and not hound people, do obvious things and not do obvious things, plant evidence but not plant evidence, coverup but not coverup. They are both incompetent and powerless and all powerful and in total control of events.
This is either some weird game they play - "JFK Assassination The Game" where you score points by coming up with the most original idea or claim - or the assassination is the vehicle for these people to express their grievances about the world, the US, "the Establishment", the CIA, the media, the police. For anti-American types - some of these people from the UK are a real hoot - it's the evil US as a whole, whatever monsters they have in their heads.
Multiple generations of Americans - Democrat and Republican and independent, liberal and conservatives, JFK haters and JFK lovers - have gone to Washington over these 60 years or so. They've served in the CIA and other agencies. From top to bottom and in between. And all of them - every single one - has covered up the government's role - the CIA most specifically - in the assassination. Why? There is no reason to do so. They would be recognized as heroes for uncovering this treason. But they didn't. They all have suppressed the truth.
This is, frankly, either gross ignorance about human behavior and human nature or a type of paranoid mentality. What's another explanation?
Yes, and think of all the seemingly random, average citizens that CTers have suggested were somehow coerced into implicating Oswald including his own wife. From all walks of life. And they were apparently willing to lie in a cover up of the assassination of the president. Can anyone believe that for real? I do wonder if they actually believe this nonsense or whether it is like the endless "ghost hunter" shows where the participants must realize there are no ghosts but it's more fun and entertaining to pretend otherwise.
-
Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin. In fact, it's exactly the opposite, he explained that he did not initially ID Oswald as the assassin because he was fearful to do so.
Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin.
Really? He claimed in his affidavit of 11/22/63 that he would be able to identify the man he had seen, but then did not identify Oswald in the line up, despite that fact that - according to his own admission - he had seen Oswald's picture in the media, prior to that line up.
When a witness fails to identify a suspect in a line up, what other valid reason is there for law enforcement to contact him again, except to change his mind?
After he testified before the WC, Brennen executed an affidavit for the WC on May 7, 1964. In it he explained the reason for not identifying Oswald during the line up and then goes on to say that he could have identified him "very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted me"
-
So why didn't they lie and say he identified Oswald at the time of the lineups? Brennan could be "hounded" to say he did. If they "hounded" him to ID Oswald later why not "hound" him at that time? Or "hound" him to say he did? This was all a sham, a fraud, a setup of Oswald: the lineups were a lie, the identification by the witnesses were all lies. But they "allowed" Brennan to not identify Oswald?
“The conspirators I just dreamed up in my head would never do X, therefore Oswald did it”, part 99999
The bottom line is that the only “witness” that supports what you want to believe failed to make a positive ID in the biased, unfair lineup— even after seeing Oswald on TV as the suspect.
-
Yes, and think of all the seemingly random, average citizens that CTers have suggested were somehow coerced into implicating Oswald including his own wife.
More “Richard” BS. His wife implicated nothing. She had no knowledge of anything regarding the assassination.
-
We have apparent agreement even from the contrarians that Oswald owned a rifle, stored it in the Paine's garage, attempted to kill Walker, and that he posed for the BY photos since we have now learned that no CTer has ever suggested that Marina was coerced to lie about any of these events. No more stinging rebuttals to the evidence like "Oswald's rifle - LOL." Magnificent! Progress at last!
-
We have apparent agreement even from the contrarians that Oswald owned a rifle, stored it in the Paine's garage, attempted to kill Walker, and that he posed for the BY photos since we have now learned that no CTer has ever suggested that Marina was coerced to lie about any of these events. No more stinging rebuttals to the evidence like "Oswald's rifle - LOL." Magnificent! Progress at last!
What have you been smoking?
since we have now learned that no CTer has ever suggested that Marina was coerced to lie about any of these events.
Where did you learn that?
Such desperation...... :D
-
We have apparent agreement even from the contrarians that Oswald owned a rifle, stored it in the Paine's garage, attempted to kill Walker, and that he posed for the BY photos since we have now learned that no CTer has ever suggested that Marina was coerced to lie about any of these events. No more stinging rebuttals to the evidence like "Oswald's rifle - LOL." Magnificent! Progress at last!
More trademark “Richard” BS. None of these things implicate Lee in the Kennedy assassination. And she had no first hand knowledge of the alleged Walker attempt. Is “owned a rifle” and “backyard photos” supposed to be evidence of something?
As if referring to it as “Oswald’s rifle” somehow demonstrates that it was Oswald’s rifle. Assertions made without evidence deserve nothing more than a LOL.
-
What have you been smoking?
since we have now learned that no CTer has ever suggested that Marina was coerced to lie about any of these events.
Where did you learn that?
Such desperation...... :D
From your fellow contrarian. He said that Marina "implicated nothing." So which is it? Did Marina lie about Oswald owning a rifle, storing it in the Paine's garage, attempting to kill Walker, and taking the BY photos or not? You can't have it every way. Suggesting Marina lied about these matters in some instance but then denying that is what you are claiming. There is no ambiguity in Marina's testimony on these points. She repeatedly confirmed to the WC that Oswald owned a rifle, he kept it in Paine's garage, he admitted to attempting to kill Walker, and that she took the BY photos of Oswald holding the rifle. So is she lying on these points or not? Do you also believe these matters are not relevant to the assassination as he idiotically claimed? Possession of the murder weapon, a similar assassination attempt, no explanation for the rifle being gone on 11.22, in fact lying about ever owning such a rifle etc. LOL.
-
From your fellow contrarian. He said that Marina "implicated nothing." So which is it? Did Marina lie about Oswald owning a rifle, storing it in the Paine's garage, attempting to kill Walker, and taking the BY photos or not?
How do any of these claims implicate Lee in the Kennedy assassination? Be specific.
(Though we all know you’ll just refuse to answer)
BTW, “contrarian” is “Richard”-speak for “waaaah, he doesn’t believe my unsubstantiated assertions! :'(“
When did Marina ever say the rifle she though she saw in the garage in September was “the murder weapon”? How does hearsay about a “similar assassination” (whatever that means) tell you a single thing about who killed Kennedy? Hint: it doesn’t. Marina could be as honest and pure as the wind-driven snow and it still isn’t evidence for your wishful thinking. The fact that she was not honest or consistent just makes your argument that much worse.
-
How does possession of the murder weapon implicate Oswald? Wow. How does lying to the police about the ownership of the rifle implicate Oswald? Wow. How does committing a similar crime with a similar MO just a few months before the assassination implicate Oswald? Wow.
-
How does possession of the murder weapon implicate Oswald? Wow. How does lying to the police about the ownership of the rifle implicate Oswald? Wow. How does committing a similar crime with a similar MO just a few months before the assassination implicate Oswald? Wow.
Your total lack of reading comprehension is playing up again.
How does possession of the murder weapon implicate Oswald?
Marina never confirmed that "Oswald's rifle" was the murder weapon. In fact, no honest person ever said that.
How does lying to the police about the ownership of the rifle implicate Oswald?
Who lied to the police about ownership of the rifle? And how do you even know the police was lied to?
How does committing a similar crime with a similar MO just a few months before the assassination implicate Oswald?
If "committing a similar crime" implicates somebody in a specific murder just how many suspects would there have been for the Kennedy murder?
As per usual, your ignorance is mindblowing. Wow.
-
Your total lack of reading comprehension is playing up again.
How does possession of the murder weapon implicate Oswald?
Marina never confirmed that "Oswald's rifle" was the murder weapon. In fact, no honest person ever said that.
How does lying to the police about the ownership of the rifle implicate Oswald?
Who lied to the police about ownership of the rifle? And how do you even know the police was lied to?
How does committing a similar crime with a similar MO just a few months before the assassination implicate Oswald?
If "committing a similar crime" implicates somebody in a specific murder just how many suspects would there have been for the Kennedy murder?
As per usual, your ignorance is mindblowing. Wow.
In her WC testimony, Marina Oswald confirmed that her husband owned a rifle. There is no doubt about her testimony on that point even from a contrarian. The DPD indicate that they asked Oswald about his ownership of a rifle and he denied owning any rifle in the US. That is a fact unless you are suggesting that the DPD fabricated Oswald's DENIAL of ownership of the rifle. And think how idiotic it would be for the DPD to lie about this of all things. If the DPD were going to lie about what Oswald said to frame him, they would have said that he admitted owning the murder weapon not that he denied it. HA HA HA. You are unreal. Aren't you embarrassed by this stupidity? We are supposed to believe that Oswald admitted owning the rifle and the DPD for some inexplicable reason while trying to frame him for a crime using a rifle lied and said that he denied owing a rifle. Classic contrarian lunacy.
And you don't think having a MO in the conduct of crime is a signature that can link multiple crimes to a specific individual? How many sniper assassination attempts took place in Dallas that year? HA HA HA. And we are supposed to ignore the similarities between such unique crimes? Idiocy. Marina doesn't have to "confirm" that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon for her testimony to be used for that purpose. Her testimony doesn't exist in a contrarian vacuum. She confirms that he owned a rifle. She took a picture of him holding that rifle. From that photograph and the associated documentation including a specific serial number, there is no doubt it is the same rifle left at the crime scene. Fired bullet casings from that rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald lies about his ownership of a rifle. Why does he do this if it was not used in the assassination? Where is his rifle if different from the one found on the 6th floor? All of this is indicative of guilt in any criminal case in history. No amount of contrarian nonsense changes it. But again, are you saying that Marina was honest and did not lie about any of these matter or not? That was the point before you deflected us again down the rabbit hole.
-
In her WC testimony, Marina Oswald confirmed that her husband owned a rifle. There is no doubt about her testimony on that point even from a contrarian. The DPD indicate that they asked Oswald about his ownership of a rifle and he denied owning any rifle in the US. That is a fact unless you are suggesting that the DPD fabricated Oswald's DENIAL of ownership of the rifle. And think how idiotic it would be for the DPD to lie about this of all things. If the DPD were going to lie about what Oswald said to frame him, they would have said that he admitted owning the murder weapon not that he denied it. HA HA HA. You are unreal. Aren't you embarrassed by this stupidity? We are supposed to believe that Oswald admitted owning the rifle and the DPD for some inexplicable reason while trying to frame him for a crime using a rifle lied and said that he denied owing a rifle. Classic contrarian lunacy.
And you don't think having a MO in the conduct of crime is a signature that can link multiple crimes to a specific individual? How many sniper assassination attempts took place in Dallas that year? HA HA HA. And we are supposed to ignore the similarities between such unique crimes? Idiocy. Marina doesn't have to "confirm" that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon for her testimony to be used for that purpose. Her testimony doesn't exist in a contrarian vacuum. She confirms that he owned a rifle. She took a picture of him holding that rifle. From that photograph and the associated documentation including a specific serial number, there is no doubt it is the same rifle left at the crime scene. Fired bullet casings from that rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald lies about his ownership of a rifle. Why does he do this if it was not used in the assassination? Where is his rifle if different from the one found on the 6th floor? All of this is indicative of guilt in any criminal case in history. No amount of contrarian nonsense changes it. But again, are you saying that Marina was honest and did not lie about any of these matter or not? That was the point before you deflected us again down the rabbit hole.
In her WC testimony, Marina Oswald confirmed that her husband owned a rifle.
She also testified that she saw that rifle for the first time at Neely street in February 1963. If we believe that too, it couldn't have been the MC rifle ordered by Hidell in March 1963, right? Even less so, as the strap mount on the wooden stock of the rifle in the BY photos is at a different location than on the MC rifle found at the TSBD!
The DPD indicate that they asked Oswald about his ownership of a rifle and he denied owning any rifle in the US.
If he didn't own the rifle he was photographed with, he may well have been telling the truth. How in the world can you determine that he lied?
And you don't think having a MO in the conduct of crime is a signature that can link multiple crimes to a specific individual? How many sniper assassination attempts took place in Dallas that year?
I have no idea, but why do you limit it to Dallas? Are you really saying that somebody with a similar MO in, for example, Fort Worth, wouldn't qualify?
But let's get real for a moment here. There is no conclusive evidence at all that Oswald ever took a shot at General Walker. There is in fact evidence that points to the bullet taken out of Walker's wall not being fired by the MC rifle. Not only is the description of the bullet taken for Walker's house different is at least seven different DPD reports but Walker himself also told the HSCA on multiple occassions that the bullet now in evidence as the "Walker bullet" isn't the one that was recovered from his house.
Btw isn't it remarkable that O.V. Wright also described a pointed bullet that is completely different than the one now in evidence as CE399? What do you think; is that just a coincidence?
And we are supposed to ignore the similarities between such unique crimes? Idiocy.
What is unique about them?
Marina doesn't have to "confirm" that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon for her testimony to be used for that purpose.
I understand that you don't like this, but of course Marina has to confirm that for her testimony about "a" rifle to be of any value and significance. Texas is full of people who own a rifle, so what, except more assumptions, makes Marina saying that Oswald owned a rifle enough to conclude that particular rifle was the murder weapon?
She confirms that he owned a rifle.
No, she confirmed that she saw a rifle in Neely street in February 1963 and she saw the wooden stock of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in late September 1963. Everything was conjecture on her part.
She took a picture of him holding that rifle. From that photograph and the associated documentation including a specific serial number, there is no doubt it is the same rifle left at the crime scene.
Really? So when was the strap holder on the wooden stock moved then? And when did a 36" rifle (allegedly ordered by Oswald) become a 40,2" rifle?
Fired bullet casings from that rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired.
Are these the shells Fritz picked up or are they the ones he threw back on the floor? When were those bullets fired, do you know, when we don't even know for sure if the MC rifle found at the TSBD was indeed fired that day?
Oswald lies about his ownership of a rifle.
Again, you don't know that he lied.
But again, are you saying that Marina was honest and did not lie about any of these matter or not?
You tell me;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
-
How does possession of the murder weapon implicate Oswald? Wow. How does lying to the police about the ownership of the rifle implicate Oswald? Wow. How does committing a similar crime with a similar MO just a few months before the assassination implicate Oswald? Wow.
"Possession of the murder weapon". LOL.
"Lying to the police". LOL
"Similar crime". LOL.
-
In her WC testimony, Marina Oswald confirmed that her husband owned a rifle.
"Confirmed". LOL.
Besides, when did Marina say which rifle her husband had?
The DPD indicate that they asked Oswald about his ownership of a rifle and he denied owning any rifle in the US.
And what is your evidence that he owned a rifle (any rifle) on 11/22/63? If you have none, then you cannot legitimately claim as a fact that he lied about it.
And even if any of this is actually true, how to you leap from that to "the murder weapon"?
You're the one who should be embarrassed by this stupidity.
And you don't think having a MO in the conduct of crime is a signature that can link multiple crimes to a specific individual?
So by "Richard's" brilliant logic, if we can establish that Oswald shot Walker, then we can also conclude that he shot Kennedy, Tippit, and every other murder victim in Dallas and New Orleans in 1963, including himself. Because they were "similar". Do you ever listen to yourself?
Marina doesn't have to "confirm" that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon for her testimony to be used for that purpose. Her testimony doesn't exist in a contrarian vacuum. She confirms that he owned a rifle.
Wrong. She saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle. Six weeks earlier.
She took a picture of him holding that rifle. From that photograph and the associated documentation including a specific serial number, there is no doubt it is the same rifle left at the crime scene.
Absolutely false.
Fired bullet casings from that rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired.
How does this tell you when they were fired, or by whom?
Oswald lies about his ownership of a rifle.
Only if you preassume that he actually owned a rifle.
Why does he do this if it was not used in the assassination?
Argument from ignorance. "I don't know" doesn't mean "I do know and it was used in the assassination, by Oswald".
Where is his rifle if different from the one found on the 6th floor?
Another argument from ignorance. You don't know he had a rifle at all on 11/22, much less C2766.
All of this is indicative of guilt in any criminal case in history.
It's indicative of guilt in "Richard's" fevered imagination. And no amount of false claims and misrepresentations changes that.
-
And you don't think having a MO in the conduct of crime is a signature that can link multiple crimes to a specific individual? How many sniper assassination attempts took place in Dallas that year?
I have no idea, but why do you limit it to Dallas? Are you really saying that somebody with a similar MO in, for example, Fort Worth, wouldn't qualify?
But let's get real for a moment here. There is no conclusive evidence at all that Oswald ever took a shot at General Walker. There is in fact evidence that points to the bullet taken out of Walker's wall not being fired by the MC rifle. Not only is the description of the bullet taken for Walker's house different is at least seven different DPD reports but Walker himself also told the HSCA on multiple occassions that the bullet now in evidence as the "Walker bullet" isn't the one that was recovered from his house.
Btw isn't it remarkable that O.V. Wright also described a pointed bullet that is completely different than the one now in evidence as CE399? What do you think; is that just a coincidence?
And we are supposed to ignore the similarities between such unique crimes? Idiocy.
What is unique about them?
Marina doesn't have to "confirm" that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon for her testimony to be used for that purpose.
I understand that you don't like this, but of course Marina has to confirm that for her testimony about "a" rifle to be of any value and significance. Texas is full of people who own a rifle, so what, except more assumptions, makes Marina saying that Oswald owned a rifle enough to conclude that particular rifle was the murder weapon?
You believe there were sniper assassinations taking place in Ft. Worth? LOL How about this? Let's extend the area to all of Texas or even all of the US. How many sniper-type assassination attempts were taking place in the same timeframe as the Walker-JFK assassination in 1963? Any? I"m not aware of any. It is a very unique MO. Oswald admitted to Marina according to her testimony that he was responsible for the Walker attempt. Did she lie about that or not? If Oswald committed this crime as her testimony confirms, does that not have relevance to the JFK assassination since it shows a unique perhaps singular MO (i.e. attempting to kill a public figure with a rifle in a sniper attack). The fact that both these two assassination attempts took place in Dallas within only a few months apart would be an incredible coincidence if not committed by the same person. There is "no evidence" that Oswald took the shot at Walker? He confessed to the crime to his own wife on the night of the event. Before the public had even been informed there had been an attempt on Walker. How could he have even known this had happened when he told Marina that he had fired the shot unless he was the assassin. He also had recon photos of Walker's home etc. Unreal. Again, though, you haven't answered the original question. Did Marina lie about this? You and your contrarian sidekick have tried to have it both ways suggesting that she did but then denying that is what you have suggested. So just yes or no.
-
You believe there were sniper assassinations taking place in Ft. Worth? LOL How about this? Let's extend the area to all of Texas or even all of the US. How many sniper-type assassination attempts were taking place in the same timeframe as the Walker-JFK assassination in 1963? Any? I"m not aware of any. It is a very unique MO. Oswald admitted to Marina according to her testimony that he was responsible for the Walker attempt. Did she lie about that or not? If Oswald committed this crime as her testimony confirms, does that not have relevance to the JFK assassination since it shows a unique perhaps singular MO (i.e. attempting to kill a public figure with a rifle in a sniper attack). The fact that both these two assassination attempts took place in Dallas within only a few months apart would be an incredible coincidence if not committed by the same person. There is "no evidence" that Oswald took the shot at Walker? He confessed to the crime to his own wife on the night of the event. Before the public had even been informed there had been an attempt on Walker. How could he have even known this had happened when he told Marina that he had fired the shot unless he was the assassin. He also had recon photos of Walker's home etc. Unreal. Again, though, you haven't answered the original question. Did Marina lie about this? You and your contrarian sidekick have tried to have it both ways suggesting that she did but then denying that is what you have suggested. So just yes or no.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
It is a known fact that she lied to investigators, before her WC testimony. She admitted it. She did so most likely because she feared either being deported to Russia or being charged with something.
When she testified she knew two things; her husband was dead and she wasn't going to be charged (who promised her that?) with anything, which gave her an easy way out by just telling the WC what they wanted to hear.
Marina's testimony is in no way credible and the mere fact that the WC had to rely on much of what she said to make their case only shows just how desperately weak that case really is.
There is "no evidence" that Oswald took the shot at Walker? He confessed to the crime to his own wife on the night of the event.
So, Marina said so is your "evidence"? Hilarious!
But ok, explain why all the contemporary DPD reports mention a different kind of bullet and why General Walker went through great lengths to inform the HSCA that the so-called "Walker bullet" in evidence was in fact not the same bullet that was recovered from the wall in his house?
-
How does possession of the murder weapon implicate Oswald? Wow.
Wow, indeed. Nothing you posted about Marina supports the idea that Oswald possessed “the murder weapon” or even C2766.
How does lying to the police about the ownership of the rifle implicate Oswald? Wow.
Wow. You forgot to give any basis for calling this a “lie” beyond you just not believing it’s true.
How does committing a similar crime with a similar MO just a few months before the assassination implicate Oswald? Wow.
Wow. “Similar” meaning a bullet fired by somebody at somebody else. How unique. ::)
-
Oswald admitted to Marina according to her testimony that he was responsible for the Walker attempt. Did she lie about that or not? If Oswald committed this crime as her testimony confirms,
Her testimony “confirms” nothing. Even if what she said was true (and that’s a big “if” given her record of contradictory statements that fill up a 29 page document), that doesn’t mean that what she was told actually happened. It’s convenient how Lee Oswald is a “liar” when you want him to be.