JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on November 13, 2020, 08:19:19 PM
-
According to one of Oswalds fellow employees at the Reilly Coffee Company, Mr . ARTURO MENDEZ RODRIGUEZ, Oswald used smoke. Here is the FBI report on him:
He stated that when the workers took a break, OSWALD always stayed by himself, sometimes he went to the driveway and smoked a cigarette and sometimes he just sat in a chair and appeared to stare into space.
LINK: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1898.pdf
This is the only instance I know of where Oswald smoked. In "Marina And Lee" Marina said that Oswald hated that Marina used smoke and once stubbed a cigarette out on her shoulder.
Something a miss here?
-
According to one of Oswalds fellow employees at the Reilly Coffee Company, Mr . ARTURO MENDEZ RODRIGUEZ, Oswald used smoke. Here is the FBI report on him:
He stated that when the workers took a break, OSWALD always stayed by himself, sometimes he went to the driveway and smoked a cigarette and sometimes he just sat in a chair and appeared to stare into space.
LINK: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1898.pdf
This is the only instance I know of where Oswald smoked. In "Marina And Lee" Marina said that Oswald hated that Marina used smoke and once stubbed a cigarette out on her shoulder.
Something a miss here?
I have read quite a number of accounts about LHO from many people who knew him personally. Nothing that I have read (until now) suggests that LHO smoked. I believe that Arturo was most likely remembering this incorrectly. He was interviewed five months after LHO worked there. And I would guess that the coffee company had a significant amount of turnover of personnel in that type of position. He might have confused the cigarette smoking with someone else who had recently worked there.
-
I don't know if he smoked, but he would have burned had he ever gone to trial.
-
I have read quite a number of accounts about LHO from many people who knew him personally. Nothing that I have read (until now) suggests that LHO smoked. I believe that Arturo was most likely remembering this incorrectly. He was interviewed five months after LHO worked there. And I would guess that the coffee company had a significant amount of turnover of personnel in that type of position. He might have confused the cigarette smoking with someone else who had recently worked there.
Same here. The description of Oswald staring into space sounds kind of odd too. Unless Oswald was trying to get fired so he could go on social security again.
-
I don't know if he smoked, but he would have burned had he ever gone to trial.
You're being facetious of course , but if you were being serious I doubt that you'd bet any money on Lee being convicted if they hadn't lynched him, and he had his day in court. The very fact that there are thousands of people who doubt that the Warren Report is the truth, would cause an intelligent person to doubt that Lee would have been convicted.
-
You're being facetious of course , but if you were being serious I doubt that you'd bet any money on Lee being convicted if they hadn't lynched him, and he had his day in court. The very fact that there are thousands of people who doubt that the Warren Report is the truth, would cause an intelligent person to doubt that Lee would have been convicted.
He would have been convicted before the Warren Commission Report could have been completed. And the Warren Commission would most likely never had existed. Texas had jurisdiction.
-
Yeah, stared into space, wife abuser ... what? Didn't he bring a rifle to work at Reilly so he could target practice?
-
I think he would have been convicted because he would have gone to trial in early 1964. At that time there was no information available to contradict the DPD and FBI opinion that he acted alone. Back in those days it didn't take years for a case to get to trial.
-
I think he would have been convicted because he would have gone to trial in early 1964. At that time there was no information available to contradict the DPD and FBI opinion that he acted alone. Back in those days it didn't take years for a case to get to trial.
And then probably a re-trial like Ruby.
-
You're being facetious of course , but if you were being serious I doubt that you'd bet any money on Lee being convicted if they hadn't lynched him, and he had his day in court. The very fact that there are thousands of people who doubt that the Warren Report is the truth, would cause an intelligent person to doubt that Lee would have been convicted.
The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime. The probability of his conviction is about 99.9%. The kinds of nutty claims that most CTers have relied upon to create false doubt of his guilt are not persuasive given the dubious and often outlandishly laughable nature of such claims. Even after 50 plus years to trying. The tolerance for such kookery in Texas during the 1960s would have been much less than today. Any nut can blame the JFK assassination on UFOs or people hiding in the bushes on the Internet, but imagine what a 1960's era Texas judge would have done with that nonsense.
-
The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime. The probability of his conviction is about 99.9%. The kinds of nutty claims that most CTers have relied upon to create false doubt of his guilt are not persuasive given the dubious and often outlandishly laughable nature of such claims. Even after 50 plus years to trying. The tolerance for such kookery in Texas during the 1960s would have been much less than today. Any nut can blame the JFK assassination on UFOs or people hiding in the bushes on the Internet, but imagine what a 1960's era Texas judge would have done with that nonsense.
He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.
A 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano was in fact found in the TSBD. It had been carefully hidden under a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.
The story says that JFK was killed by a 6.5mm FULL METAL JACKET bullet that literally blew the BACK of his head off. This is simply BS!..... Full metal Jacketed bullets DO NOT inflict the damage of a hollow point bullet . And if the bullet that blew JFK's head apart had been fired from the rear there would have been a tiny entrance wound an a bigger exit wound., on THE FRONT of JFK's head.
Conclusion:....... The murder weapon WAS NOT a 6.5mm Carcano nor was the bullet a FULL METAL JACKETED bullet.
-
He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.
A 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano was in fact found in the TSBD. It had been carefully hidden under a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.
The story says that JFK was killed by a 6.5mm FULL METAL JACKET bullet that literally blew the BACK of his head off. This is simply BS!..... Full metal Jacketed bullets DO NOT inflict the damage of a hollow point bullet . And if the bullet that blew JFK's head apart had been fired from the rear there would have been a tiny entrance wound an a bigger exit wound., on THE FRONT of JFK's head.
Conclusion:....... The murder weapon WAS NOT a 6.5mm Carcano nor was the bullet a FULL METAL JACKETED bullet.
You changed my mind. If you were Oswald's lawyer, there would have been a hung jury. Half the jury would want to hang him and the other half would want to hang you.
-
You changed my mind. If you were Oswald's lawyer, there would have been a hung jury. Half the jury would want to hang him and the other half would want to hang you.
In a way you're right...... Back in the months following the coup d e'tat I would have been extremely unpopular, because most people still worshipped J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. But..... being popular falls far short of being truthful and honest.
-
In a way you're right...... Back in the months following the coup d e'tat I would have been extremely unpopular, because most people still worshipped J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. But..... being popular falls far short of being truthful and honest.
Don't flatter yourself. No one ever worshipped J. Edgar. You would be unpopular then for the same reason you are unpopular today. You are a kook who peddles false and baseless claims.
-
Don't flatter yourself. No one ever worshipped J. Edgar. You would be unpopular then for the same reason you are unpopular today. You are a kook who peddles false and baseless claims.
Since you clearly are a bit SLOW...... I'll repeat..... "being popular falls far short of being truthful and honest ".
-
The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime. The probability of his conviction is about 99.9%. The kinds of nutty claims that most CTers have relied upon to create false doubt of his guilt are not persuasive given the dubious and often outlandishly laughable nature of such claims. Even after 50 plus years to trying. The tolerance for such kookery in Texas during the 1960s would have been much less than today. Any nut can blame the JFK assassination on UFOs or people hiding in the bushes on the Internet, but imagine what a 1960's era Texas judge would have done with that nonsense.
I agree that Oswald would probably have been convicted, but only if the evidence presented against him was constrained to it being his rifle, and his having no one who could vouch for his whereabouts at the exact moment of the shooting.
If the prosecutor over-played his hand, and brought in stuff like the fibers supposedly found on the rifle, the palm print supposedly found on the rifle, the gsr found on Oswald's hands, and a reluctant eyewitness who later changed his mind, it could have collapsed, IMO.
-
I agree that Oswald would probably have been convicted, but only if the evidence presented against him was constrained to it being his rifle, and his having no one who could vouch for his whereabouts at the exact moment of the shooting.
If the prosecutor over-played his hand, and brought in stuff like the fibers supposedly found on the rifle, the palm print supposedly found on the rifle, the gsr found on Oswald's hands, and a reluctant eyewitness who later changed his mind, it could have collapsed, IMO.
Certain evidence might be deemed more persuasive than others but it all points to Oswald. No one can argue with any credibility that Oswald would have walked out of a courtroom to be a free man with that evidence. Certainly not based on any reasonable doubt as to his guilt in the murders of JFK and Tippit. There is always the possibility that a guilty person escapes a conviction based on the presence of an unreasonable juror or mistrial but Oswald's goose was cooked with a normal 1960s Texas jury. Not because they wouldn't provide him a fair trial but because they would and he was guilty.
-
Certain evidence might be deemed more persuasive than others but it all points to Oswald. No one can argue with any credibility that Oswald would have walked out of a courtroom to be a free man with that evidence. Certainly not based on any reasonable doubt as to his guilt in the murders of JFK and Tippit. There is always the possibility that a guilty person escapes a conviction based on the presence of an unreasonable juror or mistrial but Oswald's goose was cooked with a normal 1960s Texas jury. Not because they wouldn't provide him a fair trial but because they would and he was guilty.
Should Oswald have survived that weekend, there's every possibility bits like Brennan, the prints on Box A, and the palm print on the rifle never would have appeared.
As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.
These were all problematic.
The fibers came from a shirt he had not been wearing, and are much more damaging to the DPD and FBI than Oswald.
The print on Box D was not photographed in situ, and was not properly documented. (I mean, to this day, no one knows who found it. Was it Studebaker, or Day?)
And the bag prints were found on a bag which was not photographed in situ, or at any time on the night of the shooting, and which the only people to see a bag in Oswald's possession on 11-22 said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession.
I mean, can you imagine, Buell Frazier being asked, on the stand, if that was the bag he saw in Oswald's possession and his saying "Nope."
A Texas jury may very well have smelled a rat, and convicted Oswald of killing Tippit, while acquitting him of killing Kennedy.
-
Should Oswald have survived that weekend, there's every possibility bits like Brennan, the prints on Box A, and the palm print on the rifle never would have appeared.
As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.
These were all problematic.
The fibers came from a shirt he had not been wearing, and are much more damaging to the DPD and FBI than Oswald.
The print on Box D was not photographed in situ, and was not properly documented. (I mean, to this day, no one knows who found it. Was it Studebaker, or Day?)
And the bag prints were found on a bag which was not photographed in situ, or at any time on the night of the shooting, and which the only people to see a bag in Oswald's possession on 11-22 said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession.
I mean, can you imagine, Buell Frazier being asked, on the stand, if that was the bag he saw in Oswald's possession and his saying "Nope."
A Texas jury may very well have smelled a rat, and convicted Oswald of killing Tippit, while acquitting him of killing Kennedy.
Pat, I highly respect your conclusions in most cases....However, believe that you're flat wrong and I vehemently disagree with your conclusion in regard to the murder of JD Tippit..... "his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing"
There is NO physical evidence that supports the contention that Lee Oswald was at the corner of 10th and Patton at anytime that afternoon..... However there IS strong evidence that the gun that was used to kill Tippit was NOT a S&W revolver...... And it is alleged that Lee was carrying a S&W revolver when he was arrested in the Theater. So if that is true the gun that he had in his possession is NOT the gun that was used to murder Tippit.
-
Pat, I highly respect your conclusions in most cases....However, believe that you're flat wrong and I vehemently disagree with your conclusion in regard to the murder of JD Tippit..... "his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing"
There is NO physical evidence that supports the contention that Lee Oswald was at the corner of 10th and Patton at anytime that afternoon..... However there IS strong evidence that the gun that was used to kill Tippit was NOT a S&W revolver...... And it is alleged that Lee was carrying a S&W revolver when he was arrested in the Theater. So if that is true the gun that he had in his possession is NOT the gun that was used to murder Tippit.
I am on the fence about the Tippit killing, but feel a Texas jury would not have been able to overlook Oswald's being found with the gun the police claimed killed Tippit, and several eyewitnesses placing him at the scene.
If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots, and some eyewitnesses--even weak ones--place you at the scene, well, that's usually all she wrote. I doubt you could find one case in U.S. history where someone walked away from that.
I will acknowledge, however, that a really smart lawyer like Mark Lane may have been able to use some of the problems with the evidence to convince a jury something was wrong, especially if the Kennedy and Tippit cases were tried at the same time, and with the same jury.
-
According to one of Oswalds fellow employees at the Reilly Coffee Company, Mr . ARTURO MENDEZ RODRIGUEZ, Oswald used smoke. Here is the FBI report on him:
He stated that when the workers took a break, OSWALD always stayed by himself, sometimes he went to the driveway and smoked a cigarette and sometimes he just sat in a chair and appeared to stare into space.
LINK: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1898.pdf
This is the only instance I know of where Oswald smoked. In "Marina And Lee" Marina said that Oswald hated that Marina used smoke and once stubbed a cigarette out on her shoulder.
Something a miss here?
I just read something interesting and surprising in the actual notes that Hugh Aynesworth wrote in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News. This is when Hugh and John Flynn (photographer) visited LHO’s room at 1026 North Buckley. “The police officers had removed everything from the room except a box of matches, a Mexican ashtray and some banana peelings.”
It could only be that the landlady routinely kept an ashtray in that room for any tenant who rented the room and who smoked. Smoking was much more common back then than it is today (thank God). Or it could be that the ashtray was something that LHO brought back from Mexico with him and he used it. My guess is that the ashtray belonged to the homeowners and that LHO didn’t mind it being there. Aynesworth didn’t say that there were any cigarette butts in the ashtray.
-
I just read something interesting and surprising in the actual notes that Hugh Aynesworth wrote in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News. This is when Hugh and John Flynn (photographer) visited LHO’s room at 1026 North Buckley. “The police officers had removed everything from the room except a box of matches, a Mexican ashtray and some banana peelings.”
It could only be that the landlady routinely kept an ashtray in that room for any tenant who rented the room and who smoked. Smoking was much more common back then than it is today (thank God). Or it could be that the ashtray was something that LHO brought back from Mexico with him and he used it. My guess is that the ashtray belonged to the homeowners and that LHO didn’t mind it being there. Aynesworth didn’t say that there were any cigarette butts in the ashtray.
Wow!....THIS is the clue we needed to crack the case!
-
Wow!....THIS is the clue we needed to crack the case!
The case was solved on 11/22/63. You just refuse to accept it.
-
Should Oswald have survived that weekend, there's every possibility bits like Brennan, the prints on Box A, and the palm print on the rifle never would have appeared.
As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.
These were all problematic.
The fibers came from a shirt he had not been wearing, and are much more damaging to the DPD and FBI than Oswald.
The print on Box D was not photographed in situ, and was not properly documented. (I mean, to this day, no one knows who found it. Was it Studebaker, or Day?)
And the bag prints were found on a bag which was not photographed in situ, or at any time on the night of the shooting, and which the only people to see a bag in Oswald's possession on 11-22 said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession.
I mean, can you imagine, Buell Frazier being asked, on the stand, if that was the bag he saw in Oswald's possession and his saying "Nope."
A Texas jury may very well have smelled a rat, and convicted Oswald of killing Tippit, while acquitting him of killing Kennedy.
Imagine Buell on the stand saying 'I wasn't really paying attention to the bag'
And let's see an Oswald motive for shooting Tippit if he hadn't also shot Kennedy.
-
Imagine Buell on the stand saying 'I wasn't really paying attention to the bag'
And let's see an Oswald motive for shooting Tippit if he hadn't also shot Kennedy.
So you're guessing Frazier would have caved under the pressure of the prosecution--with his friend Oswald sitting there in the courtroom? I'm guessing the opposite. That Frazier--who has been consistent in his belief the bag he saw was roughly 1/2 the size of the bag placed into evidence--would have been even more solid on this point.
As far as the Tippit killing...we really don't know what would have happened. For all we know his defense team would have gone right after Tippit--and perhaps even tied him into the plot. In such case, Oswald's defense team may very well have been able to mount a convincing case for self-defense. It's far too gray.
As stated, it seems probable Oswald would have been convicted should the prosecution not pile on. The more they piled on--by, for example, presenting evidence about the noble character of Officer Tippit, who may have had all sorts of skeletons in his closet--the more they risked losing the jury, IMO.
I mean, can you imagine the prosecution putting Tippit's widow on the stand to testify to her husband's integrity, only to have the defense whip out that he'd been unfaithful to her? (Which may or may not be true--which is kinda the point). The bottom line is that with probing enough questions about Tippit's character and behavior may have been raised to sway a jury away from what might otherwise seem obvious--that Oswald killed Tippit in the first degree.
-
I am on the fence about the Tippit killing, but feel a Texas jury would not have been able to overlook Oswald's being found with the gun the police claimed killed Tippit, and several eyewitnesses placing him at the scene.
If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots, and some eyewitnesses--even weak ones--place you at the scene, well, that's usually all she wrote. I doubt you could find one case in U.S. history where someone walked away from that.
I will acknowledge, however, that a really smart lawyer like Mark Lane may have been able to use some of the problems with the evidence to convince a jury something was wrong, especially if the Kennedy and Tippit cases were tried at the same time, and with the same jury.
If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots, and some eyewitnesses--even weak ones--place you at the scene, well, that's usually all she wrote
Please provide the solid proof that the S&W that allegedly was taken from Lee in the Theater was in fact the gun that killed Tippit.
According to several witnesses who saw the killer leaving the scene , the killer removed ONE SPENT SHELL AT A TIME from the revolver that he had used to shoot Tippit. A S&W REVOLVER EJECTS ALL SHELLS IN THE GUN IN ONE FELSWOPE... You cannot remove one shell at a time from the S&W revolver that allegedly was taken from Lee in the theater because the shells expand in the cylinder when they are fired and they buldge out tightly against the cylinder walls.......Thus the extractor MUST be used to remove the spent shells. In fact the FBI technician who testified about the S&W revolver involved said that he had a difficult time removing the spent shells after he fired the gun.
I am totally convinced that the gun that the killer used to kill Tippit WAS NOT a S&W revolver!!
-
So you're guessing Frazier would have caved under the pressure of the prosecution--with his friend Oswald sitting there in the courtroom? I'm guessing the opposite. That Frazier--who has been consistent in his belief the bag he saw was roughly 1/2 the size of the bag placed into evidence--would have been even more solid on this point.
As far as the Tippit killing...we really don't know what would have happened. For all we know his defense team would have gone right after Tippit--and perhaps even tied him into the plot. In such case, Oswald's defense team may very well have been able to mount a convincing case for self-defense. It's far too gray.
As stated, it seems probable Oswald would have been convicted should the prosecution not pile on. The more they piled on--by, for example, presenting evidence about the noble character of Officer Tippit, who may have had all sorts of skeletons in his closet--the more they risked losing the jury, IMO.
I mean, can you imagine the prosecution putting Tippit's widow on the stand to testify to her husband's integrity, only to have the defense whip out that he'd been unfaithful to her? (Which may or may not be true--which is kinda the point). The bottom line is that with probing enough questions about Tippit's character and behavior may have been raised to sway a jury away from what might otherwise seem obvious--that Oswald killed Tippit in the first degree.
No guessing necessary: I'll go with the fact that Buell stated—in fact volunteered—several times that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag.
Any tell us how much 'character' is needed to get oneself shot at close range.
-
Should Oswald have survived that weekend, there's every possibility bits like Brennan, the prints on Box A, and the palm print on the rifle never would have appeared.
As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.
These were all problematic.
The fibers came from a shirt he had not been wearing, and are much more damaging to the DPD and FBI than Oswald.
The print on Box D was not photographed in situ, and was not properly documented. (I mean, to this day, no one knows who found it. Was it Studebaker, or Day?)
And the bag prints were found on a bag which was not photographed in situ, or at any time on the night of the shooting, and which the only people to see a bag in Oswald's possession on 11-22 said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession.
I mean, can you imagine, Buell Frazier being asked, on the stand, if that was the bag he saw in Oswald's possession and his saying "Nope."
A Texas jury may very well have smelled a rat, and convicted Oswald of killing Tippit, while acquitting him of killing Kennedy.
Oswald is linked solid to the rifle. He lies about ownership. He has no explanation for its presence on the 6th floor. There are fired bullet casings from his rifle on the floor. Witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the shooting. He flees the scene and is implicated in another murder less than hour later. He resists arrest. He has a bizarre political background. It's about as strong a case as could be imagined absent a time machine. Some of the other evidence might be of lesser value but even the more questionable evidence points to Oswald. He fries for both crimes.
-
As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.
There's not "hard evidence" of his ownership of the rifle or of his involvement in the Tippit killing either.
-
I am on the fence about the Tippit killing, but feel a Texas jury would not have been able to overlook Oswald's being found with the gun the police claimed killed Tippit
Not once the jury learned that there was no chain of custody for the gun that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours after Oswald's arrest.
and several eyewitnesses placing him at the scene.
Not once the jury learned how unfair and biased the lineups were.
If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots,
Except there's no way to match Hill's gun with the slugs that killed Tippit.
-
Oswald is linked solid to the rifle. He lies about ownership. He has no explanation for its presence on the 6th floor. There are fired bullet casings from his rifle on the floor. Witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the shooting. He flees the scene and is implicated in another murder less than hour later. He resists arrest. He has a bizarre political background. It's about as strong a case as could be imagined absent a time machine. Some of the other evidence might be of lesser value but even the more questionable evidence points to Oswald. He fries for both crimes.
Right. Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder. ::)
Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.
-
Right. Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder. ::)
Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.
Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.
That's an assertion.
Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder. ::)
Not that alone. However, it's probative circumstantial evidence when combined with:
-- Physical circumstantial evidence.
-- Behavioral circumstantial evidence.
You ignored the other evidence.
Staying "on topic":
Did Oswald smoke (cigarettes)?
--- Some smokers murder.
--- Some murderers smoke.
A nicotine habit is immaterial as to Oswald's guilt in two (2) murders: John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit.
-
He would have been convicted before the Warren Commission Report could have been completed.
Completed? You mean released. The story was essentially in wraps before the shots were ever fired.
What in the Report was any different than the story that was told that weekend?
-
Completed? You mean released. The story was essentially in wraps before the shots were ever fired.
What in the Report was any different than the story that was told that weekend?
That is a reply to Walt’s post:
You're being facetious of course , but if you were being serious I doubt that you'd bet any money on Lee being convicted if they hadn't lynched him, and he had his day in court. The very fact that there are thousands of people who doubt that the Warren Report is the truth, would cause an intelligent person to doubt that Lee would have been convicted.
Walt is contending that doubt of the Warren Report is evidence that LHO wouldn’t have been convicted. I was merely pointing out that the Warren Report would not have yet existed before they would have already convicted LHO (had he survived to stand trial).
All of this line of thought is conjecture. But if the state of Texas had put LHO on trial, the Warren Commission and its Report most likely would not have been created. The state of Texas would have most likely not released a lot of information that didn’t become public in the trial. And we wouldn’t have anything close to the amount of information that we do have from the Warren Commission to second guess the case with. For all these reasons Walt’s contention makes no sense. That is what I meant to convey.