JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on February 09, 2025, 05:55:33 PM
-
I’m always struck by the extent to which, in every JFKA conspiracy theory, the conspirators seem to have been Diabolical Geniuses half the time and Bumbling Stooges the other half. The Stooges, fortunately for the CT community, left the hundreds or thousands of supposed “clues” that are the lifeblood of their theories.
Couldn’t little old me have done better, I sometimes wonder? Instead of debating the Magic Bullet for the 900th time, I like to try to picture what a plausible conspiracy involving LHO might have looked like. What if I had been in charge?
I simply reject as implausible a massive conspiracy extending over a long period and involving umpteen individuals, agencies and organizations, including a cardboard LHO as The Most Interesting Man Who Ever Lived. This isn’t what a real-world conspiracy looks like, especially a Presidential one where being caught would be a guarantee of execution. In any event, my focus as the would-be assassination planner is simply on how a realistic LHO-as-patsy scheme might have worked.
A conspiracy with LHO as the designated patsy seemingly must have been implemented not long before 11-22. LHO, as a Russian defector and pro-Castro agitator, might have been on our anti-Castro radar screens as a potential patsy in the summer, but him getting the job at the TSBD on October 16th, together with the route of JFK’s motorcade becoming known on November 19th, must have seemed like an answer to prayer. As if by magic, our patsy was right where he needed to be!
We’ll assume we’ve previously established a relationship with LHO as fellow Casto supporters, albeit bogus ones. So now we leap into action. Critical elements, it seems to me, would be:
1. Keep this as simple as possible. JFK dies and all signs point to our patsy. Mission accomplished, neat and clean. Nobody gets executed.
2. Our patsy must be under complete control shortly before and at the time of the assassination.
3. A plausible assassination weapon must be easily connected to our patsy.
4. If the actual assassination weapon is a different one, it must be of the same type and caliber.
5. The ammunition must be a common type and easily obtainable. Nothing exotic - no Bruno Magli shoes, if you get my drift.
6. From wherever the fatal shot is fired, the trajectory must not be wildly different from a shot fired from the patsy’s location.
7. Our patsy cannot survive the assassination.
This all seems obvious, just Assassination 101 sort of stuff. Violate any of these basics and you’re practically asking to get caught. We’re better than that.
We don’t want shooters in front of JFK, for crying out loud. That would pretty much blow the entire patsy thing and exponentially increase the complexity and risk of the assassination. Let’s keep in mind that this a Presidential assassination – we’re all going to die if this goes awry.
We simply need a single sniper at a location consistent with the 6th floor of the TSBD (which we have shrewdly identified as the preferred location). Perhaps the TSBD itself, the Dal-Tex building, or some other elevated location to the rear of the Presidential limousine. But no triple overpass, picket fence or manhole cover – we’re not that stupid; if we were going to shoot JFK from the front, we don’t need a patsy in the TSBD at all. What do you think we’re going to do, gentlemen – alter the body, bribe autopsy doctors, fake X-rays and steal the brain? We're not trying to write science fiction here, people.
No, we need only one reasonably well-dressed sniper who can blend into the woodwork at the selected location. This will be no problem at either the TSBD or Dal-Tex building. How lucky are we that JFK is going to be going down Elm during the lunch hour? It’s perfect, I tell ya!
No, we don’t need spotters with umbrellas and walkie-talkies and other nonsense – our assassin is a pro, and this shot is a piece of cake. Do professional hits require a 12-man support team? Perhaps our guy will flub a shot or two just to add to the plausibility of LHO as the gunman – yes, I like it, somebody write that down.
We know that LHO owns a Carcano, but we aren’t trusting the assassination to that clunker and all the red flags it would raise. No, we have LHO fondle a plausible assassination weapon identical to the sniper’s a day or two before the assassination and stash a bill of sale dated the same day among his papers at his room while he’s at work on Friday morning. Someone can pose as a city inspector or potential tenant to get the stashing done. I'm thinking potential tenant, but whatever.
Since the TSBD is pretty much wide-open, we stash the rifle and some empty shells on Thursday night as Hancock and Boylan suggest. Oh, wait, this would run the risk they'll be discovered before the assassination, particularly since we know an entire crew is laying flooring up there. Hmmm.
Let’s re-think that. Our well-dressed sniper will enter the TSBD at 12:10 or so on Friday, posing as customer of one of the publishing companies if asked, and will ascend to the 6th floor with two disassembled rifles, one covered with LHO’s fingerprints and one to be used for the assassination. Yes, we like this better.
LHO can’t be going to Ruth Paine’s on Thursday evening. Whoever came up with this idea is hereby demoted to Junior Assassin Trainee. No, LHO needs to be in his room as usual and be called to the telephone for two or three calls from us. Nothing related to the assassination, of course, just get him to the phone to talk about the weather or Cuba or something so everyone who overhears the calls will recall this after the assassination. A nice touch, no?
We do still have the problem of controlling LHO. Obviously, the patsy thing goes poof if he’s seen within the TSBD at the time of the assassination or, worse yet, seen and photographed out on the steps. What if the idiot actually admires JFK and runs down the sidewalk waving at him? Can’t happen, people.
On top of that, we don’t know how he’s going to react to the assassination. What if he just joins in the excitement with everyone else and shows no concern until “his” rifle is discovered? What if the end result is that his alibi is accepted by the those who count? We simply can’t have that.
This would seem to be our biggest challenge, gentlemen. LHO has to be seen at the location of the rifle in reasonable time-proximity to the shooting and not be seen anywhere else at the time of the shooting. How do we even guarantee that location will be vacant at the time of the shooting? How do we have both LHO and our sniper in place in time for the whole charade to play out? What if some of the workers decide to watch the motorcade from the 6th floor – huh?
Damn, this is a serious problem. We could have a couple of well-dressed thugs – even dressed as cops, perhaps – inside the TSBD to restrain and muzzle LHO for ten minutes before and after the assassination, but how do we assure this activity isn’t observed? Even if they were dressed as cops and even if they shot LHO after the assassination, how would we guarantee this activity wasn’t observed? Somehow, we absolutely have to have LHO and our sniper alone on the 6th floor by themselves when the assassination occurs.
Put your brains to work, my fellow conspirators. Someone suggests we make sure the elevators are stuck? OK, good, as long as everyone else goes down and only LHO, a thug or two and our sniper remain. How do we guarantee that? Hypnosis, maybe? Just thinking outside the box here.
What if LHO somehow exits the TSBD, someone asks? No, that simply cannot be allowed to happen. We’re not idiots here – he is not going to exit the TSBD. There simply has to be someone dressed as a cop on the stairwell who shoots him as a last resort. Bugsy, that will be you. If you aren’t needed, just blend in and walk out.
Wow, I really am an amateur at this. Even the cleanest conspiracy I can think of has a frightening number of loose ends. And this is the problem I see with absolutely every conspiracy theory. They are all overly complicated, unrealistic Rube Goldberg contraptions that no Presidential assassin worth his salt would ever have bought into. They all start with a conspiracy as though it were axiomatic and work backwards to try fit LHO into it.
Well, hell, what does this patsy nonsense add to our plan anyway, except unacceptable complexity and risk? Forget LHO. Let’s just flood Dealey Plaza with kill teams, leave a bunch of pro-Castro leaflets and other clues laying around, and create so much confusion no one can ever figure out what happened or why! Genius, no?
-
What is it with this obsession of yours with conspiracies, you claim don't exist?
Are all those self-serving arguments why a conspiracy, in your opinion, could or would not have worked, supposed to somehow justify the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gun man?
You claim to be an ex-lawyer, so you should understand that the best way to disprove a conspiracy is by presenting a solid, conclusive case against Oswald.
So, why not do that instead of constantly arguing that a conspiracy is improbable or even impossible?
-
What is it with this obsession of yours with conspiracies, you claim don't exist?
Which "The CIA Did It" JFKA conspiracy theory do you like to obsess on the most?
-
Which "The CIA Did It" JFKA conspiracy theory do you like to obsess on the most?
I don't obsess about any.
It's really very simple; there was some kind of conspiracy or Oswald did it alone.
I don't really care either way, but I would like to see conclusive evidence that Oswald was in fact the lone gunman.
Got any?
-
I would like to see conclusive evidence that Oswald was in fact the lone gunman.
Do you have any convincing evidence that he wasn't?
If it was a conspiracy, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
-
Do you have any convincing evidence that he wasn't?
If it was a conspiracy, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Do you have any convincing evidence that he wasn't?
Don't you understand just how stupid it is to ask for a negative to be be proven? Since when does anybody need to be proven to be innocent?
If it was a conspiracy, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Another stupid question. If you can provide conclusive evidence that Oswald was a lone gunman, you wouldn't have to ask silly questions like this.
Got any conclusive proof?
-
Do you have any convincing evidence that he wasn't?
Don't you understand just how stupid it is to ask for a negative to be be proven?
If it was a conspiracy, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Another stupid question. If you can provide conclusive evidence that Oswald was a lone gunman, you wouldn't have to ask silly questions like this.
Got any conclusive proof?
Amazing. You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted. Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured. "Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on. A endless series of demands to prove something didn't happen.
You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.
-
Amazing. You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted. Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured. "Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on. A endless series of demands to prove something didn't happen.
You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.
You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted.
Liar! I have questioned the evidence and asked for authentication. That's not the same as asking for proof that the evidence wasn't faked or planted.
What is really amazing is that you don't understand the difference.
Btw do you actually think it's reasonable to consider somebody to be guilty until proven innocent?
Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured.
What piece of evidence did I claim was manufactured? Be precise.... just show me a link to one of my posts or shut up!
"Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on.
Just how pathetic your claims are is demonstrated by the mere fact that I have never claimed that the backyard photos were faked. I actually consider them to be authentic.
You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.
I'm glad that you agree that asking for a negative to be proven is stupid. Now, be so kind and never do it again!
-
What is it with this obsession of yours with conspiracies, you claim don't exist?
Are all those self-serving arguments why a conspiracy, in your opinion, could or would not have worked, supposed to somehow justify the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gun man?
You claim to be an ex-lawyer, so you should understand that the best way to disprove a conspiracy is by presenting a solid, conclusive case against Oswald.
So, why not do that instead of constantly arguing that a conspiracy is improbable or even impossible?
You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories and if you and your fellow conspiracy believers want to solve the case then you must discover new and more believable alternatives.
For instance as most LNers have told you,
1) A frontal sniper is ridiculous.
2) Oswald roaming around the building before 12:30 is crazy
3) Having Oswald escaping and possibly blabbing is silly
4) Planting a war surplus rifle(which was actually very accurate) when other rifles could have been planted is insane
5) Having to alter a vast amount of evidence to fit a different conspiratorial outcome is pure lunacy.
ETC. ETC....
JohnM
-
You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories and if you and your fellow conspiracy believers want to solve the case then you must discover new and more believable alternatives.
For instance as most LNers have told you,
1) A frontal sniper is ridiculous.
2) Oswald roaming around the building before 12:30 is crazy
3) Having Oswald escaping and possibly blabbing is silly
4) Planting a war surplus rifle(which was actually very accurate) when other rifles could have been planted is insane
5) Having to alter a vast amount of evidence to fit a different conspiratorial outcome is pure lunacy.
ETC. ETC....
JohnM
The one who is missing the point is you.
If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.
Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.
Well, can you?
-
The one who is missing the point is you.
If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.
Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.
Well, can you?
The following evidence is more than enough to convince any sane person of Oswald's guilt.
Oswald defects to the enemy
Oswald says in his Historic Diary that because he was denied entry to Russia he attempted suicide therefore it seems that human life was meaningless to Oswald
Oswald bashes his wife
Oswald is a staunch dedicated Marxist who just a couple of months prior tried to enter Cuba by way of Mexico and just after Oswald received his Carcano, Oswald tried to kill Walker who just BTW hated Castro and then a few days before the JFK assassination, Kennedy is trying to oust Castro and this headline is Dallas front page news.
Oswald against his usual procedure, goes home mid week.
Oswald tells Frazier that he was picking up curtain rods but tells the Police he only had his lunch.
Oswald tells the Police that he kept his lunch with him in the front seat yet Frazier questions Oswald about the long package on the back seat of his car.
No curtain rods are ever found.
A long empty package with Oswald's prints is recovered in the Sniper's nest.
The shells from Oswald's rifle are found on the floor of the Sniper's nest.
The recovered fragments recovered from the Limo are exclusively matched to Oswald's rifle.
60+ years later there is still no evidence that Oswald's' rifle was planted.
Oswald uncharacteristically leaves behind his wedding ring.
Oswald leaves the majority of his money with Marina.
Oswald walks suspiciously 50 feet ahead of Frazier as the walk to the depository.
Oswald has no alibi at the time of the shots.
Oswald's relatively fresh prints are on the rifle rest and the box used as a seat in the snipers nest.
Oswald who was a political fanatic and supposedly liked Kennedy said he was in the lunchroom and there is no evidence that he didn't ask anyone what happened?
Outside there was screaming and commotion yet at that precise point in time, Oswald wants a coke?
Oswald flees the scene within a few minutes.
Instead of waiting at the bus stop at Houston and Elm, Oswald in his frenzied flight walks past the bus stop and bashes on a door of a bus stuck in traffic.
Oswald continues his panicked flight as gets on and off a bus stuck in traffic.
Oswald gets out of Whaley's cab way past his Rooming house.
Oswald's leaves his rooming house zipping up a jacket, frugal Oswald is arrested without his zipper jacket?
A jacket which Marina says is Oswald's jacket is recovered from a car park which Oswald is seen entering.
Oswald who looks like he's been running and looks like he's scared to Shoe store Manager Johnny Brewer and appears to be hiding in the shoe store lobby as Police sirens can be heard and as the sirens grew fainter, Oswald looks over his shoulder and leaves.
Oswald enters the Texas Theatre without paying.
Oswald punches the approaching Police Officer in the Texas Theatre.
Oswald for some reason is carrying his revolver in the middle of the day in the Texas Theatre and tries to pull the trigger.
Oswald the devout Marxist holds up his fist to reporters.
Oswald refuses a lie detector test.
Oswald lies about ownership of the Murder Weapon.
Oswald lies about holding the Murder weapon in the Neely Street backyard photos and says that someone put his head on someone else's body.
Oswald leaves out Neely street as a place he rented and alters the date of the previous rental to fit.
Oswald's handwriting is on the Money Order for an amount equalling the price of the rifle plus postage.
Kliens has completed internal paperwork for a rifle(C2766) being sent to Oswald's PO Box.
Oswald receiving a 40 inch Italian Carcano and being photographed with a 40 inch Italian Carcano not long after.
Marina sees the butt of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage which is not there when checked on the afternoon of the assassination.
Frazier in his testimony states numerous times that he never paid attention to a long package that Oswald took to work.
The same rifle that Kliens sent to Oswald's PO box was recovered from the 6th floor of his workplace.
Howard Brennan's description in his affidavit on the day of the assassination is a close match to Oswald.
Lt. Day testifies that he removed Oswald's palm print from the Barrel of Oswald's rifle.
The FBI takes a print from the same section of Oswald's rifle and the area matches the same area that is on Day's palm print card.
ETC. ETC.
JohnM
-
If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.
Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.
Given the configuration and confusing echo characteristics of Dealey Plaza, the elevation of the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window, the fact that most of the witnesses were either watching charismatic JFK and his beautiful wife or other dignitaries in the motorcade, if a sniper fired all three shots from said window is it reasonable to expect that more than one person (i.e., someone in addition to Howard Brennen) would have seen that person while he or she was firing at JFK, and see him or her so well that they'd be able to identify him or her later?
Is it reasonable to expect that more than one person (i.e. someone in addition to Wesley Buell Frazier) would notice and remember seeing TSBD employee and "loner" Oswald walking away from the TSBD (from the rear of the building) a few minutes after the assassination?
-
Amazing. You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted. Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured. "Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on. A endless series of demands to prove something didn't happen.
You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.
Martin from "Europe" doesn't accept the implication of any of the thousands of doubts he has expressed about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. It begins and ends with nitpicking the evidence and then taking the discussion down the rabbit hole. As he has done once again here. As you note, he has posted thousands of times on this forum always interpreting the evidence in the most improbable way possible to lend itself to Oswald's innocence. Which, of course. would mean that there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald but he "doesn't care either way" about who did it! He just suggests all the evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery, planting, lies, or chance. If only Roger Collins were here to lend us his guidance.
-
The following evidence is more than enough to convince any sane person of Oswald's guilt.
JohnM
I stopped reading after this.
-
Martin from "Europe" doesn't accept the implication of any of the thousands of doubts he has expressed about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. It begins and ends with nitpicking the evidence and then taking the discussion down the rabbit hole. As he has done once again here. As you note, he has posted thousands of times on this forum always interpreting the evidence in the most improbable way possible to lend itself to Oswald's innocence. Which, of course. would mean that there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald but he "doesn't care either way" about who did it! He just suggests all the evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery, planting, lies, or chance. If only Roger Collins were here to lend us his guidance.
Says a guy who is willing to accept at face value any "evidence" as long as it points to Oswald's guilt, without ever wondering if it is authentic or not.
Typical LN stuff; whining and complaining about questions being asked regarding the evidence without ever being able to answer any of those questions.
Pathetic
-
What is it with this obsession of yours with conspiracies, you claim don't exist?
Are all those self-serving arguments why a conspiracy, in your opinion, could or would not have worked, supposed to somehow justify the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gun man?
You claim to be an ex-lawyer, so you should understand that the best way to disprove a conspiracy is by presenting a solid, conclusive case against Oswald.
So, why not do that instead of constantly arguing that a conspiracy is improbable or even impossible?
Oh, golly, what to say? CTers in every area of Weirdness in which I have encountered them are the most relentlessly humorless folks on earth. A CTer's pet conspiracy theory is the functional equivalent of a fundamentalist religion.
I morphed over the decades from being mildly interested in the JFKA when it occurred (I was 13) ... to being a True Conspiracy Believer in my 20's and 30's as I gobbled up books like Best Evidence ... to just assuming the existence of a Huge Conspiracy with no particular involvement during most of my legal career ... to becoming more involved, still as a True Believer, in my mid-60s, but this time with the research and analytical skills of a seasoned, academically-oriented lawyer ... to gradually having the scales fall from my eyes as I began to see the absurdity of Conspiracy World ... to reaching a strong conviction that, alas, boring as it may be, the Warren Commission basically got things right.
For a while, as I've stated, I explored factoids of Conspiracy Gospel and discovered, time and again, that they had no factual basis. I observed the mental gyrations of CTers and became fascinated by the conspiracy-prone mindset, to the extent of delving deeply into the massive psychological and sociological literature establishing a profile of those who are prone to see conspiracies where others don't. I discovered that absolutely the last thing JFKA CTers want to hear is that they perhaps aren't thinking clearly, to put it mildly. Jim DiEugenio came almost completely unglued at my posts in this vein and my analogy between the JFKA community and the UFO community (take my word for it, the Roswell debate is a near-perfect parallel to the JFKA debate).
I fought the battle for a while at the Ed Forum, arguing the LN position (or at least the "Let's Deal With the Actual Oswald" position) and attempting to expose conspiracy factoids as the nonsense they are. I quickly realized it was pointless - an endless game of Whack-A-Mole and a complete waste of my time. I have a real life and better things to do. Why tne handful of LNers who persist with this year after year bother with it is a mystery to me. Apparently, the LN position is their own fundamentalist religion, so the whole JFKA game is basically LN Catholics and CT Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses pissing on each other. Yawn. To be honest, except as an academic exercise I really don't give a bowl of steaming bat guano who killed JFK.
Now, instead of a JFKA researcher I'm more of a JFKA philospher. I observe the scene from the 30,000-foot level and laugh. I laugh at the absurdity of every conspiracy theory in which Oswald was a mere patsy. Try to picture what it might actually have looked like and how it might actually have worked in the real world - the point of my silly OP - and the absurdity becomes obvious. Why would I waste my time taking any of it seriously? I'm much more fascinated by how CTers - some seemingly very intelligent and highly educated - can actually believe the stuff they purport to believe. This is true across the many areas of Weirdness and even Theology in which I have been involved over the decades. It's an epistemology that is completely alien to me, where up is down, illogic is logic, and goofy inferences are preferred to rational ones.
Even the wackiest conspiracy theories can never be "disproved" to the satisfaction of their True Believers. How would anyone "prove" the late Queen wasn't a shape-shifting reptilian alien? I remember Budd Hopkins of "alien abduction" fame. He lost me when he finally resorted to the idea that we never see these occur because the aliens have a cloaking technology that renders everything invisible. So I don't even try to disprove anything - I merely observe, shake my head, and laugh.
A mountain of evidence has convinced government commissions, historians, independent researchers and little old me that the LN scenario is basically correct. In every complex event, there are outliers, things that don't seem to fit neatly, and even things that seem damn near impossible. That's just life in the real world. "This was a routine 12 mph fender-bender. How on earth did that mirror from the Ford end up on the roof of that building over there?" Hell, I don't know, but it did.
I don't have to prove anything to anybody. If a CTer wants to overturn the verdict of history, provide an evidence-based alternative theory that is more compelling even to those who don't share the conspiracy-prone mindset and agenda. Publish it in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Stop asserting factoids that are demonstrably false and scenarios that don't even make internal sense. Simple as that.
You want folks like me to play on your turf in Conspiracy World, to argue endlessly about the SBT, the postal money order, Oswald as a false defector, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. It's fun for you, and you apparently delude yourselves that it's accomplishing something. I'll let Fred Litwin, DVP and others do that since they seem to enjoy it and think it's worthwhile. For me, it just brings to mind the old adage about wrestling with a pig.
I actually haven't posted anything JFKA-related in years. I bought The Oswald Puzzle on the basis of my respect for Larry Hancock and the hope that here at last might be something new. Years ago, I bought Greg Parker's books with the same hope. Nah, it's just the same old nonsense. It inspired my few posts here, but now I'm going back to working on my golf swing.
-
Martin is much like another famous detective from "Europe" named Inspector Clouseau whose mantra was "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." The game goes like this. He asks for evidence of Oswald's guilt (which he already knows), the evidence is provided for the millionth time, he suggests each of the hundreds of pieces of evidence is somehow lacking based on his own subjective and often improbable interpretation that miraculously always lends itself to Oswald's innocence (i.e. the evidence is planted, faked, lacks chain of custody etc.). He then claims he "doesn't care" who did it. It's just a coincidence that his interpretation of the evidence always - no matter how improbable and lacking in common sense - lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt. He ignores the implications of any of his doubts having validity by denying that he is suggesting a conspiracy even though a conspiracy is the ONLY way to explain how this evidence was fabricated or planted as he himself suggests that it was. It's an endless circle of lunacy taking us down the rabbit hole again and again.
-
You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories and if you and your fellow conspiracy believers want to solve the case then you must discover new and more believable alternatives.
For instance as most LNers have told you,
1) A frontal sniper is ridiculous.
2) Oswald roaming around the building before 12:30 is crazy
3) Having Oswald escaping and possibly blabbing is silly
4) Planting a war surplus rifle(which was actually very accurate) when other rifles could have been planted is insane
5) Having to alter a vast amount of evidence to fit a different conspiratorial outcome is pure lunacy.
ETC. ETC....
JohnM
I know you are better than your, "ridiculous", "crazy", "silly" labeling shows you to be. Trot out your Evidence and put away that water cooler chatter.
-
FWIW, here is a recent (December 2023) scholarly article on the conspiracy-prone mindset, "The Role of Cognitive Biases in Conspiracy Beliefs," https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12604.
I do strongly believe confirmation bias is often a driving factor in many of our beliefs. In the case of the JFKA, I think it can be a driving factor for both fanatical LNers and fanatical CTers. I think I actually have an easier time understanding a fanatical CTer than a fanatical LNer, just as I have an easier time understanding a fanatical religious believer than a fanatical atheist. What would be the confirmation biases in play in the case of a fanatical LNer? We know all the usual suspects involved in the assorted conspiracy theories were and are capable of evil deeds apart from the JFKA, so maintaining a Pollyanna-ish view of the world wouldn't seem to be the operative confirmation bias.
That would be an interesting thread: Have those who seem to be emotionally invested in defending the LN position explain why they think it's worth so much time and effort.
-
I know you are better than your, "ridiculous", "crazy", "silly" labeling shows you to be. Trot out your Evidence and put away that water cooler chatter.
This is backwards, isn't it?
The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor, bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine, Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated, Oswald vanished from the TSBD after the shooting, no frontal shooters have been proven to exist, etc., etc. The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting. For the inference that the rifle was planted to be reasonable, you need actual evidence. "Well, it could have been and I think it was" is not evidence or even an inference from evidence.
Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.
-
Oh, golly, what to say? CTers in every area of Weirdness in which I have encountered them are the most relentlessly humorless folks on earth. A CTer's pet conspiracy theory is the functional equivalent of a fundamentalist religion.
I morphed over the decades from being mildly interested in the JFKA when it occurred (I was 13) ... to being a True Conspiracy Believer in my 20's and 30's as I gobbled up books like Best Evidence ... to just assuming the existence of a Huge Conspiracy with no particular involvement during most of my legal career ... to becoming more involved, still as a True Believer, in my mid-60s, but this time with the research and analytical skills of a seasoned, academically-oriented lawyer ... to gradually having the scales fall from my eyes as I began to see the absurdity of Conspiracy World ... to reaching a strong conviction that, alas, boring as it may be, the Warren Commission basically got things right.
For a while, as I've stated, I explored factoids of Conspiracy Gospel and discovered, time and again, that they had no factual basis. I observed the mental gyrations of CTers and became fascinated by the conspiracy-prone mindset, to the extent of delving deeply into the massive psychological and sociological literature establishing a profile of those who are prone to see conspiracies where others don't. I discovered that absolutely the last thing JFKA CTers want to hear is that they perhaps aren't thinking clearly, to put it mildly. Jim DiEugenio came almost completely unglued at my posts in this vein and my analogy between the JFKA community and the UFO community (take my word for it, the Roswell debate is a near-perfect parallel to the JFKA debate).
I fought the battle for a while at the Ed Forum, arguing the LN position (or at least the "Let's Deal With the Actual Oswald" position) and attempting to expose conspiracy factoids as the nonsense they are. I quickly realized it was pointless - an endless game of Whack-A-Mole and a complete waste of my time. I have a real life and better things to do. Why tne handful of LNers who persist with this year after year bother with it is a mystery to me. Apparently, the LN position is their own fundamentalist religion, so the whole JFKA game is basically LN Catholics and CT Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses pissing on each other. Yawn. To be honest, except as an academic exercise I really don't give a bowl of steaming bat guano who killed JFK.
Now, instead of a JFKA researcher I'm more of a JFKA philospher. I observe the scene from the 30,000-foot level and laugh. I laugh at the absurdity of every conspiracy theory in which Oswald was a mere patsy. Try to picture what it might actually have looked like and how it might actually have worked in the real world - the point of my silly OP - and the absurdity becomes obvious. Why would I waste my time taking any of it seriously? I'm much more fascinated by how CTers - some seemingly very intelligent and highly educated - can actually believe the stuff they purport to believe. This is true across the many areas of Weirdness and even Theology in which I have been involved over the decades. It's an epistemology that is completely alien to me, where up is down, illogic is logic, and goofy inferences are preferred to rational ones.
Even the wackiest conspiracy theories can never be "disproved" to the satisfaction of their True Believers. How would anyone "prove" the late Queen wasn't a shape-shifting reptilian alien? I remember Budd Hopkins of "alien abduction" fame. He lost me when he finally resorted to the idea that we never see these occur because the aliens have a cloaking technology that renders everything invisible. So I don't even try to disprove anything - I merely observe, shake my head, and laugh.
A mountain of evidence has convinced government commissions, historians, independent researchers and little old me that the LN scenario is basically correct. In every complex event, there are outliers, things that don't seem to fit neatly, and even things that seem damn near impossible. That's just life in the real world. "This was a routine 12 mph fender-bender. How on earth did that mirror from the Ford end up on the roof of that building over there?" Hell, I don't know, but it did.
I don't have to prove anything to anybody. If a CTer wants to overturn the verdict of history, provide an evidence-based alternative theory that is more compelling even to those who don't share the conspiracy-prone mindset and agenda. Publish it in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Stop asserting factoids that are demonstrably false and scenarios that don't even make internal sense. Simple as that.
You want folks like me to play on your turf in Conspiracy World, to argue endlessly about the SBT, the postal money order, Oswald as a false defector, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. It's fun for you, and you apparently delude yourselves that it's accomplishing something. I'll let Fred Litwin, DVP and others do that since they seem to enjoy it and think it's worthwhile. For me, it just brings to mind the old adage about wrestling with a pig.
I actually haven't posted anything JFKA-related in years. I bought The Oswald Puzzle on the basis of my respect for Larry Hancock and the hope that here at last might be something new. Years ago, I bought Greg Parker's books with the same hope. Nah, it's just the same old nonsense. It inspired my few posts here, but now I'm going back to working on my golf swing.
A mountain of evidence has convinced government commissions, historians, independent researchers and little old me that the LN scenario is basically correct.
So, it's the usual LN appeal to authority. Got it!
I don't have to prove anything to anybody. If a CTer wants to overturn the verdict of history, provide an evidence-based alternative theory
And there is the LN classic: "I am right unless you prove me wrong" with the silent part following that being: "but you can never prove me wrong, because I will never accept anything you say"
You want folks like me to play on your turf in Conspiracy World,
Nope... I don't have a turf in the Conspiracy World. In fact, I agree with you that most of the conspiracy theories are ranging from silly to idiotic.
What I actually want you to do is to simply provide a conclusive case that shows Oswald was indeed a lone gunman.
But somehow I get the impression you are not willing or able to do that, which makes you just another LN "true believer" in much the same way as a "true Christian" does never want to discuss Darwin's evidence for his evolution theory.
Have fun working on your golf swing. Thumb1:
-
Martin is much like another famous detective from "Europe" named Inspector Clouseau whose mantra was "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." The game goes like this. He asks for evidence of Oswald's guilt (which he already knows), the evidence is provided for the millionth time, he suggests each of the hundreds of pieces of evidence is somehow lacking based on his own subjective and often improbable interpretation that miraculously always lends itself to Oswald's innocence (i.e. the evidence is planted, faked, lacks chain of custody etc.). He then claims he "doesn't care" who did it. It's just a coincidence that his interpretation of the evidence always - no matter how improbable and lacking in common sense - lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt. He ignores the implications of any of his doubts having validity by denying that he is suggesting a conspiracy even though a conspiracy is the ONLY way to explain how this evidence was fabricated or planted as he himself suggests that it was. It's an endless circle of lunacy taking us down the rabbit hole again and again.
Isn't it just hilarious how I can live a happy and healthy life rent free in your head for so long.... :D
-
This is backwards, isn't it?
The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor, bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine, Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated, Oswald vanished from the TSBD after the shooting, no frontal shooters have been proven to exist, etc., etc. The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting. For the inference that the rifle was planted to be reasonable, you need actual evidence. "Well, it could have been and I think it was" is not evidence or even an inference from evidence.
Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.
Oh boy, here we go...
The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor,
And what evidence would that be exactly?
As far as I can tell, there is only a photo copy of order form which an FBI expert claims was written by Oswald (since when do handwriting experts come to absolute conclusions based on a photo copy and comparison documents that may or may not be authentic?). Then there is another photo copy of an internal Klein's document that has a serial number of a rifle handwritten on it (but lacking confirmation of the person who wrote that number that the document is authentic). Then there are the backyard photos showing Oswald holding a rifle (which do not prove anything else but that Oswald was holding a rifle), and then there is a rifle which turns out to be a different one from the one ordered.
There are so many decrepancies in this part of the evidence alone that it is utterly beyond me how you, as the lawyer you say you were, can reach the conclusion that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine
Really? The actual evidence is that FBI expert Frazier arrived at the Secret Service garage for the purpose of examining the Presidential limousine only to learn that two utterly unqualified men (If I recall correctly a navy corpman and a secret service agent) had already searched destroyed the crime scene. Frazier was then given some bullet fragments that allegedly were found in the limousine. No photographs of the items in situ, no chain of custody prior to Frazier receiving the fragments!
And you accept that as reliable evidence? Really? No reasonable doubt whatsoever? Wow!
Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated
There is the LN thing again; "Oswald was on the 6th floor unless you can conclusively prove that he wasn't"..... Pathetic. You can't even provide a shred of evidence showing that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. You just assume he was.
The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting.
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "reasonable". What you've got here is nothing more than a self-serving assumption!
Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.
Of course, that is what you believe. It's also disingenuous, because if you accept that there is actually reasonable doubt about aspects of the evidence, you can not reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, which in turn makes what you believe questionable as it can not be based upon evidence that might have reasonable doubt attached to it.
Perhaps you're better off on the golf course!
-
What I actually want you to do is to simply provide a conclusive case that shows Oswald was indeed a lone gunman.
Oh, dear, I have run into one of those. ::)
Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.
What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that Oswald alone was the assassin? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, the DRE and the Mafia cooperated in a conspiracy involving 987 participants?
There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history. If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions. CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.
(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)
Please, have the last word. It will make you feel better.
-
Martin's insistence on a "conclusive" case did remind me of an old joke ...
A CTer dies, goes to Heaven, and encounters Jesus.
"Look, I gotta know," he says. "I spent my whole life on this. WHO KILLED JFK?"
"Oswald," says Jesus. "And he acted alone."
The CTer walks away, shaking his head. "Wow, the cover-up goes even higher than I had suspected ..."
-
Oh, dear, I have run into one of those. ::)
Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.
What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that Oswald alone was the assassin? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, the DRE and the Mafia cooperated in a conspiracy involving 987 participants?
There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history. If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions. CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.
(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)
Please, have the last word. It will make you feel better.
Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.
Wow, so, in your mind, non-conclusive evidence still justifies a conclusion of absolute guilt? Did I get that right?
And when someone declines to play, I don't get "huffy", whatever that means. Why would I, when a refusal to play clearly shows that person to be a coward who is unwilling or unable to back up his claims with actual authentic and conclusive evidence?
Oh wait... could it be evidence also doesn't have to be authenticated in your mind?
What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case?
As a former lawyer, you need to ask? Really?
There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history.
Really? And here is me thinking that history is written by the victors. Just like Henry VII Tudor backdated declared Richard III an illegal king after he had beaten him on the battlefield.
And, just to set the record straight, I didn't say "conclusive case". I asked for conclusive evidence. A piece of evidence either provides conclusive proof for a conclusion or it doesn't. That's what the whole pesky "beyond reasonable doubt" thing is about.
You have heard about that concept, haven't you? It's really very simply, evidence becomes conclusive by elimination of other possible explanations.
If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions.
So, now historians determine guilt or innocence?
CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.
I agree. The problem is that there is also something as public opinion and in that court there has never been a majority who believed the official narrative.
(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)
And yet another childish claim without explanation of what it is I fail to understand..... At least I am able to explain why I believe the "evidence" supporting Oswald's ownership is questionable. You seem to be unable to tell me what it is you think I fail to understand. Go figure! But then, perhaps that's the best you can do....
Btw, nice try ignoring my comments about the bullet fragments Frazier was given and the total lack of evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired. What happened? Couldn't come up with an even halfway plausible reply?
-
Martin's insistence on a "conclusive" case did remind me of an old joke ...
A CTer dies, goes to Heaven, and encounters Jesus.
"Look, I gotta know," he says. "I spent my whole life on this. WHO KILLED JFK?"
"Oswald," says Jesus. "And he acted alone."
The CTer walks away, shaking his head. "Wow, the cover-up goes even higher than I had suspected ..."
You're the gift that keeps on giving. Another chapter from the LN playbook; when unable to argue the case and/or provide evidence for my claims, try ridicule....
Weak, very weak!
But let me reply with the comment that you remind me of a duck gliding peacefully through the water. We all know what is really happening underwater, right?
You have tried the "high and mighty" talking down approach, the appeal to authority approach, the Ï'm right unless you prove me wrong" approach and the ridicule approach.
Why not try the "defend and explain the evidence" approach for once?
We don't even have to agree on a piece of evidence, but your opinion about that piece of evidence might contribute to me better understand your point of view. Surely there's some value to that, right?
-
Lance -- cool story, bro!
-
Amazing. You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted. Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured. "Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on. A endless series of demands to prove something didn't happen.
Nice strawman, Steve. When has Martin EVER said "prove the rifle wasn't planted", "prove the backyard photos aren't faked", "prove that the fingerprints weren't planted"?
-
You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories
Bull. There's nothing "commonly held" about Lance's fanciful story.
-
The following evidence is more than enough to convince any sane person of Oswald's guilt.
[blah blah blah]
Only is "Mytton"-land is a wedding ring evidence of murder.
Oh yeah: "Oswald's rifle". LOL
-
Wow, so, in your mind, non-conclusive evidence still justifies a conclusion of absolute guilt? Did I get that right?
But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence could have conceivably been planted or faked or manufactured by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".
And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.
Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).
But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".
-
But the evidence will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence was planted or faked by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".
And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It wouldn't. Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos were phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY of the evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders was planted or faked).
But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence was phony is more than enough to satisfy any rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".
He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history. It's an absurd standard that if applied to the conspiracy advocates (who repeatedly get a pass from this person who says he has no opinion on what happened) would render them speechless.
"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked. That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.
-
-
But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence could have conceivably been planted or faked or manufactured by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".
And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.
Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).
But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".
But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers.
Oh poor David, perhaps you don't know it, but you just gave the whole game away. There is no need to concern yourself with "rabit conspiracy believers" because conclusive evidence will stand by itself. There is no need to whine about what "rabit conspiracy believers" think. The biggest problem die hard LNs like you have is that you don't like to discuss the evidence because you know it won't stand by itself. Your confirmation bias will get in the way every time. That's why you keep on complainig about those nasty people who don't simply accept your gospel!
And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.
Why do you care what "rabit CTers"say? When you have worked with handwriting experts as much as I have over the years, you would understand what the difference is between an opinion of a neutral handwriting expert, based upon original authenticated documents, and the opinion of a single FBI "expert" trying to please his boss. It was still Hoover's FBI back then, remember? And dear Edgar had already declared within 24 hours that Oswald was the lone gunman......
Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document.
Of course it is possible to forge or fake a document, but the likelihood of that getting by a professional expert is a hell of a lot smaller than using easily manipulated photo copies to be compared with other easily manipulated allegedly originals being "examined" by an expert who doesn't want to get into trouble with his boss.
And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).
What a pathetic argument to make. First of all, to demand that anybody, CT or not, prove that a document is not authentic, when the original of that same document is either buried deep in the National Archives or simply does not exist, and thus is not available for scrutiny , is not only disingenuous but also utterly dishonest. Secondly, to flip the coin, given that the original evidence is not available for examination, why is it that any LN can claim it's authentic without having been able to examine it? You demand proof from a CT but you accept without question that any authenticity claim of a LN is genuine. Could this be the "true believers" cult at work?
But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist.
Well, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is authentic is more than enough to satisfy a rabid LN theorist.
And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".
Show me a LN and I'll show you somebody who thinks all his opinions are "reasonable LN inferences"!
-
He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history. It's an absurd standard that if applied to the conspiracy advocates (who repeatedly get a pass from this person who says he has no opinion on what happened) would render them speechless.
"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked. That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.
He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history.
What an ignorant statement to make. Conclusive means credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is exactly the standard used in a criminal court of law. The court of history is an entirely different thing. It's basically meaningless as it deals only with opinions.
"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked.
In what kind of fantasy world do you live? Conclusive means that it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that evidence is in fact authentic.
That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.
You are cleary way out of your league. Asking for authentication of evidence is not the same as proving a negative. The biggest mistake LNs make is to assume that evidence is authentic unless proven otherwise.
In the real world it doesn't work that way!
-
Rent free in your head...... :D
-
To demand that anybody, CT or not, prove that a document is not authentic, when the original of that same document is either buried deep in the National Archives or simply does not exist, and thus is not available for scrutiny, is not only disingenuous but also utterly dishonest. Secondly, to flip the coin, given that the original evidence is not available for examination, why is it that any LN can claim it's authentic without having been able to examine it? You demand proof from a CT but you accept without question that any authenticity claim of a LN is genuine. Could this be the "true believers" cult at work?
No, it's merely an attempt to put all the "rifle" evidence together.
I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the Warren Commission for the rifle-purchasing records.
You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)
And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club, and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).
The logical "reasonable inference" here is this one....
The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).
Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.
Show me a LN and I'll show you somebody who thinks all his opinions are "reasonable LN inferences"!
Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!
Is your middle initial D, Martin? (As in Duh!)
And the merry-go-round continues to grind away....
-
No, it's merely common sense at work. I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the WC for the rifle-purchasing records.
You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)
And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club, and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were positively found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no good or valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the March 1963 sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).
Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!
Is your middle initial D, Martin? (As in Duh!)
And the merry-go-round continues to grind away....
No, it's merely common sense at work.
Common sense is an opinion. It has nothing to do with authenticated conclusive evidence. Common sense is in fact frequently used as a substitute for a total lack of credible evidence.
I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the WC for the rifle-purchasing records.
So am I, so how come we have not reached the same conclusion?
You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)
No, the way Klein's normally used to store the orders on microfilm is not suspicious or conspiratorial at all, but I never claimed that Klein's forged or falsified any document.
And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club,
No, you belong and have always belonged to the "Oswald did it alone no matter that the evidence doesn't support that conclusion" club
and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were positively found just exactly where they were supposed to be found---among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois---I, therefore, have absolutely no good or valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the March 1963 sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).
Well, that's where we part ways, because there are many ways to manipulate evidence. Let's for the sake of argument say that Oswald did in fact write the Hidell order form, but he was manipulated in doing so? Ever thought about that possibility, or do you simply dismiss it as an impossibility?
Well, of course! That's only natural. What would you expect, for Pete sake? Would you actually think that an LNer who believes he has a solid argument regarding a matter in dispute is going to think he has LOST the argument to a CTer (who is, after all, a person who has nothing but his imagination and speculation about tons of "fake evidence" to work with)??!
This is exactly why two worlds will never meet. Niel deGrasse Tyson once said; what if you know just enough about a subject to think you are right, but not enough about that subject to know you are wrong!
Let's just take one example; the Backyard photos. I believe they are authentic, as I am sure you do as well, but for you they somehow prove that Oswald owned a Carcano rifle in March 1963, and for me they only prove that Oswald was photographed holding a rifle. Now tell me, why are you right and I am wrong?
-
Galbraith: You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted.
Weidmann: I have questioned the evidence and asked for authentication. That's not the same as asking for proof that the evidence wasn't faked or planted.
My question: What's your definition of "authentication" in the context of the evidence against Oswald?
-
The logical "reasonable inference" here is this one....
The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).
Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.
So, you added this to your post two minutes after I asked the question.... How disappointing.
But I'll reply to it anyway.
The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).
There is not a shred of evidence that shows the rifle that Oswald is holding in the backyard photos has the serial number C2766 on it and/or that it was ever found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is also no evidence that it's the same rifle Klein's allegedly shipped to Oswald.
Your entire claim is nothing more than contrived conjecture motivated by wishful thinking.
Do you have proof that shows the rifle Oswald is holding in the photographs has the serial number C2766 on it?
Do you have proof that shows that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photographs is the same one that was found at the TSBD?
Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.
Does this mean that you completely dismiss the possibility that Oswald was manipulated and, if so, what is your dismissal based on?
-
There is not a shred of evidence that shows the rifle that Oswald is holding in the backyard photos has the serial number C2766 on it and/or that it was ever found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is also no evidence that it's the same rifle Klein's allegedly shipped to Oswald.
Going from memory here, but weren't some marks that are visible on the Carcano in the photos matched with marks on the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor?
-
Does this mean that you completely dismiss the possibility that Oswald was manipulated and, if so, what is your dismissal based on?
I think YOU need to tell ME your proof that "Oswald was manipulated" into ordering the rifle. Isn't that how it usually works when a rather outlandish claim is made? The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
-
Going from memory here, but weren't some marks that are visible on the Carcano in the photos matched with marks on the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor?
Yep, the HSCA expert proved beyond all doubt that Oswald's rifle(C2766) that was directly linked to the fragments discovered in JFK's limo and found on the 6th floor of the Depository where Oswald worked, was being held by Oswald in the backyard of Oswald's apartment on Neely Street!
Also consider that Oswald lied to the Dallas Police that he lived on Neely Street, Hmmm I wonder why?
Another interesting factoid is that the backyard photos were taken shortly after Kleins sent C2766 and just before Oswald used C2766 in an attempt to assassinate General Walker.
The HSCA evidence that the backyard rifle was the murder weapon and consider that after more than 40 years later this evidence has never been even remotely debunked!
(https://i.postimg.cc/jS5cBVK8/Photo-hsca-ex-206-zpsded4af5f.webp)
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjvW8XrT/backyardphot.jpg)
JohnM
-
I think YOU need to tell ME your proof that "Oswald was manipulated" into ordering the rifle. Isn't that how it usually works when a rather outlandish claim is made? The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
I didn't make a claim. I responded to a comment you made and simply asked a question.
Your answer will determine if it is worth both our time to have a discussion about the subject.
But I will say this; evidence becomes more conclusive and credible by elimination of other possible explanations.
-
Yep, the HSCA expert proved beyond all doubt that Oswald's rifle(C2766) that was directly linked to the fragments discovered in JFK's limo and found on the 6th floor of the Depository where Oswald worked, was being held by Oswald in the backyard of Oswald's apartment on Neely Street!
Also consider that Oswald lied to the Dallas Police that he lived on Neely Street, Hmmm I wonder why?
Another interesting factoid is that the backyard photos were taken shortly after Kleins sent C2766 and just before Oswald used C2766 in an attempt to assassinate General Walker.
The HSCA evidence that the backyard rifle was the murder weapon and consider that after more than 40 years later this evidence has never been even remotely debunked!
(https://i.postimg.cc/jS5cBVK8/Photo-hsca-ex-206-zpsded4af5f.webp)
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjvW8XrT/backyardphot.jpg)
JohnM
Yep, the HSCA expert proved beyond all doubt that Oswald's rifle(C2766) that was directly linked to the fragments discovered in JFK's limo
Who discovered the fragments in JFK's limo?
-
Who discovered the bullet fragments in JFK's limo?
Probably some evil dude from the Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex.
-
Yep, the HSCA expert proved beyond all doubt that Oswald's rifle(C2766) that was directly linked to the fragments discovered in JFK's limo
Who discovered the fragments in JFK's limo?
And away we go, down, down, down the rabbit hole where the majority of every type of law enforcement connected with this case wanted Kennedy dead and they all wanted to blame Oswald. Your psychotic paranoia and complete lack of evidence for each of your many, many suspicions is really entertaining, keep it up!
THE PRESIDENTIAL AUTOMOBILE
After the Presidential car was returned to Washington on November 22, 1963, Secret Service agents found two bullet fragments in the front seat. One fragment, found on the seat beside the driver, weighed 44.6 grains and consisted of the nose portion of a bullet.92 The other fragment, found along the right side of the front seat, weighed 21.0 grains and consisted of the base portion of a bullet.93 During the course of an examination on November 23, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation found three small lead particles, weighing between seven-tenths and nine-tenths of a grain each, on the rug underneath the left jump seat which had been occupied by Mrs. Connally.94 During this examination, the Bureau agents noted a small residue of lead on the inside surface of the laminated windshield and a very small pattern of cracks on the outer layer of the windshield immediately behind the lead residue.95 There was a minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface, but no penetration. The inside layer of glass was not broken.96 The agents also observed a dent in the strip of chrome across the top of the windshield, located to the left of the rear view mirror support.97
EXPERT EXAMINATION OF RIFLE, CARTRIDGE CASES, AND BULLET FRAGMENTS
On the sixth floor of the Depository Building, the Dallas police found three spent cartridges and a rifle. A nearly whole bullet was discovered on the stretcher used to carry Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital. As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.
JohnM
-
Five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.
But . . . but . . . but . . . WHERE DID THE THREE SMALLER FRAGMENTS COME FROM?
EH?
AH HA!!!!
GOT YA!!!!!!!!
AND WHO FOUND THEM!!!!!?????
EH??
-
I think YOU need to tell ME your proof that "Oswald was manipulated" into ordering the rifle. Isn't that how it usually works when a rather outlandish claim is made? The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
I think we all see that his "conclusive evidence" and "absolute proof" standards have just vanished, disappeared. Now it's back to possibilities. Not "conclusive evidence" Oswald was manipulated into the rifle purchase; but the mere possibility of manipulation. And we're supposed to use these mere possibilities when examining the evidence and if they don't surmount that "possibility" standard that evidence can be dismissed. Must be dismissed. How can someone absolutely prove (his standard) that Oswald wasn't manipulated into ordering the rifle? We don't have a time machine. Even if he was, how does that exonerate him from using it that November day in Dallas?
One impossible absolute standard, one that's not even used in a court of law, for judging evidence against Oswald; a completely different arbitrary "possible" standard when judging evidence that exonerates him.
-
And away we go, down, down, down the rabbit hole where the majority of every type of law enforcement connected with this case wanted Kennedy dead and they all wanted to blame Oswald. Your psychotic paranoia and complete lack of evidence for each of your many, many suspicions is really entertaining, keep it up!
THE PRESIDENTIAL AUTOMOBILE
After the Presidential car was returned to Washington on November 22, 1963, Secret Service agents found two bullet fragments in the front seat. One fragment, found on the seat beside the driver, weighed 44.6 grains and consisted of the nose portion of a bullet.92 The other fragment, found along the right side of the front seat, weighed 21.0 grains and consisted of the base portion of a bullet.93 During the course of an examination on November 23, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation found three small lead particles, weighing between seven-tenths and nine-tenths of a grain each, on the rug underneath the left jump seat which had been occupied by Mrs. Connally.94 During this examination, the Bureau agents noted a small residue of lead on the inside surface of the laminated windshield and a very small pattern of cracks on the outer layer of the windshield immediately behind the lead residue.95 There was a minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface, but no penetration. The inside layer of glass was not broken.96 The agents also observed a dent in the strip of chrome across the top of the windshield, located to the left of the rear view mirror support.97
EXPERT EXAMINATION OF RIFLE, CARTRIDGE CASES, AND BULLET FRAGMENTS
On the sixth floor of the Depository Building, the Dallas police found three spent cartridges and a rifle. A nearly whole bullet was discovered on the stretcher used to carry Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital. As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.
JohnM
And away we go, down, down, down the rabbit hole where the majority of every type of law enforcement connected with this case wanted Kennedy dead and they all wanted to blame Oswald. Your psychotic paranoia and complete lack of evidence for each of your many, many suspicions is really entertaining, keep it up!
You know what, John? You are absolutely right. As long as evidence supports the "Oswald did it alone" narrative, who cares where it came from, who found it and whether it is authentic or not. It must be a complete mystery to you why they ever invented that pesky cumbersome chain of evidence and authentication stuff, when you can just use "Oswald left his wedding ring in a cup" as one of 53 pieces of "evidence" that "prove" his guilt?
Nobody in their right mind would wonder about a jacket (described in radio traffic as white), - found by somebody who could possibly be a police officer, who pointed it out to Capt. Westbrook, who didn't know where it was found exactly and who in turn gave it to another unknown officer and couldn't identify either man in his WC testimony, - that resurfaced at the DPD HQ as a grey jacket with the initials of 7 men on it, when all we know is that only three persons handled the jacket. And what does it matter how it came to be that it was Westbrook himself who submitted the jacket to the evidence room at (according to the receipt) 3 PM, more than an hour after Oswald had been brought in to the DPD HQ.
Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!
I must say, you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John? Thumb1:
Don't you have a moonwalk to defend somewhere?
-
I think we all see that his "conclusive evidence" and "absolute proof" standards have just vanished, disappeared. Now it's back to possibilities. Not "conclusive evidence" he was manipulated; but the possibility of it. And we're supposed to use these mere possibilities when examining the evidence and if they don't surmount that standard they can be dismissed. How can someone absolutely prove (his standard) that Oswald wasn't manipulated into ordering the rifle? We don't have a time machine. Even if he was, how does that exonerate him from using it that November day in Dallas?
One impossible absolute standard, one that's not even used in a court of law, for judging evidence against Oswald; a completely different arbitrary "possible" standard when judging evidence that exonerates him.
And another one who doesn't understand that an investigation is a process of elimination. The more possibilities that can be ruled out, the stronger and more conclusive the evidence becomes.
But something as basic and simple goes completely over your head, doesn't it?
How can someone absolutely prove (his standard) that Oswald wasn't manipulated into ordering the rifle?
I didn't ask for "absolute proof" that Oswald wasn't manipulated. I wanted to know from David von Pein on what basis he dismissed the possibility that Oswald was manipulated.
If you don't understand the difference, then there isn't much I can do....
-
And away we go, down, down, down the rabbit hole where the majority of every type of law enforcement connected with this case wanted Kennedy dead and they all wanted to blame Oswald. Your psychotic paranoia and complete lack of evidence for each of your many, many suspicions is really entertaining, keep it up!
You know what, John? You are absolutely right. As long as evidence supports the "Oswald did it alone" narrative, who cares where it came from, who found it and whether it is authentic or not. It must be a complete mystery to you why they ever invented that pesky cumbersome chain of evidence and authentication stuff, when you can just use "Oswald left his wedding ring in a cup" as one of 53 pieces of "evidence" that "prove" his guilt?
Nobody in their right mind would wonder about a jacket (described in radio traffic as white), - found by somebody who could possibly be a police officer, who pointed it out to Capt. Westbrook, who didn't know where it was found exactly and who in turn gave it to another unknown officer and couldn't identify either man in his WC testimony, - that resurfaced at the DPD HQ as a grey jacket with the inintials of 7 men on it, when all we know is that only three persons handled the jacket. And what does it matter how it came to be that it was Westbrook himself who submitted the jacket to the evidence room at (according to the receipt) 3 PM, more than an hour after Oswald had been brought in to the DPD HQ.
Similarly, like Gerald Hill, who testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!
I must say, you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John? Thumb1:
Don't you have a moonwalk to defend somewhere?
Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence, what pray tell is your connection between these vastly different law enforcement agencies and where does all your suspicions lead, surely by now you must have some inkling about who was the grand mastermind with all this power who was behind the assassination, well?
JohnM
-
I haven't read all of Martin from "Europe's" gibberish here but from past encounters his standard of proof is that all alternative possibilities that he can dream up - no matter how baseless, improbable or contrary to the existing evidence - must be completely eliminated as a possibility to accept any evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. An impossible defense attorney standard that they would want to be applied to a client that he knows is stone cold guilty. No fact in human history could ever be proven under that standard. It's always at least theoretically possible that something else occurred. So doubt is always the result promoted by the contrarian types. Most amazing is that they appear to be entirely uninterested in entertaining the direct consequences of any of these alternative possibilities having validity. The sole objective is to conjure doubt by any means. They don't bother themselves in reconciling all the conflicting evidence, circumstances, conspiracies that must be accounted for if Oswald was not responsible and the evidence against him was the product of a frame up. If X didn't happen as they contend, then something like Y or Z must have occurred instead to explain it, but no interest at all in that. Why? Because they know better than anyone that Oswald did it. This is just an endless game in which they play the contrarian and take more intelligent people down their rabbit hole.
-
Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence, what pray tell is your connection between these vastly different law enforcement agencies and where does all your suspicions lead, surely by now you must have some inkling about who was the grand mastermind with all this power who was behind the assassination, well?
JohnM
Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence,
Now who is being paranoid? I never said that. All I did in my previous post is provide information from the official record, but it's telling that you seem to believe that no law enforcement agent could or would ever lie.
For crying out loud, Hoover, who ran the FBI back then, was the biggest criminal of them all. Using his office to spy on politicians etc and even black mailing Presidents. To you he must be a quireboy!
And just how many of verdicts obtained by Henry Wade, with false and/or manipulated evidence have been overturned by now? Another quireboy, in your mind, I'm sure.
There were several officers who claimed that they found the paper bag at the sniper's nest, but none of them lied, right?
DPD claimed that the backyard photos (and negatives) were found during the second search (the one with the warrant) on SaPersonay afternoon, yet Fritz showed Oswald a blow up of one of the photos on SaPersonay morning and Micheal Paine confirmed in a tv interview many years later that a FBI officer had shown him a photo showing Oswald holding a rifle on Friday evening, because he wanted to know if Paine knew where the photo was taken. Fritz actually, to some extend, confirmed that the already knew the location before he showed the picture to Oswald.
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we had heard of the Neely Street address but we didn't know that that was the place where the picture was taken. But later on, Mr. Sorrels and some of the Secret Service men called me and they had found out, I believe from Marina, that that is where the picture was made and they called me and asked me to go with them and we made some other pictures out there to show the place.
And how is it possible that Oswald's grey jacket had the initials of seven officers on it, when all we know is that only two unidentified officers and Capt. Westbrook ever handled the jacket?
And Hill didn't lie when he testified under oath that he kept the S & W revolver on his person all the time, when the receipt of the evidence room tells a different story. What's that like; to believe that Hill and Davenport didn't lie when they actually contradict what the other said?
As for the Secret Service agents; they followed orders when they returned the President's limousine, which was a crime scene, illegally to Washington and then had one of their own search tamper with that crime scene without documenting anything. But I'm sure, for you, that's all totally insignificant, right? All that matters is that Frazier was given fragments of bullets they said were found in the limousine. ;)
It's like I said earlier; you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John? Thumb1:
-
I haven't read all of Martin from "Europe's" gibberish here but from past encounters his standard of proof is that all alternative possibilities that he can dream up - no matter how baseless, improbable or contrary to the existing evidence - must be completely eliminated as a possibility to accept any evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. An impossible defense attorney standard that they would want to be applied to a client that he knows is stone cold guilty. No fact in human history could ever be proven under that standard. It's always at least theoretically possible that something else occurred. So doubt is always the result promoted by the contrarian types. Most amazing is that they appear to be entirely uninterested in entertaining the direct consequences of any of these alternative possibilities having validity. The sole objective is to conjure doubt by any means. They don't bother themselves in reconciling all the conflicting evidence, circumstances, conspiracies that must be accounted for if Oswald was not responsible and the evidence against him was the product of a frame up. If X didn't happen as they contend, then something like Y or Z must have occurred instead to explain it, but no interest at all in that. Why? Because they know better than anyone that Oswald did it. This is just an endless game in which they play the contrarian and take more intelligent people down their rabbit hole.
Living permanently in your head, rent free, I frequently encounter idiotic thoughts like the BS displayed above. Do you think it's possible I could get a bit more room in your head to avoid this madness?
-
How did this thread get so serious?
Lance was only proposing a simple thought experiment - make a simple conspiracy theory involving as few people as possible.
It's just an exercise in imagination and speculation. It doesn't require anyone to compromise their belief system. Even the most rabid Nutter can have a little fun.
I don't mind having a go first, let's see who can come up with a more simple scenario.
Let's start with a couple of old friends indulging in Cuban cigars and the finest Cognac in the privacy of an oak-paneled room.
One is the man who benefited the most from from JFK's death. A man who truly loathed Kennedy and was ruthless enough to have him killed - Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The other is one of his oldest and dearest friends - David Harold Byrd - the man who owns the Texas School Book Depository. Let's imagine they agree that JFK has to go. All LBJ has to do is make JFK's trip to Dallas happen and pick a venue that would require the motorcade route to pass by the TSBD building. Byrd would take care of the rest. In return, when Johnson is President he is to award Byrd's company, Ling-Temco-Vought, a massive military defense contract to build fighter planes worth hundreds of millions and to prevent the removal of the oil depletion allowance. Which he does.
The number one consideration is that there can be no trail leading back to Byrd and Johnson. That is the very top priority. The fewer people involved the better. The more simple the better - one man firing a rifle from the TSBD building.
Byrd involves Jack Cason, President and Treasurer of the TSBD. Jack has just the man for the job, ex-CIA man Bill Shelley (is it possible to be "ex" with the CIA?).
A plan is formed involving a shooter and a patsy
This conspiracy involves 5 people, a few private conversations and a patsy.
As for the cover-up?
There isn't one.
The Dallas Police investigation is just profoundly incompetent, to an almost comical degree. All Dallas officers believe the Commie cop-killer is as guilty as can be. It's strange how universal this feeling is as soon as Oswald is arrested, that he is the shooter and that he acted alone and their investigation is going to show that.
Before the FBI investigation has really started the word comes from Hoover himself that Oswald is the lone assassin and that is what the investigation is going to show. The result of the investigation is decided at the outset and the loyalty of FBI agents is not to truth or justice or any of that...it's to the Bureau. And Hoover IS the Bureau.
The Warren Commission is nothing more than an FBI investigation wearing a tutu.
5 people
1 patsy
and no cover-up.
Beat that Walk:
-
Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence,
Now who is being paranoid? I never said that. All I did in my previous post is provide information from the official record, but it's telling that you seem to believe that no law enforcement agent could or would ever lie.
For crying out loud, Hoover, who ran the FBI back then, was the biggest criminal of them all. Using his office to spy on politicians etc and even black mailing Presidents. To you he must be a quireboy!
And just how many of verdicts obtained by Henry Wade, with false and/or manipulated evidence have been overturned by now? Another quireboy, in your mind, I'm sure.
There were several officers who claimed that they found the paper bag at the sniper's nest, but none of them lied, right?
DPD claimed that the backyard photos (and negatives) were found during the second search (the one with the warrant) on SaPersonay afternoon, yet Fritz showed Oswald a blow up of one of the photos on SaPersonay morning and Micheal Paine confirmed in a tv interview many years later that a FBI officer had shown him a photo showing Oswald holding a rifle on Friday evening, because he wanted to know if Paine knew where the photo was taken.
And how is it possible that Oswald's grey jacket had the initials of seven officers on it, when all we know is that only two unidentified officers and Capt. Westbrook ever handled the jacket?
And Hill didn't lie when he testified under oath that he kept the S & W revolver on his person all the time, when the receipt of the evidence room tells a different story. What's that like; to believe that Hill and Davenport didn't lie when they actually contradict what the other said?
As for the Secret Service agents; they followed orders when they returned the President's limousine, which was a crime scene, illegally to Washington and then had one of their own search tamper with that crime scene without documenting anything. But I'm sure, for you, that's all totally insignificant, right? All that matters is that Frazier was given fragments of bullets they said were found in the limousine. ;)
It's like I said earlier; you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John? Thumb1:
Hold on Cowboy as I previously stated, this case and the magnitude of the investigation wasn't like a solitary act of planting weed but involved hundreds of law enforcement members investigating a stack of varied evidence and all of these investigators would realize that each and every one of their actions was under intense scrutiny and could be easily tracked through cross referencing.
But alas what you fail to comprehend is that people are not identical machines and we all have our own interpretations of colour, time, procedures, memories, etc, so when you jump up and down in elated joy when you discover a minor discrepancy that you immediately jump to your suspicious conclusion, is in fact nothing of the kind and you really need to step back and look at the big picture and then you will discover like most rational people that there can be only one path!
JohnM
-
Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research. This is just semantic game-playing, and I decline to play.
Evidence is either relevant and credible or it isn't. Inferences from relevant and credible evidence are either reasonable or they aren't. Conclusions either follow logically from the evidence and inferences or they don't.
Conclusive and absolute are subjective terms. Juries are required to find liability in a civil trial by a preponderance of the evidence - not "absolute" liability by "conclusive" evidence. Ditto for criminal trials - guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but not free-of-all-doubt conclusive or absolute guilt by conclusive or absolute evidence.
I continue to say Martin tips his hand by relying on such terms. What is the "conclusive" evidence of Oswald's "absolute" innocence? What is the "conclusive" evidence there "absolutely" was a conspiracy?
I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into Yet Another Pointless, Wheel-Spinning Debate about specific items of evidence. The Monty Python argument video captures the problem nicely.
-
How did this thread get so serious?
Lance was only proposing a simple thought experiment - make a simple conspiracy theory involving as few people as possible.
It's just an exercise in imagination and speculation. It doesn't require anyone to compromise their belief system. Even the most rabid Nutter can have a little fun.
Dan, you are my new favorite poster!
I don't mind having a go first, let's see who can come up with a more simple scenario.
Let's start with a couple of old friends indulging in Cuban cigars and the finest Cognac in the privacy of an oak-paneled room.
One is the man who benefited the most from from JFK's death. A man who truly loathed Kennedy and was ruthless enough to have him killed - Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The other is one of his oldest and dearest friends - David Harold Byrd - the man who owns the Texas School Book Depository. Let's imagine they agree that JFK has to go. All LBJ has to do is make JFK's trip to Dallas happen and pick a venue that would require the motorcade route to pass by the TSBD building. Byrd would take care of the rest. In return, when Johnson is President he is to award Byrd's company, Ling-Temco-Vought, a massive military defense contract to build fighter planes worth hundreds of millions and to prevent the removal of the oil depletion allowance. Which he does.
The number one consideration is that there can be no trail leading back to Byrd and Johnson. That is the very top priority. The fewer people involved the better. The more simple the better - one man firing a rifle from the TSBD building.
Byrd involves Jack Cason, President and Treasurer of the TSBD. Jack has just the man for the job, ex-CIA man Bill Shelley (is it possible to be "ex" with the CIA?).
A plan is formed involving a shooter and a patsy
This conspiracy involves 5 people, a few private conversations and a patsy.
As for the cover-up?
There isn't one.
The Dallas Police investigation is just profoundly incompetent, to an almost comical degree. All Dallas officers believe the Commie cop-killer is as guilty as can be. It's strange how universal this feeling is as soon as Oswald is arrested, that he is the shooter and that he acted alone and their investigation is going to show that.
Before the FBI investigation has really started the word comes from Hoover himself that Oswald is the lone assassin and that is what the investigation is going to show. The result of the investigation is decided at the outset and the loyalty of FBI agents is not to truth or justice or any of that...it's to the Bureau. And Hoover IS the Bureau.
The Warren Commission is nothing more than an FBI investigation wearing a tutu.
5 people
1 patsy
and no cover-up.
Beat that Walk:
Fine, but I do think my thread about "Is this a plausible conspiracy theory?" - which received little attention - is simpler. Some person or persons in Mexico City suggest to Oswald that the assassination of JFK will make him a hero to Castro and ensure his entry into Cuba. Perhaps they even suggest they will be waiting, either near Dallas or in Mexico, to ferry him to Cuba when the deed is done. Perhaps it's all BS or perhaps they are sincere. It's a conspiracy, albeit not a very sexy one. Oswald remains the lone gunman whom LNers know and love.
To me, it's just inconceivable to explain the events of 11-22 in terms of Oswald as a patsy. Even in your scenario, I can't imagine how he would have been allowed to live. Shelley claims to have seen him doing the deed, wrestles the rifle from him as he attempts to escape, and nails him at the elevator - much cleaner, it seems to me.
-
Hold on Cowboy as I previously stated, this case and the magnitude of the investigation wasn't like a solitary act of planting weed but involved hundreds of law enforcement members investigating a stack of varied evidence and all of these investigators would realize that each and every one of their actions was under intense scrutiny and could be easily tracked through cross referencing.
But alas what you fail to comprehend is that people are not identical machines and we all have our own interpretations of colour, time, procedures, memories, etc, so when you jump up and down in elated joy when you discover a minor discrepancy that you immediately jump to your suspicious conclusion, is in fact nothing of the kind and you really need to step back and look at the big picture and then you will discover like most rational people that there can be only one path!
JohnM
A minor discrepancy?
Just how many of those do you need before you start to wonder that perhaps something else might be going on?
Remembering incorrectly at what time you did something might be a minor discrepancy, but when you claim, like Hill did, that you kept the suspects alleged revolver on your person all the time, and the receipt shows that another officer actually submitted the revolver to the evidence room you are way beyond a minor discrepancy. And that's not jumping to a suspicious conclusion! It's a matter of documented fact! But I fully understand that you don't want to deal with evidentiary problems when you can just as easily dismiss or ignore it.
-
A minor discrepancy?
Just how many of those do you need before you start to wonder that perhaps something else might be going on?
Remembering incorrectly at what time you did something might be a minor discrepancy, but when you claim, like Hill did, that you kept the suspects alleged revolver on your person all the time, and the receipt shows that another officer actually submitted the revolver to the evidence room you are way beyond a minor discrepancy. And that's not jumping to a suspicious conclusion! It's a matter of documented fact! But I fully understand that you don't want to deal with evidentiary problems when you can just as easily dismiss or ignore it.
As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?
Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Policemen that he was carrying a revolver and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8jQW5xZ/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
JohnM
-
Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research. This is just semantic game-playing, and I decline to play.
Evidence is either relevant and credible or it isn't. Inferences from relevant and credible evidence are either reasonable or they aren't. Conclusions either follow logically from the evidence and inferences or they don't.
Conclusive and absolute are subjective terms. Juries are required to find liability in a civil trial by a preponderance of the evidence - not "absolute" liability by "conclusive" evidence. Ditto for criminal trials - guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but not free-of-all-doubt conclusive or absolute guilt by conclusive or absolute evidence.
I continue to say Martin tips his hand by relying on such terms. What is the "conclusive" evidence of Oswald's "absolute" innocence? What is the "conclusive" evidence there "absolutely" was a conspiracy?
I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into Yet Another Pointless, Wheel-Spinning Debate about specific items of evidence. The Monty Python argument video captures the problem nicely.
Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research.
So when the LNs claim that Oswald is guilty it's not an absolute claim?
I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman.
Wow! You believe that evidence is credible and inferences are reasonable and that the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman is a logical and reasonable conclusion.
As we are dealing with the subject of belief, do you also believe that whatever you believe could possibly be wrong?
-
Dan, you are my new favorite poster!Fine, but I do think my thread about "Is this a plausible conspiracy theory?" - which received little attention - is simpler. Some person or persons in Mexico City suggest to Oswald that the assassination of JFK will make him a hero to Castro and ensure his entry into Cuba. Perhaps they even suggest they will be waiting, either near Dallas or in Mexico, to ferry him to Cuba when the deed is done. Perhaps it's all BS or perhaps they are sincere. It's a conspiracy, albeit not a very sexy one. Oswald remains the lone gunman whom LNers know and love.
Good effort but in order to maintain the crown I'm going to have to call "foul".
Technically your scenario isn't actually a conspiracy.
It's more like coming up with a motive for Oswald's actions than it is a genuine conspiracy.
Oswald is still a Lone Nutter.
You had me on the ropes for a second there ???
To me, it's just inconceivable to explain the events of 11-22 in terms of Oswald as a patsy. Even in your scenario, I can't imagine how he would have been allowed to live. Shelley claims to have seen him doing the deed, wrestles the rifle from him as he attempts to escape, and nails him at the elevator - much cleaner, it seems to me.
I would have to argue that the first thing that cements Oswald's guilt in the eyes of everyone is him leaving the scene of the crime. He is confronted on the 2nd floor 90 seconds after the shooting, which is almost as good as an alibi as no one is going to believe that a fleeing assassin stopped off to get a Coke. If he held his nerve he could bluff his way to freedom but he runs and it is this that seals his fate.
Having him on the run is crucial to establishing his guilt.
As for Shelley, he would need a cast iron alibi, so he would have to be visible to everyone on the front steps at the time of the shots. Within seconds a motorcycle cop was on the scene scuppering any chance of dealing with Oswald if that's what he wanted to do but, according to Oswald, it seems it was Shelley who told him to run along. Something Shelley obviously denied.
-
As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?
Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Police that carrying a revolver and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?
The receipt from the evidence room shows that Officer Davenport submitted the revolver.
Hill testified that he kept the revolver on his person all the time, but he wasn't the one who submitted it.
And you have to ask what I am trying to say?
Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Police that carrying a revolver
According to the interrogation Oswald did indeed admit to carrying a revolver, which he said he bought in Fort Worth.
and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!
Really? What makes you think Oswald was sent a revolver?
Oops, I've done it again... ask John a question he will never be able or willing to answer. :'(
-
So when the LNs claim that Oswald is guilty it's not an absolute claim?
Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."
Wow! You believe that evidence is credible and inferences are reasonable and that the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman is a logical and reasonable conclusion.
As we are dealing with the subject of belief, do you also believe that whatever you believe could possibly be wrong?
Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.
One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.
It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well. It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.
-
and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!
Really? What makes you think Oswald was sent a revolver?
Oops, I've done it again... ask John a question he will never be able or willing to answer. :'(
As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8jQW5xZ/osw-ald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
So let's recap;
Oswald ordered a revolver.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying his revolver.
Whenever Hill submitted the revolver has zero influence on the above.
BTW why plant a revolver which is extremely difficult to match with the expended bullets? wouldn't the idea of planting a weapon rely on being able to accurately match the weapon to the bullets? DOH!
When in fact the only person who would order an oversized barrel would be the person who intended to use it so he couldn't be linked with his crime, i.e. Oswald!
I'm starting to realize why Richard doesn't want to debate you, it's because you rarely if ever have a compelling thought out argument for any of your accusations and all you want to do is flap your gums and pretend that your suspicions actually go somewhere, when in fact all you do is spout hot air.
JohnM
-
As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8jQW5xZ/osw-ald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
So let's recap;
Oswald ordered a revolver.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying his revolver.
Whenever Hill submitted the revolver has zero influence on the above.
BTW why plant a revolver which is extremely difficult to match with the expended bullets? wouldn't the idea of planting a weapon rely on being able to accurately match the weapon to the bullets? DOH!
When in fact the only person who would order an oversized barrel would be the person who intended to use it so he couldn't be linked with his crime, i.e. Oswald!
I'm starting to realize why Richard doesn't want to debate you, it's because you rarely if ever have a compelling thought out argument for any of your accusations and all you want to do is flap your gums and pretend that your suspicions actually go somewhere, when in fact all you do is spout hot air.
JohnM
As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.
So let's recap;
Oswald ordered a revolver.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying his revolver.
Whenever Hill submitted the revolver has zero influence on the above.
BTW why plant a revolver which is extremely difficult to match with the expended bullets? wouldn't the idea of planting a weapon rely on being able to accurately match the weapon to the bullets? DOH!
When in fact the only person who would order an oversized barrel would be the person who intended to use it so he couldn't be linked with his crime, i.e. Oswald!
Wow, what a perfect display of how to ignore details..... There's a lot to unpack here, but anybody who claims Hill submitted the revolver when in fact the DPD receipt from the evidence rooms proves he didn't is a complete waste of my time.
But I'll say this; yes, according to the reports Oswald did admit he carried a revolver, but he said he bought it in Fort Worth.
I'm starting to realize why Richard doesn't want to debate you, it's because you rarely if ever have a compelling thought out argument for any of your accusations and all you want to do is flap your gums and pretend that your suspicions actually go somewhere, when in fact all you do is spout hot air.
Well, you know all there is to know about spouting hot air. But if you don't want to debate me, then just don't. You would be doing me a favor as I can only handle so much dishonest BS at one time.
Btw, the real reason why "Richard" doesn't want to debate (and still tries to do it by responding to other posts) is that he understands that he isn't getting anywhere with his pathetic arguments and claims.
-
Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."
Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.
One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.
It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well. It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.
Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."
I'm glad you disagree with the more extreme elements of the LN community, because for them Oswald's guilt is in fact a cult like absolute belief.
Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.
So, you agree that Oswald's guilt or innocence is nothing more than an opinion based on the best assessment (by that individual) of the evidence?
One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.
So do I, but I also understand that not every person has the same level of education and/or comprehension skill to justify their "justifed beliefs"
It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well.
If that's one of your "justified beliefs", then I have no other alternative but to conclude that your beliefs are in fact dead wrong.
It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.
It seems your beliefs are getting the better of you, because all I have tried to do so far is enter into a discussion with you, which you seem desperate to avoid. I think it's called paranoia.
You claim to be a former lawyer, but when I tried to pick your brain you instantly became highly defensive and refused to enter into any kind of debate. I can only wonder why.....
-
Wow, what a perfect display of how to ignore details..... There's a lot to unpack here, but anybody who claims Hill submitted the revolver when in fact the DPD receipt from the evidence rooms proves he didn't is a complete waste of my time.
From Martin Weidmann, which was added after I started my reply.
"Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!"
So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.
JohnM
-
From Martin Weidmann, which was added after I started my reply.
"Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!"
So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.
JohnM
So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!
Oh John, so desperate and clueless at the same time. Davenport didn't write anything. He was given a receipt from the evidence room for the revolver at 3.30 PM. Don't you even know the evidence?
The most important question is of course; how can Davenport submit the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill claims he had it on his person all the time. But I can understand why you ignored that.....
BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.
I have a copy of the document on my pc, but I haven't got a clue how to post it here, so, no I can't. Perhaps you should do your own research before you start making foolish claims.
-
So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!
Oh John, so desperate and clueless at the same time. Davenport didn't write anything. He was given a receipt from the evidence room for the revolver at 3.30 PM. Don't you even know the evidence?
The most important question is of course; how can Davenport submit the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill claims he had it on his person all the time. But I can understand why you ignored that.....
BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.
I have a copy of the document on my pc, but I haven't got a clue how to post it here, so, no I can't. Perhaps you should do your own research before you start making foolish claims.
Oh John, so desperate and clueless at the same time. Davenport didn't write anything. He was given a receipt from the evidence room for the revolver at 3.30 PM. Don't you even know the evidence?
I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you, but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.
The most important question is of course; how can Davenport submit the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill claims he had it on his person all the time. But I can understand why you ignored that.....
Months later Hill recalled an "approximate" time and from his guess you claim conspiracy? This is why you fail!
I have a copy of the document on my pc, but I haven't got a clue how to post it here, so, no I can't. Perhaps you should do your own research before you start making foolish claims.
I simply relied on your times because as I said I have a life outside of this Forum and as proved ironically by you, the only foolish claims were yours! Hahahaha!
But keep dreaming because some day you may be able to prove something, anything??
JohnM
-
I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you, but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.
Months later Hill recalled an "approximate" time and from his guess you claim conspiracy? This is why you fail!
I simply relied on your times because as I said I have a life outside of this Forum and as proved ironically by you, the only foolish claims were yours! Hahahaha!
But keep dreaming because some day you may be able to prove something, anything??
JohnM
I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you,
Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/
If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.
but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.
The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.
Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!
Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!
-
I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you,
Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/
If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.
but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.
The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.
Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!
Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!
Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/
Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!
If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.
The evidence was eventually stated by you, which after much prompting was a tiny half hour discrepancy between a recorded time and a months later guess, a fact that you clearly omitted to bolster your delusion.
The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.
Give it up already, Hill months later just made a guess and let's not forget that was the same day when a President was murdered by Oswald and a fellow Police Officer was also murdered by Oswald, so in other words Hill had a lot on his mind, so simply recalling a time months later which was close enough to be reasonable, is a basic concept that your desperate mind is failing to comprehend.
But let's get real, at the end of the day all your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald! Nuff said, now go play in the traffic like a good little boy.
Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!
This time discrepancy "problem" was all engineered by you and as I said I relied on you telling the truth but as usual you left out little details in an attempt to support your case, naughty naughty!
Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!
I just used the information that you presented and low and behold, your initial premise was deeply flawed, so yeah some things never change! Anyway as said this topic is now closed because a guessed time is hardly reliable evidence and the fact that Oswald owned, was caught with and admitted to carrying the same revolver in evidence is where this debate ends. So stop trying to insult me and try a something new, k?
BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??
JohnM
-
Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!
(my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt)
OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't, how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research?
For instance if it was me, a man of integrity, I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.
JohnM
-
You claim to be a former lawyer, but when I tried to pick your brain you instantly became highly defensive and refused to enter into any kind of debate. I can only wonder why.....
I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.
Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.
Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?
-
In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.
He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.
The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).
Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.
-
Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!
The evidence was eventually stated by you, which after much prompting was a tiny half hour discrepancy between a recorded time and a months later guess, a fact that you clearly omitted to bolster your delusion.
Give it up already, Hill months later just made a guess and let's not forget that was the same day when a President was murdered by Oswald and a fellow Police Officer was also murdered by Oswald, so in other words Hill had a lot on his mind, so simply recalling a time months later which was close enough to be reasonable, is a basic concept that your desperate mind is failing to comprehend.
But let's get real, at the end of the day all your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald! Nuff said, now go play in the traffic like a good little boy.
This time discrepancy "problem" was all engineered by you and as I said I relied on you telling the truth but as usual you left out little details in an attempt to support your case, naughty naughty!
I just used the information that you presented and low and behold, your initial premise was deeply flawed, so yeah some things never change! Anyway as said this topic is now closed because a guessed time is hardly reliable evidence and the fact that Oswald owned, was caught with and admitted to carrying the same revolver in evidence is where this debate ends. So stop trying to insult me and try a something new, k?
BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??
JohnM
How predictable!
your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere
First ignoring the actual details and the obvious problem; If Hill told the WC the truth when he said he had the revolver on him all the time, then how did Davenport get it and submit it to the evidence room?
because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald!
And then lying about the evidence; Oswald never admitted to carrying the revolver (meaning the S & W), he admitted to carrying a revolver
and everything else is just your imagination and a misrepresentation of the actual evidence.
BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??
I never said that Hill switched the revolver. That's just a strawman, although it does demonstrate nicely just how limited your thinking capacity is.
Hill was given a revolver and was told that it belonged to Oswald, just like Frazier was given bullet fragments and was told that they came from the limousine and just like Todd was given C399 in Washington and was told it was the bullet that was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Can you see a pattern emerging? But, let me guess, they are all insignificant coincidenes, right?
do you realize how absurd that is??
To a dishonest LN. like you, anything that questions or challenges the official narrative is absurd. It's par to the course. Some things will never change.
Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!
Suggesting that somebody is obsessed when that person has just returned after seven months of not posting is logical to you? Wow!
So, my posts per day is higher than yours. So what? I wasn't aware there was a competition going on. Perhaps your lower daily average means that you only reply to posts you think you can counter and cowardly stay away from all the posts you know you can not counter. Oh well, at least we know now what motivates you to be active on this forum :D
-
OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't, how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research?
For instance if it was me, a man of integrity, I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.
JohnM
OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't,
I can read the receipt just fine. The only thing I can't make out is whether it says that 8 bullets or 9 were submitted. The handwriting simply isn't very clear.
As I already told you, I don't know how to post the receipt on this forum, but if somebody else can post it for me, I'll gladly sent a copy to that person by email.
how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research
You don't even know what a fair debate is. No evidence is hiden as the receipt can be easily found in the DPD files. That's where I found it also.
For instance if it was me, a man of integrity,
I didn't know you are a comedian. I am actually amazed that you can even spell the word "integrity"
I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.
Yes the receipt says 3.30 and Hill does say approvimately 4PM in his testimony, which is available on line, but none of that is the point. But I can fully understand why you would want to focus on that rather than deal with the real issue.
-
I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.
Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.
Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?
Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me
As a fellow Arizona lawyer, Tidd probably knew better. I on the other hand have only seen you claiming to be a lawyer. I did not say I did not believe you nor did I claim that you weren't.
Are you always this touchy?
It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982
Good for you, but why should I research the background of some guy who writes on a public forum?
Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?
Wasn't it me who asked you a question about the evidence which you refused to answer, saying you were not playing that game.
And is throwing around insults typical for a Arizona lawyer?
-
I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.
Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.
Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?
Stop with the ballyhooing. In sports, thy have an expression. It's, "Act like you belong". Put your "Beaver Skin" away, (Cub Scouts), and let your work speak for itself.
-
In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.
He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.
The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).
Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.
In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.
I disagree. To make any kind of plausible conspiracy claim, it would require to have Oswald involved in some capacity and on some level. If you can present a conspiracy theory in which Oswald, as a complete outsider, is targeted to be the patsy, I would love to hear it.
He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination
He was asked if he had killed the President and replied that nobody had said that to him and that he didn't know why he had been arrested. All of this took place in a matter of seconds in a massively crowded hallway full of reporters.
Hardly the time or place to make elaborate statements and even less so as he was being dragged from room to room by police officers. I am truly amazed that you, as a lawyer, would attach any value to short statements made in the middle of chaos.
If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.
Oswald was arrested for killing Tippit and wasn't charged with the murder of Kennedy until just prior to his appearance before the media. At what point, do you think, would he have understood enough about what was going on to conclude that he had been framed? Having said that, is it, in your experience, normal for people that are arrested in Arizona to make full, complete statements during the first hours after their arrest?
The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).
I agree that a superficial examination of the narrative and evidence would indeed lead to the conclusion that Oswald was indeed the lone gunman. I accepted that finding for many years until I had a conversation with somebody who told me about the many discrepancies in the evidence. When I looked into it myself (I started by reading the Warren Report) it became clear to me that the official narrative was in fact a highly contrived prosecutorial story for the sole purpose of wrapping the case around an already dead suspect. I need to add that this, by itself, doesn't justify the conclusion that Oswald wasn't the lone gunman he was made out to be, but it did raise many questions about the investigation and the way evidence was handled, which still haven't been answered to this day.
-
In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.
He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.
The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).
Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.
The "patsy" thing isn't really to do with Oswald's use of that word and what it might mean.
It was simply adopted by those who believe Oswald was framed. That's all it means. Pick another word - "stooge", "fall-guy", "dupe" etc.
I've posted a perfectly plausible and simple conspiracy theory that has Oswald as the fall-guy. It certainly isn't "absurdly complex and top-heavy".
To be honest, I get the impression you're not really interested in discussing or debating anything other than an Oswald-Did-It scenario.
That's cool.
That's your interpretation of the evidence.
Ronald Fischer, Bob Edwards, Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing that day.
Amos Euins repeatedly describes seeing a bald spot on top of the shooters head, 2 to 3 inches back from his hairline - Oswald didn't have such a bald spot.
Oswald did have a pronounced receding hairline, neither Fischer nor Edwards report that even though they describe his hair and Rowland flatly states that he didn't think the man had a receding hairline.
Brennan thought the man on the 6th floor was a lot older than Oswald.
Brennan, Fisher and Rowland described the man as having a fair/light complexion. Oswald had a dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan describes the shooter standing at the window admiring his handiwork after the shooting and that he was still stood there after the presidential limo had passed into the underpass. This is at least 8 seconds after the head shot (thought by many to be the last shot). This alone destroys the 3 second window of opportunity Oswald had to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter with Baker, as established by the time trials.
Hank Norman, stood directly under the shooters position. He heard the shell casings hitting the wooden floor a few feet directly above his head. According to the time trials Oswald was supposed to start his escape immediately after the last shot but, although Hank heard the shell casings hitting the floor, he never heard Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes moving. Because, as Brennan pointed out, the shooter just stood there, he didn't move anywhere for a good few seconds.
As Oswald clomped down the stairs to the 5th floor and walked across the floor to the next set of stairs, he wasn't noticed by Jack Dougherty who was supposed to be stood just feet away from the stairs.
The same on the 4th floor. Dorothy Garner followed Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles into the storage area behind the offices. She heard the two young women clattering down the wooden stairs in their high heels and a couple of minutes later she saw Truly and Baker come up the same stairs. In the intervening seconds she should have seen and heard Oswald as he moved down the stairs from the 5th floor, walked across the floor and down the stairs to the 3rd floor. But she didn't. And neither did any of the other women who had moved into the same area and were watching the railroad/grassy knoll area through the west windows.
And the idea that a fleeing assassin stopped off in the lunchroom to grab a Coke is as bad as any Tinfoil BS: out there.
It was physically impossible for Baker to see anyone moving through the 'vestibule' door window if they were taking the route Oswald was supposed to be taking.
In a report written in Sept' '64, Baker actually wrote that the man he saw stood in the lunchroom was "drinking a coke". Once again, this destroys the 3 second time window established by the time trials.
Oswald reportedly had an interaction with Junior Jarman and a man who can only be Hank Norman on the first floor while he was having his lunch in the domino room. The only time this was possible was when Jarman and Norman entered the back of the building on their way up to the 5th floor. This was approximately 5 minutes before the shooting. There is no way Oswald could've 'guessed' that Jarman and Norman were in a position to be seen together from the domino room. Again, that is as bad as any Tinfoil BS:
The lunch remains left by Bonnie Ray Williams on the 6th floor were initially discovered on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the Sniper's Nest indicating that Bonnie Ray had eaten his lunch while he was in the Sniper's Nest waiting for the motorcade.
Arnold Rowland saw a black male in the Sniper's Nest at 12:15 pm who can only have been Bonnie Ray although Rowland severely over-estimated the age of the man he saw for which there are mitigating factors.
Around the same time Arnold saw a man with a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor but through the most westerly set of windows.
Your interpretation of the evidence is your own business but your inability to understand why others don't agree with your interpretation or why they might have their own interpretations isn't necessarily a shortcoming in these other interpretations. Far from it.
Personally, I don't believe Oswald took the shots that killed JFK.
I don't believe he was even on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
I believe the evidence points to Oswald being on the first floor at this time while someone else took the shots.
I believe Oswald was guilty in the sense he was somehow involved in what happened that day. I think his actions before and after the shooting point to that guilt.
I believe that when he left the TSBD building he was a fugitive on the run and that he was heading for the border and Mexico.
I believe he shot and killed Tippit.
But, I don't believe he understood that what he was involved with was the assassination of JFK and I think at some point he figured out that he had been played.
Framing Oswald was simple - leave his rifle at the crime scene.
That's all it took to pull the wool over a lot of people's eyes.
-
The "patsy" thing isn't really to do with Oswald's use of that word and what it might mean.
It was simply adopted by those who believe Oswald was framed. That's all it means. Pick another word - "stooge", "fall-guy", "dupe" etc.
I've posted a perfectly plausible and simple conspiracy theory that has Oswald as the fall-guy. It certainly isn't "absurdly complex and top-heavy".
To be honest, I get the impression you're not really interested in discussing or debating anything other than an Oswald-Did-It scenario.
That's cool.
That's your interpretation of the evidence.
Thanks for the lecture, but I am pretty well-informed about the case. There are indeed aspects I find problematical and even troubling, but I'm satisfied I'm as well-informed about the case as a human can reasonably be and, as you suggest, I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it except in the broadest epistemological terms. Epistemology is the last place most CTers want to go. Most of them don't even seem to CARE whether what they say makes any logical sense, which suggests to me they aren't dealing with "cognitive faculties operating as they were intended to operate" (as famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga insists is necessary for beliefs to be epistemologically justified).
Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.
Your "perfectly plausible and simple" theory does involve direct involvement by LBJ, with LBJ conceiving the plot and instigating and organizing the Dallas trip ... David Harold Byrd agreeing to make it happen in return for a massive LTV contract ... Jack Cason of the TSBD being brought into the plot ... Cason knowing of Bill Shelley's (highly dubious and unlikely) CIA connections and bringing him into the loop to make it happen ... and Shelley finding a sniper and somehow doing the patsy thing with Oswald.
Hello? Perhaps not so simple? LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think? There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me. On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world terms - i.e, all the issues raised by my goofy original post. What the hell happened - did Shelley completely drop the ball? Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway? Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation? By the time this was put through a thought exercise like my original post, I think you'd find it would have had to involve far more than five people and would scarcely look "simple and perfectly plausible." Idiotic, perhaps?
Any plausible conspiracy theory is going to have Oswald as at least one of the gunmen, simple as that. You can have him duped into thinking he's conspiring with fellow pro-Castroites when in fact they are anti-Castroites, but the patsy-framed-duped thing just goes nowhere IMO.
-
Stop with the ballyhooing. In sports, thy have an expression. It's, "Act like you belong". Put your "Beaver Skin" away, (Cub Scouts), and let your work speak for itself.
Martin repeatedly used the phrase "claim to be a lawyer" in reference to me. That phrase suggests, and was clearly intended to suggest, "not really a lawyer." As lawyers are wont to do, I shoved Martin's innuendo up his ass. Case closed.
-
Martin repeatedly used the phrase "claim to be a lawyer" in reference to me. That phrase suggests, and was clearly intended to suggest, "not really a lawyer." As lawyers are wont to do, I shoved Martin's innuendo up his ass. Case closed.
So paranoid.... I don't care what you think the phrase suggested. All I saw you do on this forum was claiming to be a lawyer, so when I used the phrase "claim to be a lawyer" it did not imply or suggest anything more than that.
As lawyers are wont to do, I shoved Martin's innuendo up his ass.
Oh boy..... oh well, there are lawyers and then there are lawyers..... Thumb1:
-
Thanks for the lecture, but I am pretty well-informed about the case. There are indeed aspects I find problematical and even troubling, but I'm satisfied I'm as well-informed about the case as a human can reasonably be and, as you suggest, I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it except in the broadest epistemological terms. Epistemology is the last place most CTers want to go. Most of them don't even seem to CARE whether what they say makes any logical sense, which suggests to me they aren't dealing with "cognitive faculties operating as they were intended to operate" (as famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga insists is necessary for beliefs to be epistemologically justified).
Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.
Your "perfectly plausible and simple" theory does involve direct involvement by LBJ, with LBJ conceiving the plot and instigating and organizing the Dallas trip ... David Harold Byrd agreeing to make it happen in return for a massive LTV contract ... Jack Cason of the TSBD being brought into the plot ... Cason knowing of Bill Shelley's (highly dubious and unlikely) CIA connections and bringing him into the loop to make it happen ... and Shelley finding a sniper and somehow doing the patsy thing with Oswald.
Hello? Perhaps not so simple? LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think? There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me. On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world terms - i.e, all the issues raised by my goofy original post. What the hell happened - did Shelley completely drop the ball? Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway? Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation? By the time this was put through a thought exercise like my original post, I think you'd find it would have had to involve far more than five people and would scarcely look "simple and perfectly plausible." Idiotic, perhaps?
Any plausible conspiracy theory is going to have Oswald as at least one of the gunmen, simple as that. You can have him duped into thinking he's conspiring with fellow pro-Castroites when in fact they are anti-Castroites, but the patsy-framed-duped thing just goes nowhere IMO.
I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it
Well, I guess in some galaxy it must make complete sense to join a public forum to not debate the subject matter of that forum. :D
Hilarious!
-
For what it's worth....
In their Supplemental Offence Report, Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau"
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/
Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill
From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.
-
For what it's worth....
In their Supplemental Offence Report, Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau"
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/
Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill
From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.
In their Supplemental Offence Report, Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau"
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/
This seems to be correct as it matches the receipt issued by the evidence room, which does in fact name Capt. Doughty as one of the officers that received the items.
Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill
From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.
This does indeed clear up the discrepancy, even though it doesn't match what Hill said in his WC testimony.
Thanks Mitch Thumb1:
This is a perfect example of how a discussion between men who don't always agree should be.
-
For what it's worth....
In their Supplemental Offence Report, Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau"
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/
Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill
From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.
Thanks Mitch,
This is how an argument should be presented with actual links to the primary evidence instead of the usual "trust me I'm a pretend defence attorney", it's like trusting someone to state the actual times but on closer inspection after my own research I quickly realized that one of the disputed times came from a months later recollection which quite specifically specified "approximately", so again thanks Mitch for doing the required research which seems to be a bit too much for members who at the merest face value want to cry foul for the slimmest of dishonest reasons.
This whole episode reminds me of Earlene Roberts who says that Oswald came in to the rooming house at around 1PM and stayed for "not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.", which somehow equates to meaning that Oswald left at precisely 1:04PM. And some members even try to dispute the whole getting and zipping up the jacket because Roberts was blind in one eye, but in the real World she could see well enough to do her job and watch television, I just guess some members are truly pathetic!
JohnM
-
Thanks Mitch,
This is how an argument should be presented with actual links to the primary evidence instead of the usual "trust me I'm a pretend defence attorney", it's like trusting someone to state the actual times but on closer inspection after my own research I quickly realized that one of the disputed times came from a months later recollection which quite specifically specified "approximately", so again thanks Mitch for doing the required research which seems to be a bit too much for members who at the merest face value want to cry foul for the slimmest of dishonest reasons.
This whole episode reminds me of Earlene Roberts who says that Oswald came in to the rooming house at around 1PM and stayed for "not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.", which somehow equates to meaning that Oswald left at precisely 1:04PM. And some members even try to dispute the whole getting and zipping up the jacket because Roberts was blind in one eye, but in the real World she could see well enough to do her job and watch television, I just guess some members are truly pathetic!
JohnM
This is how an argument should be presented with actual links to the primary evidence
Learn from it, because the last person on this forum to ever do something like this is you!
Mitch (with whom I seldom agree) provided an answer and I instantly accepted it, as it cleared up the obvious discrepancy.
And that, dear John, colors you as the pathetic clown you really are!
-
Mitch (with whom I seldom agree) provided an answer and I instantly accepted it, as it cleared up the obvious discrepancy.
And that, dear John, colors you as the pathetic clown you really are!
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
Hilarious, it's amazing how humble you are when yet again you are exposed for your dishonesty. But as I previously said, keep digging because watching an Narcissistic Insulting Bully make a fool of himself for the umpteenth time brings me joy.
JohnM
-
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
Hilarious, it's amazing how humble you are when yet again you are exposed for your dishonesty. But as I previously said, keep digging because watching an Narcissistic Insulting Bully make a fool of himself for the umpteenth time brings me joy.
JohnM
Hilarious, it's amazing how humble you are when yet again you are exposed for your dishonesty.
Thank you for once again demonstrating what a nasty piece of work you really are.
All I did was ask a question and when I got an answer I accepted it. That's what grown up reasonable people do!
But you wouldn't understand the first thing about that....
-
Hilarious, it's amazing how humble you are when yet again you are exposed for your dishonesty.
Thank you for once again demonstrating what a nasty piece of work you really are.
All I did was ask a question and when I got an answer I accepted it. That's what grown up reasonable people do!
But you wouldn't understand the first thing about that....
All I did was ask a question and when I got an answer I accepted it.
No, you presented your poorly researched evidence as the Gospel Truth and when I did a little digging and discovered a glaring anomaly you doubled down on insulting me.
That's what grown up reasonable people do!
Well that's new, so from now on can the Forum expect you to put on your Big Boy pants and perhaps stop with the insults and start acting like a "grown up"?
But you wouldn't understand the first thing about that....
All I do is present and debate the evidence, whereas you just hurl insults.
JohnM
-
No, you presented your poorly researched evidence as the Gospel Truth and when I did a little digging and discovered a glaring anomaly you doubled down on insulting me.
Well that's new, so from now on can the Forum expect you to put on your Big Boy pants and perhaps stop with the insults and start acting like a "grown up"?
All I do is present and debate the evidence, whereas you just hurl insults.
JohnM
All I do is present and debate the evidence
Yeah, keep telling yourself this and maybe 1 person (i.e. you) will believe it
-
All I do is present and debate the evidence
Yeah, keep telling yourself this and maybe 1 person (i.e. you) will believe it
It's not a question of belief because my posting history is an open book, for instance just in the last few days I have presented many pieces of evidence;
1. Testimony from Gerald Hill
2. Testimony from Fritz.
3. Testimony from Hosty
4. Testimony from Bookout
5. Testimony from Earlene Roberts
6. Commission Exhibit 143: Oswald's revolver.
7. Oswald's revolver receipt.
8. The FBI lift of Oswald's rifle
9. The Day first day lift of Oswald's rifle.
10. HSCA exhibit confirming the gouge on Oswald's rifle
11. An Oswald backyard photo
12. Commission Exhibit 2695, DTH Kennedy virtually invites Cuban Coup article
13. Commission Exhibit 2966A 2966B Oswald's Hands off Cuba leaflets
14. 2 photos of Oswald's personal Marxist and ETC collection
15. Kennedy wearing a back brace
16. two frames of the Zapruder film showing Kennedy's head movement at time of impact
17. various photos showing examples of Jet Effect in the Jet Effect thread
18. A high contrast photo of Z313 showing matter being expelled forward
Whereas Martin, you in the same time have posted virtually nothing besides insults, so before you repeat your above misrepresentation, please think clearly!
JohnM
-
It's not a question of belief because my posting history is an open book, for instance just in the last few days I have presented many pieces of evidence;
1. Testimony from Gerald Hill
2. Testimony from Fritz.
3. Testimony from Hosty
4. Testimony from Bookout
5. Testimony from Earlene Roberts
6. Commission Exhibit 143: Oswald's revolver.
7. Oswald's revolver receipt.
8. The FBI lift of Oswald's rifle
9. The Day first day lift of Oswald's rifle.
10. HSCA exhibit confirming the gouge on Oswald's rifle
11. An Oswald backyard photo
12. Commission Exhibit 2695, DTH Kennedy virtually invites Cuban Coup article
13. Commission Exhibit 2966A 2966B Oswald's Hands off Cuba leaflets
14. 2 photos of Oswald's personal Marxist and ETC collection
15. Kennedy wearing a back brace
16. two frames of the Zapruder film showing Kennedy's head movement at time of impact
17. various photos showing examples of Jet Effect in the Jet Effect thread
18. A high contrast photo of Z313 showing matter being expelled forward
Whereas Martin, you in the same time have posted virtually nothing besides insults, so before you repeat your above misrepresentation, please think clearly!
JohnM
Your desperation is showing!
All you have been doing is, as you always do, is parrot the official narrative in threads I was not participating in.
Mitch, on the other hand, entered the discussion with actual evidence and I accepted it.
I've given you the benefit of the doubt several times in the past, but all you are is a pathetic troll and I have no desire to discuss anything with you anymore.
I know it will not stop you to keep on posting, because that's what a troll does, but I won't be replying to your posts anymore.
In fact, I may well take another six months break from this forum because of pathetic idiots like you!
Go defend the walks on the moon!
-
Your desperation is showing!
All you have been doing is, as you always do, is parrot the official narrative in threads I was not participating in.
Mitch, on the other hand, entered the discussion with actual evidence and I accepted it.
I've given you the benefit of the doubt several times in the past, but all you are is a pathetic troll and I have no desire to discuss anything with you anymore.
I know it will not stop you to keep on posting, because that's what I troll does, but I won't be replying to your posts anymore.
In fact, I may well take another six months break from this forum because of pathetic idiots like you!
Go defend the walks on the moon!
Your desperation is showing!
That's the best you got? You made an irrational easily refuted statement and I simply provided a plethora of evidence which again proves your dishonesty.
All you have been doing is, as you always do, is parrot the official narrative in threads I was not participating in.
WOW! The World and this Forum doesn't revolve around self cantered Narcissist's as yourself, Geez!
I come here to debate the JFKA and as proven above, I put my money where my mouth is and present the evidence so as to be debated.
Mitch, on the other hand, entered the discussion with actual evidence and I accepted it.
No, Mitch just had a gutful of your lies and dishonesty and presented the truth, your opinion is irrelevant!
I've given you the benefit of the doubt several times in the past, but all you are is a pathetic troll and I have no desire to discuss anything with you anymore.
So presenting the evidence is Trolling but your insults, lies and dishonesty is somehow virtuous? Hahaha!
I know it will not stop you to keep on posting, because that's what I troll does, but I won't be replying to your posts anymore.
Like you haven't said that a million time before. Yawn!
But don't forget when you post yet another falsehood, I'll be there to correct you, you can count on it!
In fact, I may well take another six months break from this forum because of pathetic idiots like you!
What a surprise, more insults.
No one really cares if you post or not it's your choice but don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Go defend the walks on the moon!
What an odd closing remark, is that somehow supposed to rattle me, because it doesn't. I enjoy having a life beyond this Forum and investigating the scientific principles of Man's voyage into space and the Moon Landings can be extremely fulfilling. For the record I also have an interest in discussing the happenings of 9/11 and have even dabbled with Flat Earth theorist's but they are true wack jobs, which come to think of it isn't much different to JFKA CT's!
JohnM
-
No, Mitch just had a gutful of your lies and dishonesty and presented the truth, your opinion is irrelevant!
I got curious about Martin's claims about a Davenport/Hill discrepancy, and decided to look into it. I found the ID Bureau receipt Davenport. Further digging at the same site found Hill's 12/5 report and Davenport's Supplemental Offence report. It took me about 10-15 minutes, tops, to get to the bottom of it.
SET HIGH-HORSE = ON
It wouldn't have been that hard for anyone involved to do what I did. You could have done it, Martin could have followed up on his end, and Lance P could have done it. Instead, everyone got into a pointless spat that went nowhere. We do that a lot here, maybe too much.
SET HIGH-HORSE = OFF
That being said, the JFKA DPD cache at the Portal to Texas History is a very valuable and criminally underused resource
-
I got curious about Martin's claims about a Davenport/Hill discrepancy, and decided to look into it. I found the ID Bureau receipt Davenport. Further digging at the same site found Hill's 12/5 report and Davenport's Supplemental Offence report. It took me about 10-15 minutes, tops, to get to the bottom of it.
SET HIGH-HORSE = ON
It wouldn't have been that hard for anyone involved to do what I did. You could have done it, Martin could have followed up on his end, and Lance P could have done it. Instead, everyone got into a pointless spat that went nowhere. We do that a lot here, maybe too much.
SET HIGH-HORSE = OFF
That being said, the JFKA DPD cache at the Portal to Texas History is a very valuable and criminally underused resource
Yes of course you're right and a further investigation could have supplied even more evidence to nip this in the bud but in my defence, I trusted Martin who usually rips off other more credible researchers that have spent their time digging but when I actually read Hill's testimony from months later and his usage of the term "approximate" I felt that any further research was a waste of time because the answer was right there and considering this new information, in hindsight I was exactly right.
Anyway lesson learnt and as you endorse, the JFKA DPD cache at the Portal to Texas History is now bookmarked and will get some visits in the future. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Thanks for the lecture, but I am pretty well-informed about the case. There are indeed aspects I find problematical and even troubling, but I'm satisfied I'm as well-informed about the case as a human can reasonably be and, as you suggest, I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it except in the broadest epistemological terms. Epistemology is the last place most CTers want to go. Most of them don't even seem to CARE whether what they say makes any logical sense, which suggests to me they aren't dealing with "cognitive faculties operating as they were intended to operate" (as famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga insists is necessary for beliefs to be epistemologically justified).
It wasn't a lecture and there's no need to be so sensitive, it was merely a presentation of evidential points undermining the interpretation that Oswald took the shots and, as someone who espouses the value of "logical sense", I'm sure you'll agree it's a valid approach to this puzzle.
Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.
Your "perfectly plausible and simple" theory does involve direct involvement by LBJ, with LBJ conceiving the plot and instigating and organizing the Dallas trip ... David Harold Byrd agreeing to make it happen in return for a massive LTV contract ... Jack Cason of the TSBD being brought into the plot ... Cason knowing of Bill Shelley's (highly dubious and unlikely) CIA connections and bringing him into the loop to make it happen ... and Shelley finding a sniper and somehow doing the patsy thing with Oswald.
Hello? Perhaps not so simple? LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think? There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me. On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world terms - i.e, all the issues raised by my goofy original post. What the hell happened - did Shelley completely drop the ball? Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway? Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation? By the time this was put through a thought exercise like my original post, I think you'd find it would have had to involve far more than five people and would scarcely look "simple and perfectly plausible."
Let's refresh our memory of the criteria that you laid out in the OP:
1. Keep this as simple as possible. JFK dies and all signs point to our patsy. Mission accomplished, neat and clean. Nobody gets executed.
2. Our patsy must be under complete control shortly before and at the time of the assassination.
3. A plausible assassination weapon must be easily connected to our patsy.
4. If the actual assassination weapon is a different one, it must be of the same type and caliber.
5. The ammunition must be a common type and easily obtainable. Nothing exotic - no Bruno Magli shoes, if you get my drift.
6. From wherever the fatal shot is fired, the trajectory must not be wildly different from a shot fired from the patsy’s location.
7. Our patsy cannot survive the assassination.
Point #7 is debatable but the fact of the matter is that Oswald doesn't last 48 hours after the assassination.
Other than that, all criteria that you have laid out are met with the conspiracy I've outlined.
LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper?
In the scenario I proposed:
The conversation between LBJ and Byrd was completely private.
After this private conversation LBJ is no longer linked with the assassination in a way that exposes him to any degree.
Cason doesn't know about LBJ. Shelley doesn't know about LBJ and Byrd.
All LBJ has to do is press for a visit to Dallas, something viewed as purely political. The route through Dallas takes care of itself. JFK followed this exact route, passing by the TSBD building, in 1960.
LBJ has zero exposure.
"Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think?"
The conversation between Byrd and Cason is completely private.
There is no record of it.
After this conversation Byrd has zero involvement and has zero exposure.
Even so, Byrd thought it was wise to leave the country and go on safari in Africa at the time of the assassination, so he must have still been concerned about some kind of blowback. Maybe it was Byrd who asked his friend and associate, Georges De Morenschildt (the flamboyant millionaire socialite and "uncle" to Jackie Kennedy) to befriend the penniless, low-life Commie defector and future fall-guy, Oswald. An unlikely pairing if there ever was one.
If he did, Byrd's exposure would still be minimal and would not have required him to reveal the ultimate plan to De Morenschildt.
There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me.
This is interesting as there is zero evidence that Oswald actually took the shots and a lot of evidence indicating that he didn't but you don't seem to mind that.
Exactly what type of evidence would you expect to find from a handful of completely private conversations? The answer to this question is that there would be zero evidence. Not even the faintest trace. That's the beauty of such a simple conspiracy.
And what is blowing your mind about a few private conversations? What do you find so "fantastically improbable"?
On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world terms
Nothing has been side-stepped. You have answered this issue with your own stipulation #2 - "Our patsy must be under complete control shortly before and at the time of the assassination."
The patsy's "role" is to be a patsy. As long as he does what he's told that's all that matters. Oswald may have believed he had some specific function which required him to keep a low profile during the lunch break but that was not his real "role"
Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway?
He's an active member of the conspiracy involving 5 people. Why shouldn't he live? Who's going to kill him? LBJ? Byrd? Cason? None of these men have any traceable tie to the assassination so why should they be concerned? There is no reason to create the kind of complexities you are suggesting by killing Shelley. Not when everything has gone so smoothly. This is the beauty of such a simple conspiracy theory.
Do you really think Shelley might go running to the authorities considering how involved he is?
"Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation?"
They hated Kennedy and truly thought they were doing the right thing. By some of the far-right religious, Kennedy was viewed as the Anti-Christ. His death was their reward.
Idiotic, perhaps?
Now, now Lance.
Play nice.
Any plausible conspiracy theory is going to have Oswald as at least one of the gunmen, simple as that. You can have him duped into thinking he's conspiring with fellow pro-Castroites when in fact they are anti-Castroites, but the patsy-framed-duped thing just goes nowhere IMO.
Talking of idiotic...how does a plausible conspiracy theory involve more than one shooter?
You have literally gone against everything you were originally proposing!
Keep it simple - one shooter, one patsy.
If patsy #1 fails then the shooter becomes the patsy #2.
But patsy #1 didn't fail and was killed before his story could be told. The subsequent investigations all focused on Oswald as the shooter, no other option was considered, not even for a second.
5 people
A handful of private conversations.
A patsy who's dead before the investigation really gets going.
Now that's neat.
-
He just suggests all the evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery, planting, lies, or chance.
He didn't "suggest" that, Strawman "Smith". All what evidence against Oswald?
-
I don't have to prove anything to anybody. If a CTer wants to overturn the verdict of history, provide an evidence-based alternative theory that is more compelling even to those who don't share the conspiracy-prone mindset and agenda. Publish it in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Stop asserting factoids that are demonstrably false and scenarios that don't even make internal sense. Simple as that.
Translation from LN-speak:
Gubmint said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
Speaking of "the functional equivalent of a fundamentalist religion"...
-
And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.
Another typical ploy of the rabid LN fanatic:
If the evidence was authenticatable and there was nothing contradictory or questionable about it, you wouldn't accept it anyway. Therefore you should just accept these questionable, non-authenticatable, contradictory claims about the evidence on faith instead.
-
Translation from LN-speak:
Gubmint said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
Speaking of "the functional equivalent of a fundamentalist religion"...
Do you disbelieve everything the government said in 1964?
-
He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history.
We do use that as a standard for accepting any particular claim as being true. Why should the LN dogma be treated any differently?
And there is no such thing as a "court of history".
-
We do use that as a standard for accepting any particular claim as being true. Why should the LN dogma be treated any differently?
And there is no such thing as a "court of history".
Why do you call what Lone Gunman Advocates think about the JFKA "dogma"?
-
You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)
Do you or do you not agree that you cannot get reliable handwriting analysis results from a tiny sample on a copy?
If you need an "expert" to say so, how about David J. Purtell, who wrote this for the HSCA:
"Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."
-
My question: What's your definition of "authentication" in the context of the evidence against Oswald?
Authentication is a well-understood concept. It's a way to ensure to the best of your ability that evidence you are relying on is what it is purported to be and that it has not been tampered with. It's the entire reason that chains-of-custody and crime scene and evidence handling protocols are a thing.
-
Do you or do you not agree that you cannot get reliable handwriting analysis results from a tiny sample on a copy?
If you need an "expert" to say so, how about David J. Purtell, who wrote this for the HSCA:
"Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."
"Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."
Which is exactly why I constantly say that the only thing that seems to connect Oswald to the Klein's transaction or the C2766 rifle is the opinion of an FBI expert, who is not going to step on Hoover's toes.
-
Yep, the HSCA expert proved beyond all doubt that Oswald's rifle(C2766) that was directly linked to the fragments discovered in JFK's limo and found on the 6th floor of the Depository where Oswald worked, was being held by Oswald in the backyard of Oswald's apartment on Neely Street!
BS:
Mr. FITHIAN . Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle .
That is not "proved beyond all doubt". It's not even beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also consider that Oswald lied to the Dallas Police that he lived on Neely Street, Hmmm I wonder why?
You don't know what Oswald said.
Another interesting factoid is that the backyard photos were taken shortly after Kleins sent C2766
You don't know if or when C2766 was "sent".
and just before Oswald used C2766 in an attempt to assassinate General Walker.
LOL.
-
Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence, what pray tell is your connection between these vastly different law enforcement agencies and where does all your suspicions lead, surely by now you must have some inkling about who was the grand mastermind with all this power who was behind the assassination, well?
Are you looking to wrest the world title away from Strawman "Smith"?
Why in the world would you believe with no evidence whatsoever that the fragments that were handed to Robert Frazier in Washington by Orrin Bartlett were ever in the limousine or had anything to do with the assassination?
Faith?
-
Hold on Cowboy as I previously stated, this case and the magnitude of the investigation wasn't like a solitary act of planting weed but involved hundreds of law enforcement members investigating a stack of varied evidence and all of these investigators would realize that each and every one of their actions was under intense scrutiny and could be easily tracked through cross referencing.
What "hundreds"?
Somehow each and every one of their actions do fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Go figure.
-
Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research. This is just semantic game-playing, and I decline to play.
Where exactly are you getting these "historical research" guidelines from? Name a historian who says "go with a conclusion regardless of how weak, questionable, and contradictory the actual evidence for it is. Never ever admit you don't know, even if you have to make something up."
"Conclusive" isn't as absolute as you want to pretend. But it has to be more than mere storytelling and conjecture.
I continue to say Martin tips his hand by relying on such terms. What is the "conclusive" evidence of Oswald's "absolute" innocence? What is the "conclusive" evidence there "absolutely" was a conspiracy?
There you go, trying to shift the burden yet again.
I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into Yet Another Pointless, Wheel-Spinning Debate about specific items of evidence.
Of course you won't. Because you have no cogent reply to the myriad problems with the evidence and the conjecture about it that you want to accept on little more than faith.
But I'm curious how many times you are going to keep replying and then saying you're not going to reply.
-
Dan, you are my new favorite poster!Fine, but I do think my thread about "Is this a plausible conspiracy theory?" - which received little attention - is simpler. Some person or persons in Mexico City suggest to Oswald that the assassination of JFK will make him a hero to Castro and ensure his entry into Cuba. Perhaps they even suggest they will be waiting, either near Dallas or in Mexico, to ferry him to Cuba when the deed is done. Perhaps it's all BS or perhaps they are sincere. It's a conspiracy, albeit not a very sexy one. Oswald remains the lone gunman whom LNers know and love.
These thought experiments are little more than navel-gazing. As is the entire Warren Commission thought experiment.
-
As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?
Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Policemen that he was carrying a revolver and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
If that is true, then it's a major flaw.
At the time of Oswald's arrest (according to scripture), the alleged revolver was in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll. If Oswald had a pistol when he was arrested, then it would have to be a different gun.
-
Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."
Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.
One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.
It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well. It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.
You are the one exhibiting fundamentalism. Martin is doing the exact same thing you are doing. You just have different standards for what constitutes a justified belief. You rely on faith much more than he is willing to.
-
As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.
Like you have any evidence that Oswald "received" anything.
-
I can read the receipt just fine. The only thing I can't make out is whether it says that 8 bullets or 9 were submitted. The handwriting simply isn't very clear.
As I already told you, I don't know how to post the receipt on this forum, but if somebody else can post it for me, I'll gladly sent a copy to that person by email.
(https://i.vgy.me/PYYh8V.png)
-
Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.
Let me guess how this goes. You demand that they prove that a god does not exist. Then you claim that there is a "mountain of evidence" for the existence of a god (eg. look at the trees), and that the only reasonable and plausible conclusion and the verdict of history is that one (and only one) exists. More specifically the Christian one.
Is that about right?
-
For what it's worth....
In their Supplemental Offence Report, Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau"
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/
Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill
From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.
Did Baker ever actually give it to Doughty? And if so, how did Davenport end up with it?
Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?
-
Did Baker ever actually give it to Doughty? And if so, how did Davenport end up with it?
Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?
Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?
Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.
You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.
Btw, thanks for posting that document, John!
-
Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?
Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.
You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.
Btw, thanks for posting that document, John!
Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.
You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.
Hilarious, so much for leaving the Forum and so much for ignoring little old me but thanks for hanging around to supply the laughs.
Also quite amusing is that just yesterday you agreed with Mitch that your obsession with an easily explained time discrepancy was sufficiently answered with the original documents? Your self serving vacillations as usual are quite bizarre.
JohnM
-
Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?
Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.
You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.
Btw, thanks for posting that document, John!
"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.
-
"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.
If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted.
A reasonable probability? :D
At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody.
Let's take the jacket for example, shall we?
Despite the fact that 7 different officers marked the grey jacket with their initials, only one of them (Capt. Westbrook) testified before the WC and all he could say is that some person who could have been a police officer pointed him to a jacket under a car in a parking lot. Westbrook could not identify the man and he has never been identified since. Westbrook also said that he gave the jacket to another officer, who he also could not identify and who has to date remained anonymous. In addition he failed to explain how it came to be that he was the person who submitted the grey jacket to the evidence room.
And let's not forget there were no inconsistencies in the officer's report, because there were no reports!
What do you think, mr. lawyer, is there a defect in the chain of custody or not?
Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.
Are you suggesting that anybody looking at the same information 60 years ago would not conclude that the chain of custody was defective?
-
Are you suggesting that anybody looking at the same information 60 years ago would not conclude that the chain of custody was defective?
You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter. The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial. In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all. If CTers would stay in their lane and stop trying to play Oswald Defense Counsel, they would look less silly. Jim DiEugenio, some sort of school teacher I believe, wss constantly lecturing me on evdentiary and other legal issues and pretty much making an ass of himself except in the eyes of his minions.
-
You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter. The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial. In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all. If CTers would stay in their lane and stop trying to play Oswald Defense Counsel, they would look less silly. Jim DiEugenio, some sort of school teacher I believe, wss constantly lecturing me on evdentiary and other legal issues and pretty much making an ass of himself except in the eyes of his minions.
You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter.
Yeah, I got that alright
The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial.
Exactly. It was a commission to rubber stamp an already pre-determined outcome. Yet, all the LNs, blindly accept their report as proof of Oswald's guilt. Go figure!
In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all.
And it's also entirely possible that they would be deemed defects. So, where does that leave us?
-
"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.
Other than the rifle name a single piece of evidence that has chain of custody that wasn't "defective"
Just one piece of evidence.
Anything you like.
-
"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.
JFK's body was stolen. Anything coming outta Bethesda regarding that body would Not be admitted.
-
JFK's body was stolen. Anything coming outta Bethesda regarding that body would Not be admitted.
And this would help the CT cause ... how? Nothing coming out of Bethesda would be particularly important to the prosecution of Oswald at all ("And was JFK still dead when he arrived at Bethesda, Dr. Humes?").
I assume by "stolen" you mean removed from Texas without a Texas autopsy. Yes, we here on the prosecution team will stipulate to that. How is that relevant to Oswald?
I assume you think the defense would be arguing that the body was removed from Texas so it could be altered in order to disguise the number and/or direction of the shots and that a Texas autopsy would have revealed ... what? Not only is this purely speculative and therefore inadmissible, but it has little or nothing to do with Oswald's guilt. The issue at trial would not be whether Oswald was the lone assassin but whether he fired at JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If he did, he was guilty regardless of who else may have fired.
Stringing together speculative conspiracy factoids is not a defense outside of forums such as this. That's what CTers never seem to understand. They seem to think a trial of Oswald would have looked like a mini-trial of 875 conspiracy factoids and 12 different woulda coulda conspiracy theories. No.
-
And this would help the CT cause ... how? Nothing coming out of Bethesda would be particularly important to the prosecution of Oswald at all ("And was JFK still dead when he arrived at Bethesda, Dr. Humes?").
I assume by "stolen" you mean removed from Texas without a Texas autopsy. Yes, we here on the prosecution team will stipulate to that. How is that relevant to Oswald?
I assume you think the defense would be arguing that the body was removed from Texas so it could be altered in order to disguise the number and/or direction of the shots and that a Texas autopsy would have revealed ... what? Not only is this purely speculative and therefore inadmissible, but it has little or nothing to do with Oswald's guilt. The issue at trial would not be whether Oswald was the lone assassin but whether he fired at JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If he did, he was guilty regardless of who else may have fired.
Stringing together speculative conspiracy factoids is not a defense outside of forums such as this. That's what CTers never seem to understand. They seem to think a trial of Oswald would have looked like a mini-trial of 875 conspiracy factoids and 12 different woulda coulda conspiracy theories. No.
Can't you think of a single piece of evidence that has a non-defective chain of custody?
Not one?
Don't you think that might be significant somehow?
-
Can't you think of a single piece of evidence that has a non-defective chain of custody?
Not one?
Don't you think that might be significant somehow?
You're starting to sound like a Harvey & Lee fan. Let us hope not.
To repeat for the last time: We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain. You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody. Defects have to rise to the level of creating genuine doubt that what is offered into evidence is not what was taken into evidence at the time or has otherwise been altered.
This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event. It is not surprising that documents and memories were all over the map. Again, it always seems to me the CTers have a very artificial, non-real-world perspective, as though law enforcement in these circumstances should have been operating with one eye on how everything might look to CTers with CT microscopes 10, 30 and 60 years later. The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence.
-
You're starting to sound like a Harvey & Lee fan. Let us hope not.
To repeat for the last time: We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain. You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody. Defects have to rise to the level of creating genuine doubt that what is offered into evidence is not what was taken into evidence at the time or has otherwise been altered.
This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event. It is not surprising that documents and memories were all over the map. Again, it always seems to me the CTers have a very artificial, non-real-world perspective, as though law enforcement in these circumstances should have been operating with one eye on how everything might look to CTers with CT microscopes 10, 30 and 60 years later. The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence.
We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence,
But the WC can use it and consider it authentic anyway?
You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody.
But the WC can declare Oswald to be guilty anyway?
-
We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence,
But the WC can use it and consider it authentic anyway?
You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody.
But the WC can declare Oswald to be guilty anyway?
Did the Warren Report itself include documents and testimonies that helped you and other "researchers" determine there were potential problems with "chains of possession"?
Should the Warren Commission have asked for a five-year extension of its investigation, or simply declared that "Obvious Patsy" Oswald didn't do it?
-
Did Baker ever actually give it to Doughty? And if so, how did Davenport end up with it?
From the existing documentation, it can reasonably be inferred that Davenport showed up at the Homicide office with the bullet and button Mollenhoff had removed from Tippit's body. This shortly after Hill gave the revolver to Baker. Fritz told Davenport to take the spent bullet and button to the ID bureau, then slew two birds with one stone by giving Davenport the gun and cartridges to take as well.
Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?
Is it really a "mess?" Who here is really an expert on what would really constitute a "non-mess" chain of custody? And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.
-
From the existing documentation, it can reasonably be inferred that Davenport showed up at the Homicide office with the bullet and button Mollenhoff had removed from Tippit's body. This shortly after Hill gave the revolver to Baker. Fritz told Davenport to take the spent bullet and button to the ID bureau, then slew two birds with one stone by giving Davenport the gun and cartridges to take as well.
Is it really a "mess?" Who here is really an expert on what would really constitute a "non-mess" chain of custody? And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.
And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.
The chain of custody is one of the main ways to authenticate a piece of evidence. Without authentication, how can you still consider an item valid evidence?
-
And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.
As the chain of custody is one of the main ways to authenticate a piece of evidence. Without authentication, how can you still consider an item valid evidence?
As usual you're missing the point, in the case of the revolver.
Oswald was arrested while carrying the revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver.
Oswald ordered the revolver.
The revolver in evidence is the exact same revolver that he purchased.
Oswald being in a bind about the rifle being mail order, simply made up a fictitious Fort Worth origin for the revolver.
Besides as I said yesterday, why swap a revolver that is extremely difficult to match the expended bullets with another revolver that is extremely difficult to match the expended bullets, that only makes sense in the Bizarro World of CT's.
JohnM
-
Did the Warren Report itself include documents and testimonies that helped you and other "researchers" determine there were potential problems with "chains of possession"?
Should the Warren Commission have asked for a five-year extension of its investigation, or simply declared that "Obvious Patsy" Oswald didn't do it?
"...asked for a 5yr extension of it's investigation?". Do you think anyone on the WC wanted LBJ/J Edgar taking them out too?
-
Do you think anyone on the WC wanted LBJ/J Edgar taking them out too?
LOL!
Good one!
-
"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.
Of course you can, because chain of custody must be documented at the time or it's not a chain of custody.
The mantra of the LN-faithful is "cop said so, therefore it's true". Unless the cop says something that doesn't fit the orthodoxy, like Roger Craig.
So what is your "reasonable probability" for the few pieces of physical evidence in this case based on? This isn't about "admissibility", it's about the reliability of the evidence you are basing your conclusions on.
-
If CTers would stay in their lane and stop trying to play Oswald Defense Counsel, they would look less silly.
You would look less silly if you would stay in your lane and stop playing prosecuting counsel. And just deeming unathenticatable evidence to be authentic by assumption.
-
The issue at trial would not be whether Oswald was the lone assassin but whether he fired at JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If he did, he was guilty regardless of who else may have fired.
That's a fair point, but this isn't a trial of Oswald. We're actually interested in what happened.
Stringing together speculative conspiracy factoids is not a defense outside of forums such as this. That's what CTers never seem to understand. They seem to think a trial of Oswald would have looked like a mini-trial of 875 conspiracy factoids and 12 different woulda coulda conspiracy theories. No.
And what the LN-faithful never understand is that stringing together speculative LN mythology does not demonstrate who killed Kennedy.
-
From the existing documentation, it can reasonably be inferred that Davenport showed up at the Homicide office with the bullet and button Mollenhoff had removed from Tippit's body. This shortly after Hill gave the revolver to Baker. Fritz told Davenport to take the spent bullet and button to the ID bureau, then slew two birds with one stone by giving Davenport the gun and cartridges to take as well.
An inference isn't a chain of custody.
-
As usual you're missing the point, in the case of the revolver.
Oswald was arrested while carrying the revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver.
Oswald ordered the revolver.
The revolver in evidence is the exact same revolver that he purchased.
Oswald being in a bind about the rifle being mail order, simply made up a fictitious Fort Worth origin for the revolver.
Claims aren't evidence.
Besides as I said yesterday, why swap a revolver that is extremely difficult to match the expended bullets with another revolver that is extremely difficult to match the expended bullets, that only makes sense in the Bizarro World of CT's.
This conspiracy that I just made up in my head wouldn't do something like this. Therefore there was no conspiracy. Therefore Oswald did it.
-
And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.
As the chain of custody is one of the main ways to authenticate a piece of evidence. Without authentication, how can you still consider an item valid evidence?
The problem is, I keep seeing people trying to use "authentication" as some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card. The MO for this is to move goalposts or otherwise demand an unreasonable level of proof, proclaim the evidence to be "unauthenticated," then leap headlong the conclusion that the item in evidence must then be fabricated or otherwise invalid. Reliance on such is just wishful thinking: lack of formal authentication does not in itself invalidate evidence.
-
You're starting to sound like a Harvey & Lee fan. Let us hope not.
What a truly bizarre thing to say.
To repeat for the last time: We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain. You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody. Defects have to rise to the level of creating genuine doubt that what is offered into evidence is not what was taken into evidence at the time or has otherwise been altered.
I've asked you to name a single piece of evidence in the JFK case, other than the rifle, that doesn't have a defective chain of custody.
You claim to know all about this case, so should be familiar with the various chains of custody relating to this case.
If you do genuinely know about this case you'll know that there isn't a single piece of relevant evidence that doesn't have a defective chain of custody.
It was kind of a trick question.
So you've side-stepped the issue with this statement:
"We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain."
Do you stand by this statement as far as the JFK case is concerned?
As I understand it you are a lawyer whereas I have zero experience and little knowledge of the Justice System and its particulars but I don't accept this statement.
For instance, it is a fact that CE399 has a defective chain of custody.
This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event. It is not surprising that documents and memories were all over the map. Again, it always seems to me the CTers have a very artificial, non-real-world perspective, as though law enforcement in these circumstances should have been operating with one eye on how everything might look to CTers with CT microscopes 10, 30 and 60 years later. The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence.
"This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event."
This sounds like a lot of murders.
I don't think we need to accuse law enforcement of forgetting the basics in all the 'chaos'.
We don't need to imagine they forgot what a chain of custody was.
We should remember that this was the most important case that any of these men had ever worked on and that they were making their very best effort.
"The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence."
You don't really seem to understand what's going on here, which is surprising considering your lawyerly claims.
Nobody is talking about inventing a fatal defect in the chain of evidence by poking holes about an item of evidence (not being a lawyer I'm unfamiliar with this type of jargon)
The doubts about an item of evidence are being raised BECAUSE the chain of custody is defective!
The chain of custody for every single piece of evidence (other than the rifle) in the JFK case is defective.
What do you think of them apples?
-
The problem is, I keep seeing people trying to use "authentication" as some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card. The MO for this is to move goalposts or otherwise demand an unreasonable level of proof, proclaim the evidence to be "unauthenticated," then leap headlong the conclusion that the item in evidence must then be fabricated or otherwise invalid. Reliance on such is just wishful thinking: lack of formal authentication does not in itself invalidate evidence.
I keep seeing people trying to use "authentication" as some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card.
Remarkable! Evidence is authentic or it isn't. There is nothing inbetween.
Asking for authentication isn't a "Get out of jail free" thing, it's about ensuring that a piece of evidence is authentic and thus valid to support a claim of guilt!
The MO for this is to move goalposts or otherwise demand an unreasonable level of proof,
lack of formal authentication does not in itself invalidate evidence.
Asking for authenticated evidence is an unreasonable level of proof? Really? So, are we supposed to accept any evidence regardless if it's authentic or not?
-
I keep seeing people trying to use "authentication" as some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card.
Remarkable! Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.
Asking for authentication isn't a "Get out if jail free" thing, it's about ensuring that a piece of evidence is authentic and thus valid to support a claim of guilt!
The MO for this is to move goalposts or otherwise demand an unreasonable level of proof,
lack of formal authentication does not in itself invalidate evidence.
Asking for authenticated evidence is an unreasonable level of proof? Really? So, are we supposed to accept any evidence regardless if it's authentic or not?
MW: Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.
"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated. My beef is with the deliberate confusion of these two concepts. A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication. Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice. The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"
-
MW: Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.
"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated. My beef is with the deliberate confusion of these two concepts. A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication. Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice. The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"
"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated.
Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, it will have to be authenticated.
A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication.
There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard". A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.
Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice.
And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low?
The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"
and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?
-
MW: Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.
"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated. My beef is with the deliberate confusion of these two concepts. A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication. Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice. The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"
That's an excellent summation but as I suspected and reading Martin's knee jerk response, it's going to fall on deaf ears.
Since the 60's this entire assassination has been controversial to malcontents and uneducated misfits because at the heart of it all, a little communist dweeb with a rifle can literally change history so there must be a deeper reason behind it.
And with each passing decade the uncleaned masses dig into every aspect and split the already split hair more and more, yet nobody to this day has found anyone behind the conspiracy, so the tactics change and it's no longer about discovering their suspected truth, so now we're at the point of evidence having to be authenticated to an undisclosed personal standard just so in their eyes Oswald's legacy can be cleared.
But what is obvious to me and I've said this before, that this isn't like planting weed on a suspect which even then has it's difficulties but the absolutely MASSIVE conspiracy which involved virtually every facet of law enforcement(who some were at odds with each other), means that every participant knew that every aspect was under extreme scrutiny, so who knew who and what was looking over their shoulder? I personally believe with that in mind that everybody told the truth to the best of their abilities and of course people aren't machines and there will be tiny contradictions, for instance just watch how Martin recently went to town because of Gerald Hill's months later approximate memory, it's a joke.
Sure with hindsight I would have a word in many authorities ears to correct some mistakes like the WC depiction of Kennedy's head wound(sheesh), carrying out the open ended rifle bag which surely lost blanket fibers, not moving the rifle bag from the sniper's nest, more thorough autopsy photos and ETC. but none of this changes the mountain of evidence which convicts Oswald!
JohnM
-
The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody (except in Conspiracy World, of course, where all three officers are obviously lying).
I just happened to be reading Secret Service Agent Donald Burke's report of 11-23-63 detailing the retrieval of the Postal Money Order from the National Archives and Record Services federal records center in Alexandria, VA on that date. The report details the extreme care the National Archives official, Postal official and Secret Service officials took to establish a rock-solid chain of custody from the records center to the safe at the Secret Service office. It's wonderful when that occurs, but it doesn't always occur and it isn't necessarily fatal when it doesn't (except in Conspiracy World).
Here is the basic idea from an Illinois case involving seized cocaine:
"The court in Woods noted the State bears the burden of showing a chain of custody sufficiently complete to make it improbable the evidence has been subject to tampering or substitution by showing the police took reasonable protective measures to ensure the substance recovered was the same as the substance tested. Unless a defendant produces evidence of actual tampering, substitution, or contamination, a sufficiently complete chain of custody does not require every person in the chain to testify. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467, 828 N.E.2d at 255. Deficiencies in a chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of evidence. Even where a link is missing in a chain of custody, the evidence is properly admitted where testimony sufficiently described the condition of the evidence when delivered which matched the description of the evidence when examined. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467-68, 828 N.E.2d at 255."
-
The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody (except in Conspiracy World, of course, where all three officers are obviously lying).
I just happened to be reading Secret Service Agent Donald Burke's report of 11-23-63 detailing the retrieval of the Postal Money Order from the National Archives and Record Services federal records center in Alexandria, VA on that date. The report details the extreme care the National Archives official, Postal official and Secret Service officials took to establish a rock-solid chain of custody from the records center to the safe at the Secret Service office. It's wonderful when that occurs, but it doesn't always occur and it isn't necessarily fatal when it doesn't (except in Conspiracy World).
Here is the basic idea from an Illinois case involving seized cocaine:
"The court in Woods noted the State bears the burden of showing a chain of custody sufficiently complete to make it improbable the evidence has been subject to tampering or substitution by showing the police took reasonable protective measures to ensure the substance recovered was the same as the substance tested. Unless a defendant produces evidence of actual tampering, substitution, or contamination, a sufficiently complete chain of custody does not require every person in the chain to testify. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467, 828 N.E.2d at 255. Deficiencies in a chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of evidence. Even where a link is missing in a chain of custody, the evidence is properly admitted where testimony sufficiently described the condition of the evidence when delivered which matched the description of the evidence when examined. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467-68, 828 N.E.2d at 255."
The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody."
Agreed. But, as happend with the jacket; (1) the officer - if that's what he was, because Westbrook wasn't sure - who found the jacket remains unidentified and never writes a report, (2) and Westbrook isn't entirely sure where the jacket was found, (3) the jacket is described as being white in several radio communications, (4) the officer Westbrook gave the jacket to also remains unidentified, (5) the jacket then disappears for more than an hour only to turn up in Westbrook's possesion again, now suddenly being grey and carrying the markings of 7 officers, including Westbrook, who submited it to the evidence room but completely omits any information about the discovery of the jacket in his December 3rd report to Chief Curry, then you clearly do have a defect in the chain of custody.
-
The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again? You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out. Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process. Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context. The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not. Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved. Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination? Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln? Of course not. That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty. The process is put on trial instead of the defendant.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case. None. In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene. When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number. If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out. This is a simple case. Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle. In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer. It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists. Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.
-
The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody (except in Conspiracy World, of course, where all three officers are obviously lying).
I just happened to be reading Secret Service Agent Donald Burke's report of 11-23-63 detailing the retrieval of the Postal Money Order from the National Archives and Record Services federal records center in Alexandria, VA on that date. The report details the extreme care the National Archives official, Postal official and Secret Service officials took to establish a rock-solid chain of custody from the records center to the safe at the Secret Service office. It's wonderful when that occurs, but it doesn't always occur and it isn't necessarily fatal when it doesn't (except in Conspiracy World).
Here is the basic idea from an Illinois case involving seized cocaine:
"The court in Woods noted the State bears the burden of showing a chain of custody sufficiently complete to make it improbable the evidence has been subject to tampering or substitution by showing the police took reasonable protective measures to ensure the substance recovered was the same as the substance tested. Unless a defendant produces evidence of actual tampering, substitution, or contamination, a sufficiently complete chain of custody does not require every person in the chain to testify. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467, 828 N.E.2d at 255. Deficiencies in a chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of evidence. Even where a link is missing in a chain of custody, the evidence is properly admitted where testimony sufficiently described the condition of the evidence when delivered which matched the description of the evidence when examined. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467-68, 828 N.E.2d at 255."
"If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody."
That's a lovely story.
Why don't we have a look at some actual evidence from the actual case and see what you make of it.
The idea that two men can be shot through by a single bullet is not controversial.
Neither is the idea that a shot from the Sniper's Nest passing through JFK must hit JBC (even Royell's beloved Knotts Lab shows this must be the case)
In principle the Single Bullet Theory is not a controversial one.
The real problem with it is the insistence that CE399 was the bullet that passed through both men. Considering the amount of damage done, in particular the shattering of JBC's wrist bone, and the relatively "pristine" nature of the bullet, it is very difficult for many to accept that this was the bullet involved.
Even more problematic was the nature of it's discovery and the subsequent handling of this vital piece of evidence.
Darrell Tomlinson discovered a bullet on a stretcher in a corridor of Parkland hospital. He was unsure what to do about it until a hospital manager and retired police officer, O P Wright came by. Tomlinson drew Wright's attention to the bullet. Wright knew what to do and he searched around until he found Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and gave him the bullet explaining where it was found.
Up to this point we cannot expect a chain of custody as Tomlinson and Wright are civilians but we would expect them to be asked to identify the bullet at a later date.
Johnsen travels to Washington with the bullet where he hands it to the Chief of the Secret Service James Rowley who then hands the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Todd who takes it to the FBI lab in Washington where it is handed to FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier.
Tomlinson - Wright - Johnsen - Rowley - Todd - Frazier
The Warren Commission asked the FBI in May 1964 to attempt to authenticate the chain of possession of various items of evidence, including Commission Exhibit 399. Although Todd and Frazier had both initialed CE399, Johnsen and Rowley had neglected to do so. There was no record of the chain of custody before CE399 was given to Todd.
It was Todd, the agent who had received the bullet from Rowley, who showed the CE399 to Rowley, Johnsen, Wright and Tomilinson.
All four men refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
The only people who do positively identify the bullet are the same men who initialed it - Todd and Frazier.
Considering the monumental importance of this piece of evidence it is noteworthy that neither Johnsen nor Wright are called before the Warren Commission.
Rowley testifies but is not asked about CE399.
Unbelievably, Tomlinson, the man who initially discovered the bullet, is asked to give evidence but is not asked a single question about the bullet itself. He is not asked to describe it, he is not shown it so he can confirm it is the same bullet, he is not even shown a picture of it.
In your capacity as a lawyer how does this stack up in terms of a chain of custody?
-
The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again? You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out. Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process. Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context. The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not. Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved. Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination? Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln? Of course not. That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty. The process is put on trial instead of the defendant.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case. None. In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene. When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number. If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out. This is a simple case. Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle. In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer. Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.
The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?
:D :D :D
Yeah, Richard, the stupid chain of custody thing.
What a stupid waste of time.
Why do they even bother with a chain of custody?
What's the point?
It just holds up the lynching process.
Why even bother with evidence at all?
We could really speed things along, couldn't we ::)
"It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists."
Who is arguing that Oswald wasn't linked to the assassination?
-
The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again? You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out. Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process. Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context. The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not. Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved. Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination? Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln? Of course not. That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty. The process is put on trial instead of the defendant.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case. None. In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene. When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number. If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out. This is a simple case. Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle. In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer. It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists. Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.
Yes. As I've said, the CT community seems weirdly obsessed with whether Oswald would have been convicted at a trial that's never going to happen and whether evidence could be kept out of a trial that's never going to happen. This is Jim DiEugenio's entire schtick. I truly don't understand it.
Despite some of the comments here, a criminal trial is stacked heavily in favor of the defendant's rights. It's a test of whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 citizens, not a quest for historical truth. In many administrative hearings, even ones involving extremely serious matters, the rules of evidence don't apply at all. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, not a criminal court.
Except at the fringes of Conspiracy World, there's no serious doubt Oswald bought the rifle that was found in the TSBD, that weapon was fired at JFK, and Oswald fired it. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming. Sure, a defense attorney would attempt to poke holes at every stage - that's the job - but where conspiracy theories fall apart is at the level of epistemology: rationality and logic. They simply make no real-world sense, especially if they are predicated on Oswald being a patsy. I've never heard one that, if you thought about it in real-world terms, was not fundamentally absurd.
WHY would any conspiracy involving conspirators over age ten with IQs over 75 require Oswald as a patsy and all the complexity this would entail? If you wanted to point the finger at Castro or Castro fanatics, there would be vastly simpler and more compelling ways to do it. Good Lord, have a handful of mysterious Cubans who made sure they were overheard muttering "Today Fidal will be vindicated," leave a handful of pro-Castro materials laying around and perhaps even a manifesto stuck to the picket fence, and use plausible, high-powered, assassination-quality weapons and ammunition fired from several locations in a hit that would practically scream para-military operation. WHY do you need an obscure character like Oswald and a hit that by any standard looks like he could have done it all by himself? You need this, if you're a CTer, because THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Your conspiracy theory is an ad hoc, after-the-fact overlay that makes no rational or logical sense.
I cannot explain CTers' defense counsel mentality, while pretty much ignoring rationality and logic, on any basis other than "this is simply how the conspiracy-prone mind works."
-
The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?
:D :D :D
Yeah, Richard, the stupid chain of custody thing.
What a stupid waste of time.
Why do they even bother with a chain of custody?
What's the point?
It just holds up the lynching process.
Why even bother with evidence at all?
We could really speed things along, couldn't we ::)
"It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists."
Who is arguing that Oswald wasn't linked to the assassination?
It's beyond me how anybody can take anything Richard Smith says seriously, when one of his claims (and I paraphrase) is that "the evidence that Oswald came down the stairs at the TSBD just after the shots is...... that it happened".
-
The leitmotiv of the CTer "mind" is an inability to filter knowledge from an endless morass of information. There are always baseless alternative possibilities to be conjured up. They literally cannot see the forest for all the trees. They invoke standards from the criminal justice system in which there is a presumption of innocence and protections designed to protect the right of even the guilty to suggest that there is doubt of a fact because that process may not have been followed to the letter. Conflating the criminal justice system with reality. They go into hysterics at the suggestion that a fact can be reasonably proven by a standard other than that of a criminal trial. Putting aside the fact that almost all of their "chain of custody" concerns are laughable EVEN under the criminal justice standards, it just further highlights that the primary objective is to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt rather than to review the facts and evidence to determine who assassinated JFK. Do they do this intentionally because they have doubt that Oswald pulled the trigger? Perhaps some do. For most of these contrarians, however, I think they have a desire to play endless devil's advocate. Why do they do this to the tune of tens of thousands of posts on the same subject? That is better addressed by a psychiatrist but there may be an element of attention seeking in taking a contrary position to all the established facts and evidence. Look at me! They can just say "no it doesn't" whenever anyone presents evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. And on and on and on these people can go down the rabbit hole in the circle of lunacy. Thankfully, to establish a fact, it is not necessary for every loon to be convinced of it. Bottom line: there is no doubt whatsoever that LHO assassinated JFK. After 60 years, there is no credible evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy.
-
The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again? You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out. Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process. Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context. The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not. Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved. Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination? Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln? Of course not. That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty. The process is put on trial instead of the defendant.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case. None. In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene. When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number. If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out. This is a simple case. Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle. In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer. It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists. Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.
The transcripts of the Ruby trial including the preliminary hearings on evidence - "statements of facts" it was called - can be read if you need something to help you sleep. There's nothing in them at all about "chain of custody" or other similar demands. It's not there.
For example, the DPD officer, L.C. Graves, who took the revolver from Ruby simply identified it while under oath. The state/prosecution entered it - it was Exhibit #6 - he said that was the one he took and that was that.
The idea that if the "chain of custody" is insufficient that that alone means the evidence can be dismissed is simply made up. It's only used when evidence against Oswald is brought up. A conspiracy believer can cite all sorts of crackpots and cranks who make claims against Ruth Paine or others and this legal standard is never used. If you are going to use it- frankly I don't know why since its a legal standard not a historical one; do we use it when trying to reconstruct any other event? the Lindberg baby kidnapping for example? - then be consistent, please.
You can read the other "statements of facts" hearings where the evidence was introduced. Again, none of this "chain of custody" standard was used.
Graves's testimony is here:
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217784#relPageId=3
The full sent of transcripts - habeas hearing, change of venue, jury selection, evidence - are here: https://maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=2104
-
Yes. As I've said, the CT community seems weirdly obsessed with whether Oswald would have been convicted at a trial that's never going to happen and whether evidence could be kept out of a trial that's never going to happen. This is Jim DiEugenio's entire schtick. I truly don't understand it.
Despite some of the comments here, a criminal trial is stacked heavily in favor of the defendant's rights. It's a test of whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 citizens, not a quest for historical truth. In many administrative hearings, even ones involving extremely serious matters, the rules of evidence don't apply at all. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, not a criminal court.
Except at the fringes of Conspiracy World, there's no serious doubt Oswald bought the rifle that was found in the TSBD, that weapon was fired at JFK, and Oswald fired it. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming. Sure, a defense attorney would attempt to poke holes at every stage - that's the job - but where conspiracy theories fall apart is at the level of epistemology: rationality and logic. They simply make no real-world sense, especially if they are predicated on Oswald being a patsy. I've never heard one that, if you thought about it in real-world terms, was not fundamentally absurd.
WHY would any conspiracy involving conspirators over age ten with IQs over 75 require Oswald as a patsy and all the complexity this would entail? If you wanted to point the finger at Castro or Castro fanatics, there would be vastly simpler and more compelling ways to do it. Good Lord, have a handful of mysterious Cubans who made sure they were overheard muttering "Today Fidal will be vindicated," leave a handful of pro-Castro materials laying around and perhaps even a manifesto stuck to the picket fence, and use plausible, high-powered, assassination-quality weapons and ammunition fired from several locations in a hit that would practically scream para-military operation. WHY do you need an obscure character like Oswald and a hit that by any standard looks like he could have done it all by himself? You need this, if you're a CTer, because THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Your conspiracy theory is an ad hoc, after-the-fact overlay that makes no rational or logical sense.
I cannot explain CTers' defense counsel mentality, while pretty much ignoring rationality and logic, on any basis other than "this is simply how the conspiracy-prone mind works."
the CT community seems weirdly obsessed with whether Oswald would have been convicted at a trial
I don't know about the CT community, but there's little doubt in my mind that, back then, Oswald would have been convicted, regardless of his guilt or not.
a criminal trial is stacked heavily in favor of the defendant's rights. It's a test of whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 citizens, not a quest for historical truth.
Exactly what I said earlier; a trial is about winning and not necessarily about actual guilt.
The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, not a criminal court.
Agreed, but even a fact-finding body has to consider whether a piece of evidence it wants to reply on is factly authentic. And they did, at least to some extent. Why else did they ask the FBI to obtain authentication (by way of a chain of custody) of a number of key pieces of evidence, like C399?
there's no serious doubt Oswald bought the rifle that was found in the TSBD, that weapon was fired at JFK, and Oswald fired it.
Really? If you say so.... But if that's true, why has there been so much discussion for 60 years now?
Why haven't you (and your ilk) not managed to persuade people that what you claim is actually true?
I have asked LNs time and time again to provide evidence for their claims and they either simply refuse to do so (like you) or they fall back on "evidence" that doesn't support their claim or they mistake assumption for evidence!
A simple request for authentication of a piece of evidence seems to be an LN's kryptonite!
The totality of the evidence is overwhelming. Sure, a defense attorney would attempt to poke holes at every stage - that's the job - but where conspiracy theories fall apart is at the level of epistemology: rationality and logic.
Didn't you just implicitly say that the evidence rules of a trial do not apply for a "fact finding body"? So, why are you now trying to make a point based upon what a defense attorney would do?
They simply make no real-world sense, especially if they are predicated on Oswald being a patsy. I've never heard one that, if you thought about it in real-world terms, was not fundamentally absurd.
If something doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean doesn't actually make sense. It only means that you don't (want to) understand it.
WHY do you need an obscure character like Oswald and a hit that by any standard looks like he could have done it all by himself?
Perhaps just because there will always be people, like yourself, who will advocate that it's absurd. The fact that you and others believe it couldn't have happened, could well be reason for individuals who are much more sophisticated than you to do exactly that. Ever considered that possibility?
-
It's beyond me how anybody can take anything Richard Smith says seriously, when one of his claims (and I paraphrase) is that "the evidence that Oswald came down the stairs at the TSBD just after the shots is...... that it happened".
;D
On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not. It's an embarrassingly simple question to answer but I knew that neither of them would be able to answer it because all true Nutters have a very extreme, inflexible mentality. The question reveals that Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact. They genuinely don't understand that it's not a fact. In reality it is a belief and the conclusions of the Warren Commission are, at best, a working theory. An invented narrative, the purpose of which is to accommodate certain facts about the case. A story.
Very often on this forum people come along with really 'alternative' narratives - Two Oswalds, Prayerman, Hickey and the AR-15 etc. - and I've noticed over the few years I've been a member of this forum that anyone proposing these narratives always present them as a fact. Not working theories. Not alternative narratives. They share this mentality with Nutters. Other traits they share are a complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts any detail their narrative, a refusal to debate an issue reasonably and a lack of humility.
On the flip side, there are some on both sides of the LN/CT divide who are willing to engage reasonably even if they ultimately disagree. This makes me think that the traditional LN/CT divide should be discarded and that the division should be between those willing to genuinely engage in the debate and those who just want to spout their beliefs as if they were facts.
-
;D
On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not. It's an embarrassingly simple question to answer but I knew that neither of them would be able to answer it because all true Nutters have a very extreme, inflexible mentality. The question reveals that Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact. They genuinely don't understand that it's not a fact. In reality it is a belief and the conclusions of the Warren Commission are, at best, a working theory. An invented narrative, the purpose of which is to accommodate certain facts about the case. A story.
Very often on this forum people come along with really 'alternative' narratives - Two Oswalds, Prayerman, Hickey and the AR-15 etc. - and I've noticed over the few years I've been a member of this forum that anyone proposing these narratives always present them as a fact. Not working theories. Not alternative narratives. They share this mentality with Nutters. Other traits they share are a complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts any detail their narrative, a refusal to debate an issue reasonably and a lack of humility.
On the flip side, there are some on both sides of the LN/CT divide who are willing to engage reasonably even if they ultimately disagree. This makes me think that the traditional LN/CT divide should be discarded and that the division should be between those willing to genuinely engage in the debate and those who just want to spout their beliefs as if they were facts.
You're making the odd bizarre assumption that Oswald didn't have a grain of intelligence.
Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?
Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?
Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?
Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?
Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?
Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?
Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?
Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?
Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?
Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?
Why did Oswald punch McDonald?
Why did Oswald resist arrest?
Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?
Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?
Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?
Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?
Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?
Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?
JohnM
-
The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody."
Agreed. But, as happend with the jacket; (1) the officer - if that's what he was, because Westbrook wasn't sure - who found the jacket remains unidentified and never writes a report, (2) and Westbrook isn't entirely sure where the jacket was found, (3) the jacket is described as being white in several radio communications, (4) the officer Westbrook gave the jacket to also remains unidentified, (5) the jacket then disappears for more than an hour only to turn up in Westbrook's possesion again, now suddenly being grey and carrying the markings of 7 officers, including Westbrook, who submited it to the evidence room but completely omits any information about the discovery of the jacket in his December 3rd report to Chief Curry, then you clearly do have a defect in the chain of custody.
Colour and shading can be influenced by lighting contrast but essentially is governed in the eye of the beholder.
The following jacket in this recreation appears lighter and darker because of the reasons stated directly above.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8JgSX5d/jacket-colour.gif)
In the following image there's no doubting that this is the jacket because it was filmed in the car park on the same day and is the same type as Oswald's zip up jacket, so are we to believe that a random jacket of unknown origin just happened to be found in the same car park that Oswald was seen entering and was the exact same type as Oswald's?
Also look at the shading and being described as white is more than possible, the car in the back ground seems to be whiter.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJqdwh2Q/Oswald-jacket-in-sun.jpg)
The initialled jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsL2hCX7/jacket-initials.jpg)
Earlene Roberts remembers Oswald getting a zipper jacket.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
And she remembers the type because he was zipping it up.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
And as stated above, the lighting in a bright court room would be different to the rooming house and is the reason why Earlene thought the jacket was darker.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
And lastly and most importantly why would Oswald be seen by Earlene wearing a jacket yet Oswald was arrested without his jacket?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mktpHc3B/Oswald-arrest-theatrea.webp)
JohnM
-
You're making the odd bizarre assumption that Oswald didn't have a grain of intelligence.
Nowhere in my post is there an assumption about Oswald's intelligence.
The only odd or bizarre thing is if you've read that in to my post.
On the other hand, if it's just a clunky segue into your 'list routine' then no harm done.
As for Oswald's intelligence, his TV appearance revealed an articulate, intelligent individual.
Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?
Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?
Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?
Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?
Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?
Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?
Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?
Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?
Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?
Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?
Why did Oswald punch McDonald?
Why did Oswald resist arrest?
Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?
Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?
Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?
Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?
Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?
Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?
JohnM
Your list might hold sway with others but it falls a bit flat using it on me.
I think Oswald was a patsy for the actual shooting but I also think he was a dangerous, delusional guy who was capable of murder.
He knew that whatever was happening that day he could be arrested for and he kept just enough money back to get him to the border.
I have no problem accepting the rifle belonged to Oswald - there would be no point framing him with a rifle that couldn't be connected to him.
I believe that when he left the TSBD building he was a fugitive on the run and was heading for the border when he was stopped by Tippit.
That is pretty much every question dealt with but there is one that I'm quite surprised you've asked:
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Why would Oswald, if he was an assassin fleeing the scene, go into the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a bottle of coke?
-
This is a game I want to play, if only to demonstrate what kind of silly questions LN ask.
Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?
To make up with Marina, because she was angry with him, just like Marina and Ruth Paine testified
Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?
Who knows? Perhaps he decided to go earlier on the day and simply did not have an oppertunity to call.
Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?
Did he? Is there any evidence to show that Oswald brought a rifle at all to work?
Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?
Who said he ever did? What makes you even think this?
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Perhaps he was thirsty. Who knows?
Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?
Did he?
Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?
What would be "his bus"?
Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?
Did he? Was it Oswald who took Whaley's cab or some guy wearing two jackets?
Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?
Did he?
Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?
He didn't, so why do you assume he did?
Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?
Why ask a loaded question when you can't prove that Oswald left his jacket anywhere?
Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?
Did he? Define "suspicious" and show he was there
Why did Oswald punch McDonald?
Who knows? Perhaps McDonald provoked him...
Why did Oswald resist arrest?
Didn't he say he wasn't resisting arrest?
Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?
Didn't he? And even if he didn't, he was under no legal obligation to assist the police in their investigation.
Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?
In a country where there are more guns than people, there will always be people to carry a revolver. Even when they go fishing or buy a soda at a 7/11.
Insane second amendment freaks will do idiotic things on a daily basis.
Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?
Did he?
Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?
Did he?
Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?
Did he?
Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?
Did he? Did anyone ever check in Fort Worth?
-
;D
On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not.
You make a rather seismic semantic shift here. First, his ownership of the M-C doesn't "prove" he took the shots. No, it certainly doesn't. Next, its has "nothing to do" with whether he took the shots. WHAT???
If the M-C had been owned by Linnie Mae Randle, it would be far less likely that Oswald took the shots. His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots but makes it FAR more likely that he did. Even your imaginary conspirators who planted the rifle recognized this, or they would have planted a more plausible assassination weapon. They planted Oswald's rifle because it would make the conclusion that their desired patsy took the shots far more probable.
-
Nowhere in my post is there an assumption about Oswald's intelligence.
The only odd or bizarre thing is if you've read that in to my post.
On the other hand, if it's just a clunky segue into your 'list routine' then no harm done.
As for Oswald's intelligence, his TV appearance revealed an articulate, intelligent individual.
Your list might hold sway with others but it falls a bit flat using it on me.
I think Oswald was a patsy for the actual shooting but I also think he was a dangerous, delusional guy who was capable of murder.
He knew that whatever was happening that day he could be arrested for and he kept just enough money back to get him to the border.
I have no problem accepting the rifle belonged to Oswald - there would be no point framing him with a rifle that couldn't be connected to him.
I believe that when he left the TSBD building he was a fugitive on the run and was heading for the border when he was stopped by Tippit.
That is pretty much every question dealt with but there is one that I'm quite surprised you've asked:
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Why would Oswald, if he was an assassin fleeing the scene, go into the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a bottle of coke?
...but there is one that I'm quite surprised you've asked:
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Why would Oswald, if he was an assassin fleeing the scene, go into the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a bottle of coke?
Well Dan, this is obvious.
Oswald was in the process of flight from the scene of his crime and while coming down the stairs Oswald heard Truly shouting up the adjacent elevator shaft to release the elevator, so Oswald made a beeline for neutral explainable territory, the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Then after being confronted by Truly and Baker in the lunchroom and then fortunately being left alone a Oswald realized that he would have had to have a reason for why he was seen entering the lunchroom hence his coke purchase.
Mr. BELIN. You might put a "B" on Exhibit 362 by the elevator for "button."
Mr. TRULY. That is right on this surface. There is a little button. I pressed the button and the elevator didn't move.
I called upstairs , "Turn loose the elevator."
Mr. BELIN. When you say call up, in what kind of a voice did you call?
Mr. TRULY. Real loud. I suppose in an excited voice. But loud enough that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or making a little noise. But I rang the bell and pushed this button.
JohnM
-
This is a game I want to play, if only to demonstrate what kind of silly questions LN ask.
Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?
To make up with Marina, because she was angry with him, just like Marina and Ruth Paine testified
Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?
Who knows? Perhaps he decided to go earlier on the day and simply did not have an oppertunity to call.
Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?
Did he? Is there any evidence to show that Oswald brought a rifle at all to work?
Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?
Who said he ever did? What makes you even think this?
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Perhaps he was thirsty. Who knows?
Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?
Did he?
Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?
What would be "his bus"?
Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?
Did he? Was it Oswald who took Whaley's cab or some guy wearing two jackets?
Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?
Did he?
Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?
He didn't, so why do you assume he did?
Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?
Why ask a loaded question when you can't prove that Oswald left his jacket anywhere?
Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?
Did he? Define "suspicious" and show he was there
Why did Oswald punch McDonald?
Who knows? Perhaps McDonald provoked him...
Why did Oswald resist arrest?
Didn't he say he wasn't resisting arrest?
Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?
Didn't he? And even if he didn't, he was under no legal obligation to assist the police in their investigation.
Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?
In a country where there are more guns than people, there will always be people to carry a revolver. Even when they go fishing or buy a soda at a 7/11.
Insane second amendment freaks will do idiotic things on a daily basis.
Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?
Did he?
Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?
Did he?
Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?
Did he?
Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?
Did he? Did anyone ever check in Fort Worth?
(https://i.postimg.cc/0yT2dRJD/shaq-point-laugh.webp)
I've given you the benefit of the doubt several times in the past, but all you are is a pathetic troll and I have no desire to discuss anything with you anymore.
I know it will not stop you to keep on posting, because that's what a troll does, but I won't be replying to your posts anymore.
In fact, I may well take another six months break from this forum because of pathetic idiots like you!
JohnM
-
Colour and shading can be influenced by lighting contrast but essentially is governed in the eye of the beholder.
The following jacket in this recreation appears lighter and darker because of the reasons stated directly above.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8JgSX5d/jacket-colour.gif)
In the following image there's no doubting that this is the jacket because it was filmed in the car park on the same day and is the same type as Oswald's zip up jacket, so are we to believe that a random jacket of unknown origin just happened to be found in the same car park that Oswald was seen entering and was the exact same type as Oswald's?
Also look at the shading and being described as white is more than possible, the car in the back ground seems to be whiter.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJqdwh2Q/Oswald-jacket-in-sun.jpg)
The initialled jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsL2hCX7/jacket-initials.jpg)
Earlene Roberts remembers Oswald getting a zipper jacket.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
And she remembers the type because he was zipping it up.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
And as stated above, the lighting in a bright court room would be different to the rooming house and is the reason why Earlene thought the jacket was darker.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
And lastly and most importantly why would Oswald be seen by Earlene wearing a jacket yet Oswald was arrested without his jacket?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mktpHc3B/Oswald-arrest-theatrea.webp)
JohnM
Colour and shading can be influenced by lighting contrast but essentially is governed in the eye of the beholder.
The following jacket in this recreation appears lighter and darker because of the reasons stated directly above.
The officers who described the jacket found at the parking lot, in DPD radio traffic, as being white did not observe it being worn by a person walking through shade and sunshine.
In the following image there's no doubting that this is the jacket because it was filmed in the car park on the same day and is the same type as Oswald's zip up jacket,
The two photos were not taken under the same conditions. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The initialled jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsL2hCX7/jacket-initials.jpg)
Care to tell us who all those 7 officers are that put their initials on it, when the actual record only shows that Westbrook and two unidentified officers handled it.
And she remembers the type because he was zipping it up.
Just too bad, she couldn't identify the jacket when shown to her by Ball and, even worse, she thought the jacket she had seen was darker than CE162.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Her statements and testimony were highly unreliable. It's too bad it's all you've got.
-
You make a rather seismic semantic shift here. First, his ownership of the M-C doesn't "prove" he took the shots. No, it certainly doesn't. Next, its has "nothing to do" with whether he took the shots. WHAT???
If the M-C had been owned by Linnie Mae Randle, it would be far less likely that Oswald took the shots. His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots but makes it FAR more likely that he did. Even your imaginary conspirators who planted the rifle recognized this, or they would have planted a more plausible assassination weapon. They planted Oswald's rifle because it would make the conclusion that their desired patsy took the shots far more probable.
His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots
Did I miss something? When did you prove that Oswald owned the rifle found at the TSBD and/or that it was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
-
Well Dan, this is obvious.
Oswald was in the process of flight from the scene of his crime and while coming down the stairs Oswald heard Truly shouting up the adjacent elevator shaft to release the elevator, so Oswald made a beeline for neutral explainable territory, the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Then after being confronted by Truly and Baker in the lunchroom and then fortunately being left alone a Oswald realized that he would have had to have a reason for why he was seen entering the lunchroom hence his coke purchase.
Mr. BELIN. You might put a "B" on Exhibit 362 by the elevator for "button."
Mr. TRULY. That is right on this surface. There is a little button. I pressed the button and the elevator didn't move.
I called upstairs , "Turn loose the elevator."
Mr. BELIN. When you say call up, in what kind of a voice did you call?
Mr. TRULY. Real loud. I suppose in an excited voice. But loud enough that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or making a little noise. But I rang the bell and pushed this button.
JohnM
Oswald was in the process of flight from the scene of his crime and while coming down the stairs Oswald heard Truly shouting up the adjacent elevator shaft to release the elevator, so Oswald made a beeline for neutral explainable territory, the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Then after being confronted by Truly and Baker in the lunchroom and then fortunately being left alone a Oswald realized that he would have had to have a reason for why he was seen entering the lunchroom hence his coke purchase.
Very silly. If, in this scenario, Oswald had continued walking towards the frontdoor, through the office space on the 2nd floor, he would have been gone before Truly got there and Baker would never have seen him to begin with!
-
Why would Oswald, if he was an assassin fleeing the scene, go into the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a bottle of coke?
Logic says that the last thing an assassin fleeing the scene wants to look like is an assassin fleeing the scene. A plausible scenario is that he ducked into the lunchroom because he heard Baker and Truly ascending the stairs. Having survived that encounter with flying colors, he bought a Coke because what would look less assassin-like than strolling out of the TSBD with a Coke? When he encountered Reid with the Coke in his hand at what she thought was an unusual place for him to be, his non-responsiveness to her is distinctly odd and similar to his non-responsiveness to Whaley. I think he realized the lunchroom encounter had handed him a Get Out of the TSBD Free Card and the Coke was just window dressing for the rest of his journey out. If confronted by another cop, he could calmly take a swig of Coke and say "Geez, what's going on? I was just questioned by Mr. Truly and another policeman up there in the lunchroom."
-
Logic says that the last thing an assassin fleeing the scene wants to look like is an assassin fleeing the scene. A plausible scenario is that he ducked into the lunchroom because he heard Baker and Truly ascending the stairs. Having survived that encounter with flying colors, he bought a Coke because what would look less assassin-like than strolling out of the TSBD with a Coke? When he encountered Reid with the Coke in his hand at what she thought was an unusual place for him to be, his non-responsiveness to her is distinctly odd and similar to his non-responsiveness to Whaley. I think he realized the lunchroom encounter had handed him a Get Out of the TSBD Free Card and the Coke was just window dressing for the rest of his journey out. If confronted by another cop, he could calmly take a swig of Coke and say "Geez, what's going on? I was just questioned by Mr. Truly and another policeman up there in the lunchroom."
The KGB (or the evil, evil, evil CIA) may even have coached him to buy a bottle of coke-cola in advance to use as a prop.
Or heck, he may have been sufficiently "street smart" to figure that out all by him widdle sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed self-described Marxist self!
-
His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots
When did you prove that Oswald owned the rifle found at the TSBD
(https://i.postimg.cc/Nfx85tLJ/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
The HSCA expert proved Oswald was holding the rifle he purchased, C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgbTGz3B/backyarda-zps722be80b.jpg)
The FBI proved that Oswald's palm print was on Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
JohnM
-
Logic says that the last thing an assassin fleeing the scene wants to look like is an assassin fleeing the scene. A plausible scenario is that he ducked into the lunchroom because he heard Baker and Truly ascending the stairs. Having survived that encounter with flying colors, he bought a Coke because what would look less assassin-like than strolling out of the TSBD with a Coke? When he encountered Reid with the Coke in his hand at what she thought was an unusual place for him to be, his non-responsiveness to her is distinctly odd and similar to his non-responsiveness to Whaley. I think he realized the lunchroom encounter had handed him a Get Out of the TSBD Free Card and the Coke was just window dressing for the rest of his journey out. If confronted by another cop, he could calmly take a swig of Coke and say "Geez, what's going on? I was just questioned by Mr. Truly and another policeman up there in the lunchroom."
Logic says that the last thing an assassin fleeing the scene wants to look like is an assassin fleeing the scene.
So, basically, what you are saying is that Oswald went into the 2nd lunchroom to not look like an assassin fleeing the scene, and then left the building to take a bus, in all the commotion, and look exactly like the assassin you claim his is.
Hilarious!
-
His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots
Did I miss something? When did you prove that Oswald owned the rifle found at the TSBD and/or that it was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
You did indeed miss something. The assumption in Dan's question was that Oswald in fact owned the rifle. Lack of reading comprehension is a terrible handicap on internet forums. So is answering posts faster than you can think. Perhaps cut back on the caffeine and think before clicking that Post button?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Nfx85tLJ/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
The HSCA expert proved Oswald was holding the rifle he purchased, C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgbTGz3B/backyarda-zps722be80b.jpg)
The FBI proved that Oswald's palm print was on Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
JohnM
Wow, a copy of an internal Klein's order form, not declared authentic by the person who wrote C2766 on it, is supposed to show that a rifle was sent to Oswald?
How does a photograph of somebody holding a rifle prove that he is the owner of that rifle? I would be interested to find out, because I was once photographed with a Ferrari and I would love to claim ownership of that car.
And we have already discussed the Rorschachtest you call "evidence".
-
You make a rather seismic semantic shift here. First, his ownership of the M-C doesn't "prove" he took the shots. No, it certainly doesn't. Next, its has "nothing to do" with whether he took the shots. WHAT???
If the M-C had been owned by Linnie Mae Randle, it would be far less likely that Oswald took the shots. His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots but makes it FAR more likely that he did. Even your imaginary conspirators who planted the rifle recognized this, or they would have planted a more plausible assassination weapon. They planted Oswald's rifle because it would make the conclusion that their desired patsy took the shots far more probable.
I understand what you're saying and maybe I could have found a different phrasing of words that made my point in a way that wasn't open to various interpretations.
Oswald either took the shots or he didn't, it's binary, on or off, yes or no.
His ownership of the rifle doesn't make it "FAR more likely" that he took the shots, he either took the shots or he didn't.
It makes it far more likely TO BE ASSUMED THAT HE TOOK THE SHOTS.
That is how framing someone works.
If the ownership of the rifle was traced to Linnie Mae Randle it would have been FAR more difficult to frame Oswald with it.
By leaving Oswald's rifle there everyone would make the obvious assumption that it was Oswald who took the shots and that is exactly what happened.
The important thing is you've recognised that Oswald taking the shots is not the fact that many Nutters seem to think it is. It's just a theory. That is the point I was making
On a different note, I was quite disappointed that you bailed on the topic of this thread.
You laid out a challenge with specific criteria. I presented a plausible scenario that fitted the criteria. You made a couple of weak comments then disappeared.
I thought it was a good topic for a thread and could have been a useful discussion.
-
You did indeed miss something. The assumption in Dan's question was that Oswald in fact owned the rifle. Lack of reading comprehension is a terrible handicap on internet forums. So is answering posts faster than you can think. Perhaps cut back on the caffeine and think before clicking that Post button?
I agree that a lack of reading comprehension is a problem.
The assumption in Dan's question was that Oswald in fact owned the rifle.
No it wasn't. The point of Dan's question was that even if Oswald was the owner of the MC, it still wouldn't prove he actually took the shots.
Nice try, though
-
Logic says that the last thing an assassin fleeing the scene wants to look like is an assassin fleeing the scene.
So, basically, what you are saying is that Oswald went into the 2nd lunchroom to not look like an assassin fleeing the scene, and then left the building to take a bus, in all the commotion, and look exactly like the assassin you claim his is.
Hilarious!
Huh?
To get out of the building Oswald tried to be as inconspicuous as possible.
To get out of the area, Oswald took a regular bus because he wasn't going to run to his Rooming House for his gun.
When the bus stalled, Oswald panicked and got off.
Oswald then got a cab and even tried to act like he wasn't in a hurry, by offering his cab to a lady but he took a calculated risk because he was already inside. Though, Whaley's first day account does differ.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339843/m1/1/med_res/)
JohnM
-
Logic says that the last thing an assassin fleeing the scene wants to look like is an assassin fleeing the scene.
So, basically, what you are saying is that Oswald went into the 2nd lunchroom to not look like an assassin fleeing the scene, and then left the building to take a bus, in all the commotion, and look exactly like the assassin you claim his is.
Hilarious!
You really do need to slow down and give your brain time to shift out of neutral before posting. His critical concern was to get out of the TSBD alive. Because he had in fact fired the shots and knew his rifle was on the 6th floor, he could scarcely hang around the TSBD. Once he was out, he had no reason to care what he "looked like" in the frenzied crowd - only to get as far away as possible as fast as possible. I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.
-
I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.
:D
JohnM
-
You really do need to slow down and give your brain time to shift out of neutral before posting. His critical concern was to get out of the TSBD alive. Because he had in fact fired the shots and knew his rifle was on the 6th floor, he could scarcely hang around the TSBD. Once he was out, he had no reason to care what he "looked like" in the frenzied crowd - only to get as far away as possible as fast as possible. I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.
You really do need to slow down and give your brain time to shift out of neutral before posting.
Stop patronizing. It makes no impression with me.
His critical concern was to get out of the TSBD alive.
Was it? And you know this, how?
Because he had in fact fired the shots and knew his rifle was on the 6th floor, he could scarcely hang around the TSBD.
Assumes facts not in evidence
Once he was out, he had no reason to care what he "looked like" in the frenzied crowd - only to get as far away as possible as fast as possible.
Really? And here we are, 60 years later, LNs are still claiming that Oswald was "fleeing the building" and thus "proving" his guilt because of alleged consciousmess of guilt.
Seems to me you want the cake and eat it too.
I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.
Stop trying to walk before you can crawl. It's not his actions, but the official story about his alleged actions that make him look as the assassin.
It's beginning to show that you are or were a civil litigator.....
-
I would be interested to find out, because I was once photographed with a Ferrari and I would love to claim ownership of that car.
Well if you had ordered that Ferrari.
And there was proof of a payment made for the Ferrari.
And the payment details were within a financial institution.
And the dealership had paperwork confirming that they sent that Ferrari to you.
And that Ferrari was seen in your house.
And if your wife confirmed that she saw you with that Ferrari
And if a close friend confirmed that they saw the Ferrari in your house.
And if you told your wife that you used that Ferrari.
And if you lied to the Police that you purchased a Ferrari
And if you said the authenticated photograph with you with the Ferrari was faked.
And if your prints were secreted somewhere inaccessible within the Ferrari.
Then yeah sure you owned the Ferrari.
JohnM
-
I understand what you're saying and maybe I could have found a different phrasing of words that made my point in a way that wasn't open to various interpretations.
Oswald either took the shots or he didn't, it's binary, on or off, yes or no.
His ownership of the rifle doesn't make it "FAR more likely" that he took the shots, he either took the shots or he didn't.
It makes it far more likely TO BE ASSUMED THAT HE TOOK THE SHOTS.
That is how framing someone works.
If the ownership of the rifle was traced to Linnie Mae Randle it would have been FAR more difficult to frame Oswald with it.
By leaving Oswald's rifle there everyone would make the obvious assumption that it was Oswald who took the shots and that is exactly what happened.
The important thing is you've recognised that Oswald taking the shots is not the fact that many Nutters seem to think it is. It's just a theory. That is the point I was making
On a different note, I was quite disappointed that you bailed on the topic of this thread.
You laid out a challenge with specific criteria. I presented a plausible scenario that fitted the criteria. You made a couple of weak comments then disappeared.
I thought it was a good topic for a thread and could have been a useful discussion.
The "evidentiary standards" (to use the term loosely) in Conspiracy Logic are as upside-down as everything else. The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items. Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.
As to your LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley-sniper-patsy theory, I thought I had addressed pretty specifically why I believe it is neither simple nor plausible. It is not plausible to me that the Vice President of the United States and one of the wealthiest men in Texas would put their very lives in the hands of Cason and a cluck like Shelley (and then allow them to live). There is no evidence of which I am aware that Cason or Shelley benefitted materially from their participation in this Crime of the Century. Shelley continued to work at the TSBD for 40 years, dying at age 70 in 1996 - what was his big reward? Moreover, your scenario just conveniently ignores all the issues raised in my original post in this thread in terms of what the control of Oswald and the actual assassination would have looked like. Presumably the wild-and-crazy post-assassination activities of Oswald were not part of the plan. If LBJ really wanted JFK dead, I give him credit for being far more clever and savvy than what the JFKA actually looked like.
-
Well if you had ordered that Ferrari.
And the dealership had paperwork confirming that they sent that Ferrari to you.
And that Ferrari was seen in your house.
And if your wife confirmed that she saw you with that Ferrari
And if a close friend confirmed that they saw the Ferrari in your house.
And if you told your wife that you used that Ferrari.
And if you lied to the Police that you purchased a Ferrari
And if you said the authenticated photograph with you with the Ferrari was faked.
And if your prints were secreted somewhere inaccessible within the Ferrari.
Then yeah sure you owned the Ferrari.
JohnM
And that Ferrari was seen in your house.
And if a close friend confirmed that they saw the Ferrari in your house.
If anybody said he or she saw a Ferrari "in" my house, I would ask if that person had been drinking.
And if you lied to the Police that you purchased a Ferrari
Then yeah sure you owned the Ferrari.
Huh? So, lying to the police makes me the owner of a Ferrari?
I'll go to the police station tomorrow.....
-
The "evidentiary standards" (to use the term loosely) in Conspiracy Logic are as upside-down as everything else. The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items. Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.
As to your LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley-sniper-patsy theory, I thought I had addressed pretty specifically why I believe it is neither simple nor plausible. It is not plausible to me that the Vice President of the United States and one of the wealthiest men in Texas would put their very lives in the hands of Cason and a cluck like Shelley (and then allow them to live). There is no evidence of which I am aware that Cason or Shelley benefitted materially from their participation in this Crime of the Century. Shelley continued to work at the TSBD for 40 years, dying at age 70 in 1996 - what was his big reward? Moreover, your scenario just conveniently ignores all the issues raised in my original post in this thread in terms of what the control of Oswald and the actual assassination would have looked like. Presumably the wild-and-crazy post-assassination activities of Oswald were not part of the plan. If LBJ really wanted JFK dead, I give him credit for being far more clever and savvy than what the JFKA actually looked like.
The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items.
It's just too bad that Oswald's ownership of the rifle found at the TSBD is only assumed and most certainly not proven.
Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.
Your 'theory" starts with the presumption that Oswald was guilty for which you then start looking for anything (regardless of how weak it is) to add to your "mountain of evidence".
And why do you keep on talking about "reasonable inference" when it is only reasonable to you?
-
And that Ferrari was seen in your house.
And if a close friend confirmed that they saw the Ferrari in your house.
If anybody said he or she saw a Ferrari "in" my house, I would ask if that person had been drinking.
This is the problem with you peasants, you simply can't comprehend how us rich people roll!
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1tWD65x/car-in-apartment-a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wv3C1d6r/car-in-apartment-b.jpg)
JohnM
-
Well Dan, this is obvious.
Oswald was in the process of flight from the scene of his crime and while coming down the stairs Oswald heard Truly shouting up the adjacent elevator shaft to release the elevator, so Oswald made a beeline for neutral explainable territory, the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Then after being confronted by Truly and Baker in the lunchroom and then fortunately being left alone a Oswald realized that he would have had to have a reason for why he was seen entering the lunchroom hence his coke purchase.
Mr. BELIN. You might put a "B" on Exhibit 362 by the elevator for "button."
Mr. TRULY. That is right on this surface. There is a little button. I pressed the button and the elevator didn't move.
I called upstairs , "Turn loose the elevator."
Mr. BELIN. When you say call up, in what kind of a voice did you call?
Mr. TRULY. Real loud. I suppose in an excited voice. But loud enough that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or making a little noise. But I rang the bell and pushed this button.
JohnM
We're definitely going to have to disagree over what's obvious and what's not.
The fleeing assassin hears his boss shouting up the elevator shaft and feels the need to find a "neutral explainable territory"??
Why does it need to be "explainable" if it's Truly?
Let's say he hears footsteps thundering up the wooden staircase as he gets on the 2nd floor and decides to duck in through the vestibule door just in case. To his left is the lunchroom, to his right is a door leading to a corridor that can take him to the stairs down to the front lobby (or he can go through the office space).
One way is freedom and the other is a dead end. So he chooses the dead end? Not convinced. Surely he's either a fleeing assassin or he's not.
Any reasonable person would automatically assume that a fleeing assassin would opt to make his way to the entrance of the building. I think it's obvious that, because you view Oswald as the assassin, you have to come up with some kind of explanation for his presence in the 2nd floor lunchroom when, in fact, the unlikeliness of the incident points to an explanation other than Oswald coming down from the 6th.
The best thing that can be said is that it's not impossible that Oswald decided to duck into the lunchroom to get away from approaching footsteps then decided to get a Coke as some kind of cover. It's just really unlikely.
-
This is the problem with you peasants, you simply can't comprehend how us rich people roll!
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1tWD65x/car-in-apartment-a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wv3C1d6r/car-in-apartment-b.jpg)
JohnM
you simply can't comprehend how us rich people roll!
So, now you claim to be better than us peasants simply because you (pretend) to be rich? Hilarious :D
Btw, is that you in that photo? If so, what are you doing in my house?
-
You really do need to slow down and give your brain time to shift out of neutral before posting.
Stop patronizing. It makes no impression with me.
His critical concern was to get out of the TSBD alive.
Was it? And you know this, how?
Because he had in fact fired the shots and knew his rifle was on the 6th floor, he could scarcely hang around the TSBD.
Assumes facts not in evidence
Once he was out, he had no reason to care what he "looked like" in the frenzied crowd - only to get as far away as possible as fast as possible.
Really? And here we are, 60 years later, LNs are still claiming that Oswald was "fleeing the building" and thus "proving" his guilt because of alleged consciousmess of guilt.
Seems to me you want the cake and eat it too.
I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.
Stop trying to walk before you can crawl. It's not his actions, but the official story about his alleged actions that make him look as the assassin.
It's beginning to show that you are or were a civil litigator.....
His critical concern was to get out of the TSBD alive.
Was it? And you know this, how?
Seriously?
Oswald wrote in the Walker note about 10 months prior, "If I'm taken alive...", meaning that he planned on trying his best escape after he did his (attempted)Assassination but death was always going to be a possible consequence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/52PBgHd6/Walker-note-page-2.jpg)
Once he was out, he had no reason to care what he "looked like" in the frenzied crowd - only to get as far away as possible as fast as possible.
Really? And here we are, 60 years later, LNs are still claiming that Oswald was "fleeing the building" and thus "proving" his guilt because of alleged consciousmess of guilt.
I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.
It's not his actions, but the official story about his alleged actions that make him look as the assassin.
What's alleged?
Oswald admitted to leaving.
Oswald admitted catching a bus.
Oswald admitted catching a taxi.
Oswald admitted getting his revolver
Oswald admitted punching a cop.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFLqx46R/flight-zps2prfpevd.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zs747PX/Flight1.gif)
JohnM
-
Seriously?
Oswald wrote in the Walker note about 10 months prior, "If I'm taken alive...", meaning that he planned on trying his best escape after he did his (attempted)Assassination but death was always going to be a possible consequence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/52PBgHd6/Walker-note-page-2.jpg)
So, Oswald wrote in the Walker note that he intended to flee the TSBD?
And how in the world do you know what he means to say?
What's alleged?
Oswald admitted to leaving.
Oswald admitted catching a bus.
Oswald admitted catching a taxi.
Oswald admitted getting his revolver
Oswald admitted punching a cop.
JohnM
Where did he admit that? Have you got a verbatim record or a recording of him saying that?
Or are you just going by what his interrogators claimed he said?
-
The "evidentiary standards" (to use the term loosely) in Conspiracy Logic are as upside-down as everything else. The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items. Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.
I'm glad you still agree that Oswald taking the shots is just a theory.
My own theory didn't "start" with the presumption that Oswald was framed. My initial thoughts on the assassination were based around Oswald taking the shots from the Sniper's Nest and a shooter on the grassy knoll. This was primarily based on the perceived "back and to the left" movement of JFK. As I became more familiar with the evidence my "theory" has altered based on my best interpretation of that evidence.
Rather than have someone else do my thinking for me I've done it for myself.
And, if you really are familiar with this case you would be aware that any piece of credible evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. I laid this list of evidence out for you in Reply#82 of this thread but you disappeared.
As to your LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley-sniper-patsy theory, I thought I had addressed pretty specifically why I believe it is neither simple nor plausible. It is not plausible to me that the Vice President of the United States and one of the wealthiest men in Texas would put their very lives in the hands of Cason and a cluck like Shelley (and then allow them to live). There is no evidence of which I am aware that Cason or Shelley benefitted materially from their participation in this Crime of the Century. Shelley continued to work at the TSBD for 40 years, dying at age 70 in 1996 - what was his big reward? Moreover, your scenario just conveniently ignores all the issues raised in my original post in this thread in terms of what the control of Oswald and the actual assassination would have looked like. Presumably the wild-and-crazy post-assassination activities of Oswald were not part of the plan. If LBJ really wanted JFK dead, I give him credit for being far more clever and savvy than what the JFKA actually looked like.
As I said, you made a couple of really weak points which were comprehensively dealt with then you disappeared.
-
"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated.
Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, I will have to be authenticated.
A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication.
There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard". A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.
Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice.
And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low?
The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"
and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?
MW: Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, I will have to be authenticated.
It's always about you, isn't it? :). OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.
MW: There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard"
This is exactly what you've been doing.
MW: A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.
Authentication is a proxy for authenticity. It does not in and of itself actually prove or disprove authenticity, especially the latter. Doubly especially when the authentication method is designed from the outset to prevent an item from being authenticated in the first place.
MW: And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low
The people who actually do it in practice. In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of. This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid. There is already evidence that the pistol is authentic, and none that shows that it is invalid.
MW: and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?
If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.
-
We're definitely going to have to disagree over what's obvious and what's not.
The fleeing assassin hears his boss shouting up the elevator shaft and feels the need to find a "neutral explainable territory"??
Why does it need to be "explainable" if it's Truly?
Let's say he hears footsteps thundering up the wooden staircase as he gets on the 2nd floor and decides to duck in through the vestibule door just in case. To his left is the lunchroom, to his right is a door leading to a corridor that can take him to the stairs down to the front lobby (or he can go through the office space).
One way is freedom and the other is a dead end. So he chooses the dead end? Not convinced. Surely he's either a fleeing assassin or he's not.
Any reasonable person would automatically assume that a fleeing assassin would opt to make his way to the entrance of the building. I think it's obvious that, because you view Oswald as the assassin, you have to come up with some kind of explanation for his presence in the 2nd floor lunchroom when, in fact, the unlikeliness of the incident points to an explanation other than Oswald coming down from the 6th.
The best thing that can be said is that it's not impossible that Oswald decided to duck into the lunchroom to get away from approaching footsteps then decided to get a Coke as some kind of cover. It's just really unlikely.
Let's say he hears footsteps thundering up the wooden staircase as he gets on the 2nd floor and decides to duck in through the vestibule door just in case. To his left is the lunchroom, to his right is a door leading to a corridor that can take him to the stairs down to the front lobby (or he can go through the office space).
Oswald had two choices be somewhere that he has allowable access to, or go through the Office Space which was as Mrs Reid states "a little strange" and the warehouse boys didn't just "wander around" because obviously they didn't belong there and especially when no one else was around, therefore Oswald only went that way because he now had reason to suspect that more Police could have followed Baker.
Mrs. REID.....I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time
Mr. BELIN. Apart from getting change or getting paid?
Mrs. REID. No; very seldom unless they are sent up there to get something. I mean they just don't come in there and wander around.
Why does it need to be "explainable" if it's Truly?
From Reid's testimony, it's clear that the Warehouse staff simply didn't go to the office's and being there and on the move would be highly suspicious so Oswald who just wanted to get out of there and took the safer alternative.
JohnM
-
MW: Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, I will have to be authenticated.
It's always about you, isn't it? :). OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.
MW: There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard"
This is exactly what you've been doing.
MW: A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.
Authentication is a proxy for authenticity. It does not in and of itself actually prove or disprove authenticity, especially the latter. Doubly especially when the authentication method is designed from the outset to prevent an item from being authenticated in the first place.
MW: And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low
The people who actually do it in practice. In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of. This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid. There is already evidence that the pistol is authentic, and none that shows that it is invalid.
MW: and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?
If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.
It's always about you, isn't it? :). OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.
How sad, just after I accepted your evidence about the Hill/Davenport matter.
MW: There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard"
This is exactly what you've been doing.
Really? And yet, you still managed to convince me that there was no discrepancy in the Hill/Davenport matter
MW: And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low
The people who actually do it in practice. In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of. This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid. There is already evidence that the pistol is authentic, and none that shows that it is invalid.
Back in 1963 people still considered what people like notaries, lawyers and priests said to be beyond question. Now we know better.
In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of.
Ok, so Secret Service agent Richard E. Johnson would be the first offical who took possession of the "magic" bullet and he failed to identify it later. Where does that leave us?
This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid.
There is no problem. If evidence is authentic it's valid. So, use the chain of custody to show the evidence is authentic and your problem is solved.
If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid.
If a piece of evidence is not autheticated, it's automatically invalid. But what exactly do you consider an "unreasonable high standard". Could it simply be a standard your evidence can't meet?
If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.
So why not use a reasonable standard? Or do you believe no such thing exists?
-
Or are you just going by what his interrogators claimed he said?
Not this again. Yawn!
For a start, Oswald had every reason to admit to every action on my list because there were eyewitnesses or solid evidence at every stage.
1. Oswald had to have left because he was caught a little over an hour later across town in a theater.
2. Oswald was on the bus because he had the appropriate Bus transfer and he may have seen Bledsoe.
3. Whaley identified Oswald in his cab.
4. Oswald got to the rooming house around one, meaning he couldn't have ran.
5. Oswald was arrested with his revolver.
6. Oswald was seen by many eyewitnesses punching a cop.
There were many varying law enforcement agencies who participated and you can't possibly be suggesting that they all got together to get their stories straight? Besides CT's use the interrogations much more than LNers.
Oswald said that he didn't own the rifle.
Oswald said that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald said that he wasn't in the backyard photos.
Oswald said he didn't kill Kennedy.
Oswald said he didn't kill Tippit.
Oswald left out Neely street.
Oswald said he spoke with Shelley about leaving.
Oswald said that his rifle bag contained his lunch.
Need I go on??
JohnM
-
Not this again. Yawn!
For a start, Oswald had every reason to admit to every action on my list because there were eyewitnesses or solid evidence at every stage.
1. Oswald had to have left because he was caught a little over an hour later across town in a theater.
2. Oswald was on the bus because he had the appropriate Bus transfer and he may have seen Bledsoe.
3. Whaley identified Oswald in his cab.
4. Oswald got to the rooming house around one, meaning he couldn't have ran.
5. Oswald was arrested with his revolver.
6. Oswald was seen by many eyewitnesses punching a cop.
There were many varying law enforcement agencies who participated and you can't possibly be suggesting that they all got together to get their stories straight? Besides CT's use the interrogations much more than LNers.
Oswald said that he didn't own the rifle.
Oswald said that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald said that he wasn't in the backyard photos.
Oswald said he didn't kill Kennedy.
Oswald said he didn't kill Tippit.
Oswald left out Neely street.
Oswald said he spoke with Shelley about leaving.
Oswald said that his rifle bag contained his lunch.
Need I go on??
JohnM
So, the answer is: yes, you are merely going by what the interrogators claimed he said. Thumb1:
-
It's always about you, isn't it? :). OK, just kidding. Mostly.
How sad, just after I accepted your evidence about the Hill/Davenport matter.
Lighten up, it looks like Mitch just made a joke because you said "I will have to be authenticated."
BTW, If you accepted Mitch's evidence then why did you post this little gem AFTER?
Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?
Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.
You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.
JohnM
-
Lighten up, it looks like Mitch just made a joke because you said "I will have to be authenticated."
BTW, If you accepted Mitch's evidence then why did you post this little gem AFTER?
JohnM
If you don't understand why, you are more ignorant than I actually thought you are.
-
It's just too bad that Oswald's ownership of the rifle found at the TSBD is only assumed and most certainly not proven.
It would be very difficult to have a stronger batch of evidence with which to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of Rifle No. C2766 than the batch that exists in this case. E.G.:
.... There's the various documents that were retained (on microfilm) by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. (But apparently conspiracy theorists have decided it would be wise to disregard all of those "microfilm" records because they are only photographs of the original pieces of paper; and therefore everybody is supposed to swallow the notion that all of those microfilmed records that were retained by Klein's in Chicago are fake and fraudulent documents that were created by a band of conspirators for the sole purpose of attempting to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Oswald for the murder of the American President. Yeah, right.)
.... There's Lee Oswald's own handwriting on three of the documents connected with the rifle purchase, including the Postal Money Order. (And, BTW, that money order which was declared by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts to have the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald on it, was not just a microfilmed copy of the Postal Money Order. It was the original money order. Which is something that CTers tend to just ignore completely in their desire to claim that all of the rifle evidence is fraudulent. Lots more "Money Order" discussion HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html).)
.... There's a palmprint of Oswald's on the C2766 rifle. (More about that controversy HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Oswald+Palmprint+On+Rifle).)
.... There's the backyard photos which depict Oswald holding a rifle. And the rifle seen in those backyard photographs was determined by the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel to be the very same rifle that LHO is holding in the backyard pictures:
"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm)
And that same HSCA Photographic Panel also said the following:
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0076b.htm)
But even with all of the above things piled up against the door which prove beyond all reasonable and sensible doubt that Lee Oswald purchased, possessed, and handled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963, many conspiracy theorists still insist upon making the absurd claim that Oswald never owned and never even touched that rifle.
That, folks, is called Serious Denial!
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
-
It would be very difficult to have a stronger batch of evidence with which to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of Rifle No. C2766 than the batch that exists in this case. E.G.:
.... There's the various documents that were retained (on microfilm) by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. (But apparently conspiracy theorists have decided it would be wise to disregard all of those "microfilm" records because they are only photographs of the original pieces of paper; and therefore everybody is supposed to swallow the notion that all of those microfilmed records that were retained by Klein's in Chicago are fake and fraudulent documents that were created by a band of conspirators for the sole purpose of attempting to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Oswald for the murder of the American President. Yeah, right.)
.... There's Lee Oswald's own handwriting on three of the documents connected with the rifle purchase, including the Postal Money Order. (And, BTW, that money order which was declared by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts to have the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald on it, was not just a microfilmed copy of the Postal Money Order. It was the original money order. Which is something that CTers tend to just ignore completely in their desire to claim that all of the rifle evidence is fraudulent. Lots more "Money Order" discussion HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html).)
.... There's a palmprint of Oswald's on the C2766 rifle. (More about that controversy HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Oswald+Palmprint+On+Rifle).)
.... There's the backyard photos which depict Oswald holding a rifle. And the rifle seen in those backyard photographs was determined by the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel to be the very same rifle that LHO is holding in the backyard pictures:
"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm)
And that same HSCA Photographic Panel also said the following:
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0076b.htm)
But even with all of the above things piled up against the door which prove beyond all reasonable and sensible doubt that Lee Oswald purchased, possessed, and handled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963, many conspiracy theorists still insist upon making the absurd claim that Oswald never owned and never even touched that rifle.
That, folks, is called Serious Denial!
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
It would be very difficult to have a stronger batch of evidence with which to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of Rifle No. C2766 than the batch that exists in this case
Well, David, having an invoice in Oswald's name and/or a proper receipt for the delivery of the rifle to him would improve the case much!
There's the various documents that were retained (on microfilm) by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
True, but those are in the name Hidell
(But apparently conspiracy theorists have decided it would be wise to disregard all of those "microfilm" records because they are only photographs of the original pieces of paper; and therefore everybody is supposed to swallow the notion that all of those microfilmed records that were retained by Klein's in Chicago are fake and fraudulent documents that were created by a band of conspirators for the sole purpose of attempting to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Oswald for the murder of the American President. Yeah, right.)
I'm not disregarding those microfilm records, but LNs frequently ignore that the Klein's microfilm was taken by the FBI and not returned for some time. Considering that the FBI must have had a machine to use the microfilm (why else would they take it?) can you tell me what happened to it, where it was and who had it? Then the WC blindly accepted the opinion of an FBI handwriting expert who claimed (despite the fact that document examiners normally only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies) that Oswald wrote the order form after comparing it with other copies of documents that Oswald allegedly wrote in the past.
There's Lee Oswald's own handwriting on three of the documents connected with the rifle purchase, including the Postal Money Order. (And, BTW, that money order which was declared by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts to have the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald on it, was not just a microfilmed copy of the Postal Money Order. It was the original money order. Which is something that CTers tend to just ignore completely in their desire to claim that all of the rifle evidence is fraudulent.
I'm not claiming the rifle evidence is fraudulent. I am merely saying that even if Oswald did indeed write the order form and the money order, that still only proves that he was involved in the rifle being ordered. It does not show ownership.
There's a palmprint of Oswald's on the C2766 rifle.
Wrong. There is a palmprint purported to be Oswald's on an evidence card which did not surface until after Oswald was dead. But, again, even if the palmprint was on the rifle, that would merely show that Oswald held the rifle and not that he owned it.
There's the backyard photos which depict Oswald holding a rifle. And the rifle seen in those backyard photographs was determined by the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel to be the very same rifle that LHO is holding in the backyard pictures:
"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs."
And how exactly does holding a rifle in a photograph prove ownership?
But even with all of the above things piled up against the door which prove beyond all reasonable and sensible doubt that Lee Oswald purchased, possessed, and handled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963, many conspiracy theorists still insist upon making the absurd claim that Oswald never owned and never even touched that rifle.
I've never claimed that Oswald never touched that rifle. How could I, when I don't know what actually happened? I have merely questioned how the evidence you provide shows "beyond reasonable doubt" that Oswald owned the rifle and, more importantly, that he still had it (stored in Ruth Paine's garage) on 11/21/63? From everything I'v seen so far, it is indeed nothing more than an assumption. One of many that are being made in this case!
-
;D
On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not. It's an embarrassingly simple question to answer but I knew that neither of them would be able to answer it because all true Nutters have a very extreme, inflexible mentality. The question reveals that Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact. They genuinely don't understand that it's not a fact. In reality it is a belief and the conclusions of the Warren Commission are, at best, a working theory. An invented narrative, the purpose of which is to accommodate certain facts about the case. A story.
Very often on this forum people come along with really 'alternative' narratives - Two Oswalds, Prayerman, Hickey and the AR-15 etc. - and I've noticed over the few years I've been a member of this forum that anyone proposing these narratives always present them as a fact. Not working theories. Not alternative narratives. They share this mentality with Nutters. Other traits they share are a complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts any detail their narrative, a refusal to debate an issue reasonably and a lack of humility.
On the flip side, there are some on both sides of the LN/CT divide who are willing to engage reasonably even if they ultimately disagree. This makes me think that the traditional LN/CT divide should be discarded and that the division should be between those willing to genuinely engage in the debate and those who just want to spout their beliefs as if they were facts.
What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not". This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame: "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact."
Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime! That's a new level of delusion. Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating. It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence. Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger? It's highly incriminating absent some explanation. So what happens at that point? The police investigate the person who owned the weapon. What do they discover? First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime. Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene. Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership. Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it. Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer. Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime. You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."
-
LN's know there is absolutely NO Evidence putting Oswald in the sniper's nest when shots were fired. None!
-
What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not". This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame: "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact."
Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime! That's a new level of delusion. Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating. It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence. Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger? It's highly incriminating absent some explanation. So what happens at that point? The police investigate the person who owned the weapon. What do they discover? First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime. Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene. Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership. Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it. Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer. Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime. You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."
As I've previously said, CTers use a language all their own. In CT World, a "fact" is that which is established to a level of metaphysical ontology (i.e., a description of the actual, bottom-line reality, with which an all-knowing God himself could not disagree). A "theory" is that which is not established to a level of metaphysical ontology. If the entire Warren Commission had, for some reason, been sitting on the 6th floor of the TSBD watching Oswald fire the shots, the fact would still not be established to the level CTers insist upon. Maybe the WC were drugged or hypnotized. Maybe the shooter was Mac Wallace in an Oswald mask. Maybe the whole thing was a deceptive hologram generated by aliens. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Voila, we still have no more than a theory. We will never, at least this side of the hereafter, have anything more than a theory. You say the shooter was Oswald, I say it was an alien hologram.
"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory. Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory. This game is why there are such a multiplicity of diverse and irreconcilable conspiracy theories. It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion. Well, yes - duh. "But NOT all the evidence!" says Dan. "You just have a theory!"
Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation. That Oswald actually was elsewhere in the TSBD - zero evidence. What sense it makes for Oswald to have been elsewhere if he was being framed as a shooter on the 6th floor - none. What sense it makes for the patsy to be allowed to leave the TSBD and survive 48 hours - none. Indeed, Dan's theory raises all the unanswerable questions I asked in my thread about Hancock and Boylan's new book, which I am apparently the only one who has purchased and read. To their credit, Hancock and Boylan stay with the Lone Nut perspective on Oswald from childhood right up until immediately before the assassination because that is the rational, evidence-based perspective. Their bottom-line theory (Oswald thought he was part of a plan to hijack a plane to Cuba) is not woven out of whole cloth like Dan's LBJ-Byrd scenario, but it is highly speculative and based on dubious inferences from minimal facts. It's an ad hoc conspiracy theory based on little more than a wish to avoid the LN conclusion.
The key to these endless, round-and-round, foaming-at-the-mouth discussions is truly to be found in the professional psychological and sociological literature addressing the conspiracy-prone mindset. It just is. Alas, even the LN fanatics never want to go there, possibly because the fanatical LN mindset is not wildly different. Here's a recent article from the American Psychological Association website, "Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories," https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories. It has a link to the article in the APA Psychological Bulletin, "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000392.pdf.
Since you won't read it, here ya go:
- People can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
- "Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”
- The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others.
- The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.
-
As I've previously said, CTers use a language all their own. In CT World, a "fact" is that which is established to a level of metaphysical ontology (i.e., a description of the actual, bottom-line reality, with which an all-knowing God himself could not disagree). A "theory" is that which is not established to a level of metaphysical ontology. If the entire Warren Commission had, for some reason, been sitting on the 6th floor of the TSBD watching Oswald fire the shots, the fact would still not be established to the level CTers insist upon. Maybe the WC were drugged or hypnotized. Maybe the shooter was Mac Wallace in an Oswald mask. Maybe the whole thing was a deceptive hologram generated by aliens. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Voila, we still have no more than a theory. We will never, at least this side of the hereafter, have anything more than a theory. You say the shooter was Oswald, I say it was an alien hologram.
"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory. Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory. This game is why there are such a multiplicity of diverse and irreconcilable conspiracy theories. It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion. Well, yes - duh. "But NOT all the evidence!" says Dan. "You just have a theory!"
Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation. That Oswald actually was elsewhere in the TSBD - zero evidence. What sense it makes for Oswald to have been elsewhere if he was being framed as a shooter on the 6th floor - none. What sense it makes for the patsy to be allowed to leave the TSBD and survive 48 hours - none. Indeed, Dan's theory raises all the unanswerable questions I asked in my thread about Hancock and Boylan's new book, which I am apparently the only one who has purchased and read. To their credit, Hancock and Boylan stay with the Lone Nut perspective on Oswald from childhood right up until immediately before the assassination because that is the rational, evidence-based perspective. Their bottom-line theory (Oswald thought he was part of a plan to hijack a plane to Cuba) is not woven out of whole cloth like Dan's LBJ-Byrd scenario, but it is highly speculative and based on dubious inferences from minimal facts. It's an ad hoc conspiracy theory based on little more than a wish to avoid the LN conclusion.
The key to these endless, round-and-round, foaming-at-the-mouth discussions is truly to be found in the professional psychological and sociological literature addressing the conspiracy-prone mindset. It just is. Alas, even the LN fanatics never want to go there, possibly because the fanatical LN mindset is not wildly different. Here's a recent article from the American Psychological Association website, "Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories," https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories. It has a link to the article in the APA Psychological Bulletin, "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000392.pdf.
Since you won't read it, here ya go:
- People can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
- "Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”
- The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others.
- The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.
"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory.
It's amazing how you can say this about WC sceptics and CT's and not understand that the same actually applies to LNs.
Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory.
Let me guess, it's your so-called "objective standard" that your evidence is "overwhelmingly stronger" and that "your inferences" are "far more reasonable", right?
Let me tell the story you advocate and then you can tell me if I am missing something or say something wrong, ok?
On Thursday afternoon, at the latest, Oswald is supposed to have made a paper bag from TSBD materials. Because of the tape used, he must have made the bag at the TSBD without being seen by anybody. He then took that paper bag with him to Irving, concealing it from Frazier. The motive for the creation of the bag and the trip to Irving was allegedly to collect a rifle allegedly stored in Ruth Paine's garage, but if there ever was a rifle to begin with, nobody saw it since the last week of September 1963 and there is no evidence to show which rifle it was and what happened to it after that.
Oswald then tried desperately to convince Marina to come back to him, telling her that he was going to look for an apartment so that they could live together again. When she refused, he then decided to kill Kennedy, or at least to take the rifle to work the next day. In order to do so, he needed to enter the garage and break the rifle down, thus risking that either Marina or Ruth Paine would see him. After doing so, he concealed the rifle in the bag he had made at the TSBD, when he could have just as easily used a duffle bag (or whatever he used to take the rifle to New Orleans on public transport) and then couldn't care less that he could or would be seen by Frazier and/or others carrying a bag that was much too big for curtain rods yet, according to Frazier, still fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand.
Now, tell me Lance, just how much of this story is supported by actual evidence and how much of it is mere assumption?
-
What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not". This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame: "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact."
Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime! That's a new level of delusion. Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating. It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence. Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger? It's highly incriminating absent some explanation. So what happens at that point? The police investigate the person who owned the weapon. What do they discover? First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime. Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene. Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership. Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it. Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer. Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime. You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
Answer the question.
-
What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not". This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame: "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact."
Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime! That's a new level of delusion. Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating. It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence. Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger? It's highly incriminating absent some explanation. So what happens at that point? The police investigate the person who owned the weapon. What do they discover? First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime. Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene. Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership. Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it. Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer. Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime. You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."
Tricky Dicky likes to leave out what he likes to leave out.
He sees what he wants to see - another trait he shares with the Tinfoil mentality.
Below is Reply#177 dealing with the inability of Nutters to accept that Oswald taking the shots is a theory.
It was posted to explain why Oswald's ownership of the rifle has no bearing on whether he took the shots or not.
Let's see what this extreme mentality makes of it.
I understand what you're saying and maybe I could have found a different phrasing of words that made my point in a way that wasn't open to various interpretations.
Oswald either took the shots or he didn't, it's binary, on or off, yes or no.
His ownership of the rifle doesn't make it "FAR more likely" that he took the shots, he either took the shots or he didn't.
It makes it far more likely TO BE ASSUMED THAT HE TOOK THE SHOTS.
That is how framing someone works.
If the ownership of the rifle was traced to Linnie Mae Randle it would have been FAR more difficult to frame Oswald with it.
By leaving Oswald's rifle there everyone would make the obvious assumption that it was Oswald who took the shots and that is exactly what happened.
The important thing is you've recognised that Oswald taking the shots is not the fact that many Nutters seem to think it is. It's just a theory. That is the point I was making
On a different note, I was quite disappointed that you bailed on the topic of this thread.
You laid out a challenge with specific criteria. I presented a plausible scenario that fitted the criteria. You made a couple of weak comments then disappeared.
I thought it was a good topic for a thread and could have been a useful discussion.
Imagine not being able to tell the difference between a fact and a theory.
Imagine truly believing that a theory is a fact.
Imagine that kind of mentality.
How is it possible to engage with this type of ignorance?
-
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
Answer the question.
I did. Even underlined it, explained it, and dumbed it down. That's the best I can do for you. You apparently believe that ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene "has nothing to do" with who committed the crime. That is profoundly stupid.
-
I did. Even underlined it, explained it, and dumbed it down. That's the best I can do for you. You apparently believe that ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene "has nothing to do" with who committed the crime. That is profoundly stupid.
Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
-
As I've previously said, CTers use a language all their own. In CT World, a "fact" is that which is established to a level of metaphysical ontology (i.e., a description of the actual, bottom-line reality, with which an all-knowing God himself could not disagree). A "theory" is that which is not established to a level of metaphysical ontology. If the entire Warren Commission had, for some reason, been sitting on the 6th floor of the TSBD watching Oswald fire the shots, the fact would still not be established to the level CTers insist upon. Maybe the WC were drugged or hypnotized. Maybe the shooter was Mac Wallace in an Oswald mask. Maybe the whole thing was a deceptive hologram generated by aliens. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Voila, we still have no more than a theory. We will never, at least this side of the hereafter, have anything more than a theory. You say the shooter was Oswald, I say it was an alien hologram.
"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory. Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory. This game is why there are such a multiplicity of diverse and irreconcilable conspiracy theories. It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion. Well, yes - duh. "But NOT all the evidence!" says Dan. "You just have a theory!"
Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation. That Oswald actually was elsewhere in the TSBD - zero evidence. What sense it makes for Oswald to have been elsewhere if he was being framed as a shooter on the 6th floor - none. What sense it makes for the patsy to be allowed to leave the TSBD and survive 48 hours - none. Indeed, Dan's theory raises all the unanswerable questions I asked in my thread about Hancock and Boylan's new book, which I am apparently the only one who has purchased and read. To their credit, Hancock and Boylan stay with the Lone Nut perspective on Oswald from childhood right up until immediately before the assassination because that is the rational, evidence-based perspective. Their bottom-line theory (Oswald thought he was part of a plan to hijack a plane to Cuba) is not woven out of whole cloth like Dan's LBJ-Byrd scenario, but it is highly speculative and based on dubious inferences from minimal facts. It's an ad hoc conspiracy theory based on little more than a wish to avoid the LN conclusion.
The key to these endless, round-and-round, foaming-at-the-mouth discussions is truly to be found in the professional psychological and sociological literature addressing the conspiracy-prone mindset. It just is. Alas, even the LN fanatics never want to go there, possibly because the fanatical LN mindset is not wildly different. Here's a recent article from the American Psychological Association website, "Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories," https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories. It has a link to the article in the APA Psychological Bulletin, "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000392.pdf.
Since you won't read it, here ya go:
- People can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
- "Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”
- The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others.
- The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.
It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion.
My observation was that Nutters believe Oswald was the shooter as a fact when it's only a theory.
I understand why you've come to the conclusion that Oswald was the shooter. It's classic Nutter logic - Oswald's rifle was there, therefore he took the shots.
I really seem to have hit a nerve by pointing out that Oswald being the shooter is just a theory. At least you recognise this truth, unlike foaming-at-the-mouth Tricky Dicky.
"Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation."
It is amusing that LNers don't believe they speculate.
Maybe you could regale us with what you believe Oswald's movements were after he was seen/heard by the 6th floor workers when they broke for lunch.
Did Oswald follow them down to the first floor?
Did he head straight for the Sniper's Nest?
Was he hiding in the Sniper's Nest while Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch a few yards away?
Have you ever even thought about this?
Do you even need to think about it because you know for a fact that Oswald did it so you don't need to think about it?
PS: Try not to misrepresent what I post. It's good manners.
-
Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.
But let's hypothesize that Oswald's rifle was used by another assassin and evaluate the probabilities.
Q. Someone broke into the Paine garage and stole Oswald's rifle and took it to his work and did the deed?
A. Oswald didn't have many friends, so it's unlikely that anybody knew that the rifle was there and even if someone perchance broke in and stole the rifle, how the heck would they know where Oswald(who only visited on weekends), even worked? Possibility 0%
Q. Oswald took his rifle to work for show and tell, and a fellow worker grabbed the rifle at lunch and assassinated JFK?
A. Oswald wouldn't take a loaded rifle to work and nobody said they saw a rifle. Possibility -10%
Q. Oswald took his rifle to work and gave it to an assassin?
A. Oswald was dumb but not stupid! Possibility 0%
I guess I could go on making up various scenarios but why bother?
All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!
JohnM
-
C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.
But let's hypothesize that Oswald's rifle was used by another assassin and evaluate the probabilities.
Q. Someone broke into the Paine garage and stole Oswald's rifle and took it to his work and did the deed?
A. Oswald didn't have many friends, so it's unlikely that anybody knew that the rifle was there and even if someone perchance broke in and stole the rifle, how the heck would they know where Oswald(who only visited on weekends), even worked? Possibility 0%
Q. Oswald took his rifle to work for show and tell, and a fellow worker grabbed the rifle at lunch and assassinated JFK?
A. Oswald wouldn't take a loaded rifle to work and nobody said they saw a rifle. Possibility -10%
Q. Oswald took his rifle to work and gave it to an assassin?
A. Oswald was dumb but not stupid! Possibility 0%
I guess I could go on making up various scenarios but why bother?
All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!
JohnM
C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.
It isn't a loaded questions at all, John, and I'm surprised you see it that way.
It's a very simple question with a very simple answer - NO.
It is obviously the case that Oswald's ownership of the rifle does not prove he took the shots.
A child can see that.
The point of the question is to reveal the mentality of people like Richard.
Because Richard believes that Oswald taking the shots is a proven fact he cannot answer the question.
He just cannot bring himself to answer it.
He cannot accept, on any level, that it is a theory.
It is exactly the same extreme mentality shown by members of the Tinfoil brigade.
And as for your list of scenarios...
It shows the same lack of imagination all LNers display when pretending to think about alternative narratives.
Maybe Oswald was duped into handing his rifle over. Maybe he was ordered to hand it over. Maybe he believed he was part of something he really wanted to be part of, like an assassination attempt on John Connally, so he handed his rifle over willingly.
All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!
All the evidence, John?
The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.
Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have.
Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.
Three eyewitnesses describe the man having a fair/light complexion, opposed to Oswald's dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.
Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.
Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).
Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).
Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
None of the other women who came out to the 4th floor storage area reported seeing Oswald either.
Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.
Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting. Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.
And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?
All the evidence, John?
Hardly.
All the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
And if it's not Oswald on the 6th floor then he was framed for the shooting using his own rifle.
-
My observation was that Nutters believe Oswald was the shooter as a fact when it's only a theory.
You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker.
I understand why you've come to the conclusion that Oswald was the shooter. It's classic Nutter logic - Oswald's rifle was there, therefore he took the shots.
I really seem to have hit a nerve by pointing out that Oswald being the shooter is just a theory. At least you recognise this truth, unlike foaming-at-the-mouth Tricky Dicky.
While complaining others misrepresent your position, it seems to be your entire modus operandi. You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA. My "involvement" started as a casual interest, became more of a hobby, and now is little more than an amusing study of the psychology of the conspiracy mindset (across many other subjects besides the JfKA). Who actually killed JFK, at the level of ontology, will simply never be known, but CTers succeed mostly in muddying the water.
I have come to the conviction that Oswald was the shooter on the basis of the totality of the best evidence, most reasonable inferences, and most plausible and rational chain of logic. I am not driven by the psychological needs described in the APA study. I think you and most of your ilk have great difficulty dealing with someone who won't be sucked into your game.
It is amusing that LNers don't believe they speculate.
Maybe you could regale us with what you believe Oswald's movements were after he was seen/heard by the 6th floor workers when they broke for lunch.
Did Oswald follow them down to the first floor?
Did he head straight for the Sniper's Nest?
Was he hiding in the Sniper's Nest while Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch a few yards away?
Have you ever even thought about this?
Do you even need to think about it because you know for a fact that Oswald did it so you don't need to think about it?
PS: Try not to misrepresent what I post. It's good manners.
The basis of your statement that "LNers don't believe they speculate"? The WC Report, which I have read in its entirety, is full of acknowledged speculation. My and most peoples' conviction that OJ was guilty as hell nonetheless requires a fair amount of speculation as to precisely what happened. You live in a CT fantasy world where all LNers must fit your preconceived notions. Read the APA material and take a look in the mirror.
Sure, I have my speculation as to what Oswald was doing between 12 and 12:30. It fits nicely with the known evidence, both affirmative and negative. When I try to picture how my scenario might have looked, it makes far more sense and is far more consistent with the evidence than Oswald being in the first floor lunchroom, out on the TSBD steps, hidden in some back room awaiting instructions, or being restrained in a headlock by Shelley as per his instructions from Cason, Byrd and LBJ.
Thank you for illustrating precisely what the APA materials - and reams upon reams of similar studies - are talking about. Nooooo, none of this applies in JFKA Conspiracy World, where everyone is a rational, hardnosed researcher just trying to get at the truth. We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!
-
C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.
It isn't a loaded questions at all, John, and I'm surprised you see it that way.
It's a very simple question with a very simple answer - NO.
It is obviously the case that Oswald's ownership of the rifle does not prove he took the shots.
A child can see that.
The point of the question is to reveal the mentality of people like Richard.
Because Richard believes that Oswald taking the shots is a proven fact he cannot answer the question.
He just cannot bring himself to answer it.
He cannot accept, on any level, that it is a theory.
It is exactly the same extreme mentality shown by members of the Tinfoil brigade.
And as for your list of scenarios...
It shows the same lack of imagination all LNers display when pretending to think about alternative narratives.
Maybe Oswald was duped into handing his rifle over. Maybe he was ordered to hand it over. Maybe he believed he was part of something he really wanted to be part of, like an assassination attempt on John Connally, so he handed his rifle over willingly.
All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!
All the evidence, John?
The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.
Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have.
Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.
Three eyewitnesses describe the man having a fair/light complexion, opposed to Oswald's dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.
Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.
Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).
Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).
Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
None of the other women who came out to the 4th floor storage area reported seeing Oswald either.
Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.
Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting. Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.
And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?
All the evidence, John?
Hardly.
All the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
And if it's not Oswald on the 6th floor then he was framed for the shooting using his own rifle.
The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.
Oswald's shirt in direct sunlight did appear much lighter and especially when contrasted with the relative darkness of the background of the 6th floor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNxGc53c/49960.jpg)
Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have
Where does Euins say the "top" of Oswald's head? And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up? Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun.
Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.
Euins did.
Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.
A man with receding hair at 23 is unusual and this condition is more likely for a man in his 30's
Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.
So the shooter stayed behind?
Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).
8 seconds? 3 second window?
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).
Jack said a lot of things which were very odd.
Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
There are holes in Garners recollection, as well as Adams. I.E. Adams saw Lovelady and Shelley as she left the building but they didn't re-enter for quite a while.
Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
Oswald had enough time. Iirc the HSCA did a 56 second time, the WC studies were at a much relaxed speed.
Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.
A report with the "coke" reference that had was crossed out and I believe was not written by him?
Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting.
Oswald on the 6th floor and was directly above the 2 men and would have heard them when they arrived at the window directly below and Oswald would have had a great view and would have been keeping an eye on employees movements.
Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.
It was always Oswald.
And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?
Bonnie Ray said he sat in the isle where his coke was and never went close to the sniper's nest.
I have a theory that Williams when looking for his friends would have checked all the windows because why wouldn't he check the windows overlooking Elm? and would have seen Oswald and perhaps stayed there with Oswald and had his lunch then went down when he heard his friends arrive. In fact the stories coming from these men was a little flexible as they got their stories straight. I reckon Williams who was black wanted no part of being with Oswald in the minutes before they assassination.
In fact the WC I believe share this same theory because when this came up at Williams testimony Dulles suddenly and unexpectedly brought up if Williams had trouble with the law, why at this precise time while questioning would Dulles try this tactic?
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
All the evidence, John?
Hardly.
All the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
And if it's not Oswald on the 6th floor then he was framed for the shooting using his own rifle.
As I have just demonstrated, each and every one of your refutations is easily explained away and you haven't even confronted yourself with the actual Mountain of evidence of Oswald's guilt, why is that, Dan?
JohnM
-
Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
Again, ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating absent some explanation by its owner as to how it came to be there. Oswald could provide no such explanation. In fact, he lied about his ownership of the rifle. He had no alibi that would preclude him from being the shooter. I'm not exactly sure why you are stuck on this obvious point. Are you suggesting that there had to be a film of Oswald pulling the trigger to prove he took the shots? The evidence is not viewed in a vacuum as though it has no association to the other known evidence and circumstances and conclusions must be reached based on each individual piece of evidence. That is just CTer nonsense.
-
Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
Do you agree that having found three shells doesn’t prove there was three shots? You have yet to prove there was three shots.
-
Again, ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating absent some explanation by its owner as to how it came to be there. Oswald could provide no such explanation. In fact, he lied about his ownership of the rifle. He had no alibi that would preclude him from being the shooter. I'm not exactly sure why you are stuck on this obvious point. Are you suggesting that there had to be a film of Oswald pulling the trigger to prove he took the shots? The evidence is not viewed in a vacuum as though it has no association to the other known evidence and circumstances and conclusions must be reached based on each individual piece of evidence. That is just CTer nonsense.
Dan
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
Richard
ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating absent some explanation by its owner as to how it came to be there.
Question
Since when is "highly incriminating" the same as "prove he actually took the shots"?
It's always funny to watch when "Richard Smith" is desperately looking for a way out!
-
Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.
"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"
Do you agree that having found three shells doesn’t prove there was three shots? You have yet to prove there was three shots.
Yes, I totally agree that finding three shells doesn't prove there was three shots.
Neither does the fact that over 160 witnesses described hearing three shots.
Part of the theory I subscribe to is that there was 3 shots fired from the Sniper's Nest. As you are suggesting, this isn't a fact and in the past you have made an excellent argument for only two shots being fired. It is not something I can totally discount.
The only mystery is where you got the two-shot argument from because I find it hard to believe you came up with it yourself.
-
Again, ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating absent some explanation by its owner as to how it came to be there. Oswald could provide no such explanation. In fact, he lied about his ownership of the rifle. He had no alibi that would preclude him from being the shooter. I'm not exactly sure why you are stuck on this obvious point. Are you suggesting that there had to be a film of Oswald pulling the trigger to prove he took the shots? The evidence is not viewed in a vacuum as though it has no association to the other known evidence and circumstances and conclusions must be reached based on each individual piece of evidence. That is just CTer nonsense.
;D You just can't bring yourself to answer it, can you.
Don't worry, I've made my point about it.
"He had no alibi that would preclude him from being the shooter. I'm not exactly sure why you are stuck on this obvious point"
The main thing that has me stuck is Oswald's reported mention of seeing two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman while he was in the domino room.
We know from the testimonies of Norman and Jarman that a) this was possible, and b) this could only have happened about 5 minutes before the shooting.
Oswald could not have somehow guessed that Jarman and Norman entered the TSBD building through the rear door. He could not have guessed that they would be visible from the domino room.
I have no doubt you have a perfectly straightforward piece of nonsense that can explain this mystery.
"The evidence is not viewed in a vacuum as though it has no association to the other known evidence and circumstances and conclusions must be reached based on each individual piece of evidence."
I agree.
You have reached your conclusion based on the evidence as you see it.
Your conclusion is not a fact. It may be based on certain facts, the ones you find relevant, but your conclusion is not a fact.
It is an interpretation.
It is your interpretation of the evidence you think is relevant.
It is an interpretation that says as much about you as it does about the case.
That's all.
-
Oswald's shirt in direct sunlight did appear much lighter and especially when contrasted with the relative darkness of the background of the 6th floor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNxGc53c/49960.jpg)
::) OMG. I cannot believe you're wheeling out this old Bill Chapman chestnut.
I don't know about you John, but when I'm walking about in full daylight the colours aren't all washed out and white.
In fact, quite the opposite happens, colours become vivid, different hues and shades of colour become easier to distinguish,
If someone is wearing a brown shirt it doesn't become white when the sun shines on it and to suggest it does is Tinfoil.
When daylight shines on a colour it becomes the fullest version of that colour it can be.
Yes, it becomes washed out in a badly contrasted photograph like the one you've posted, but to suggest that this is what reality is like in daylight is...not too clever, shall we say.
And I think you can put away your suggestion that this point has been easily "refuted".
Far from it, you've just made yourself look a bit silly is all.
Four eyewitnesses describing a white/off white coloured shirt. Open at the collar. Not worn by Oswald.
Where does Euins say the "top" of Oswald's head? And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up? Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun.
Euins doesn't say "top".
It is something I've inferred from three things:
1] Euins constantly refers to a "bald spot". A bald spot is usually found somewhere on top of the head.
2] Euins constantly refers to the bald spot on the man's head. This supports point #1
3] When Specter asks Euins to describe where the bald spot is Euins points to a spot "about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is." Specter's use of the phrase "above where your hairline is" can only realistically be interpreted as meaning on top of the man's head.
I doubt even you can twist this phrase to mean a receding hairline although I'm sure you'll have a good go.
"And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up?"
If he saw the man standing up it would have been impossible to see a bald spot on top of the man's head but he would have easily seen a receding hairline. The fact that Euins describes that the man had to make a specific maneuver before he could see the bald spot confirms he is not talking about a receding hairline:
Mr. Euins.
All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.
He saw the bald spot BECAUSE the man moved his head in a certain way.
What's interesting about this is that the bald spot only becomes visible when the man looks down the rifle. From Euins point of view this would mean the man had to lean his head to the left before the bald spot became visible. This indicates that the man was shooting the rifle left-handed. Once again pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.
"Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun."
Yeah John, what you've done here is decide what Euins meant.
If any CTer tried the same thing you and the boys would be up in arms.
You have literally based this view on your own belief rather than let the evidence inform that belief.
And if you think you have "easily explained" Euins away then you need to wake up as you are clearly dreaming.
Euins did.
No, John, Euins did not refer to a receding hairline.
He never said anything of the sort. At any time.
He was referring to a bald spot on top of the man's head that became visible to him when the man tilted his head to the left in order to look down the rifle.
On the flip side, Ronald Fischer and Bob Edwards clearly saw the man's hair and neither man mentioned one of Oswald's most distinguishing features, his receding hairline.
And Arnold Rowland went one step further and explicitly expressed that he didn't think the man had a receding hairline.
It's funny to think that by writing "Euins did" you think you've "easily explained" away another piece of evidence clearly pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.
A man with receding hair at 23 is unusual and this condition is more likely for a man in his 30's
Hmmm...you've kinda missed the point here buddy.
If Brennan saw Oswald and his receding hairline at the line-up why would he suddenly look younger.
Are you saying his receding hairline made him look older when he was in the Sniper's Nest but younger in the police station?
According to you Brennan is supposed to be describing the same man,
But that doesn't seem to be the case. Yet again.
Easily explained away?
I don't think so.
So the shooter stayed behind?
8 seconds? 3 second window?
According to the time trials carried out at the behest of the Warren Commission to demonstrate that Oswald could have made it down to the 2nd floor lunchroom before Baker got there, Oswald could indeed make make it with 3 seconds to spare. Close but doable. However, in order to achieve this time the assassin, played by Agent Howlett, had to begin his descent immediately after the last shot was fired.
Brennan's description of the shooter standing by the window admiring his handiwork puts him outside this 3 second window.
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
From Eyewitness To History:
"My first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor... By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do."
Jack said a lot of things which were very odd.
There's no arguing with that.
There are holes in Garners recollection, as well as Adams. I.E. Adams saw Lovelady and Shelley as she left the building but they didn't re-enter for quite a while.
The Stroud document begs to differ regarding Garner's recollection and it was Shelley and his sidekick Lovelady who had the holes in their recollections, not Adams.
Oswald had enough time. Iirc the HSCA did a 56 second time, the WC studies were at a much relaxed speed.
Adams and Styles were in motion before the limo had reached the underpass. Tom Dillard's picture, taken seconds after the last shot shows an empty window where they should be. Oswald did not have enough time to get down to the 4th floor before Garner was in position, a couple of minutes later Truly and Baker came up the stairs after their encounter with Oswald on the 2nd floor but there had been no sign of Oswald clomping across the 4th floor on his way downstairs in between.
A report with the "coke" reference that had was crossed out and I believe was not written by him?
This 'report', which was more like a basic statement, was written up and signed by Baker and it referred to the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke when Baker saw him. The reference to "drinking a coke" was indeed crossed out but by Baker who had to initial his crossing out.
This is confirmed by Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in.
Even you must admit that there wasn't enough time for Oswald to be admiring his handiwork from the Sniper's Nest window then purchasing a coke before Baker entered the lunchroom.
Oswald on the 6th floor and was directly above the 2 men and would have heard them when they arrived at the window directly below and Oswald would have had a great view and would have been keeping an eye on employees movements.
:D :D :D
Not even worth a reply.
It was always Oswald.
What an amazing explanation for something that completely refutes the Warren Commission's own narrative.
You've really "easily explained" that away.
Bonnie Ray said he sat in the isle where his coke was and never went close to the sniper's nest.
I have a theory that Williams when looking for his friends would have checked all the windows because why wouldn't he check the windows overlooking Elm? and would have seen Oswald and perhaps stayed there with Oswald and had his lunch then went down when he heard his friends arrive. In fact the stories coming from these men was a little flexible as they got their stories straight. I reckon Williams who was black wanted no part of being with Oswald in the minutes before they assassination.
In fact the WC I believe share this same theory because when this came up at Williams testimony Dulles suddenly and unexpectedly brought up if Williams had trouble with the law, why at this precise time while questioning would Dulles try this tactic?
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
This sort of thinking sets you apart.
It would be something I would like to discuss more but this post is already too long.
As I have just demonstrated, each and every one of your refutations is easily explained away and you haven't even confronted yourself with the actual Mountain of evidence of Oswald's guilt, why is that, Dan?
JohnM
You've not explained away a single point.
In fact you've dug an even bigger hole for yourself.
Your explanation for how Oswald saw Norman and Jarman after they had just entered the TSBD building is hilarious and not worth getting into.
Other than that, you've not really done yourself many favours.
As for Oswald's guilt, at no point have I ever doubted Oswald's guilt. He was guilty as hell.
He just didn't take the shots and every single piece of credible evidence available regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
-
;D You just can't bring yourself to answer it, can you.
Don't worry, I've made my point about it.
"He had no alibi that would preclude him from being the shooter. I'm not exactly sure why you are stuck on this obvious point"
The main thing that has me stuck is Oswald's reported mention of seeing two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman while he was in the domino room.
We know from the testimonies of Norman and Jarman that a) this was possible, and b) this could only have happened about 5 minutes before the shooting.
Oswald could not have somehow guessed that Jarman and Norman entered the TSBD building through the rear door. He could not have guessed that they would be visible from the domino room.
I have no doubt you have a perfectly straightforward piece of nonsense that can explain this mystery.
"The evidence is not viewed in a vacuum as though it has no association to the other known evidence and circumstances and conclusions must be reached based on each individual piece of evidence."
I agree.
You have reached your conclusion based on the evidence as you see it.
Your conclusion is not a fact. It may be based on certain facts, the ones you find relevant, but your conclusion is not a fact.
It is an interpretation.
It is your interpretation of the evidence you think is relevant.
It is an interpretation that says as much about you as it does about the case.
That's all.
We know from the testimonies of Norman and Jarman that a) this was possible, and b) this could only have happened about 5 minutes before the shooting.
Oswald could not have somehow guessed that Jarman and Norman entered the TSBD building through the rear door. He could not have guessed that they would be visible from the domino room.
Oswald said that Norman and Jarman walked "through" the lunch room, so clearly after heard Oswald heard the two men appear directly below his sniper's nest, Oswald made made a guess, an incorrect guess.
Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."
Also Oswald told Fritz;
Mr. BALL. He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President was shot.
Mr. BALL. With whom?
Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
But Junior(Jarman) told the WC that he didn't!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtbbcMQG/Jarman-had-lunch-without-Oswald.jpg)
Oswald tried to cover his tracks by lying and guessing.
JohnM
-
Your explanation for how Oswald saw Norman and Jarman after they had just entered the TSBD building is hilarious and not worth getting into.
Other than that, you've not really done yourself many favours.
Of course you have no answers! :D
Oswald said that Norman and Jarman walked "through" the lunch room, so clearly after heard Oswald heard the two men appear directly below his sniper's nest, Oswald made made a guess, an incorrect guess.
Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."
JohnM
-
Oswald said that Norman and Jarman walked "through" the lunch room, so clearly after heard Oswald heard the two men appear directly below his sniper's nest, Oswald made made a guess, an incorrect guess.
Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."
Also Oswald told Fritz;
Mr. BALL. He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President was shot.
Mr. BALL. With whom?
Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
But Junior(Jarman) told the WC that he didn't!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtbbcMQG/Jarman-had-lunch-without-Oswald.jpg)
Oswald tried to cover his tracks by lying and guessing.
JohnM
You haven't got a clue what Oswald actually said. The reports of the interrogators about what he said contradict eachother. Even the accounts of Brookhout and Fritz differ.
Bookhout has him seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.
The only one making a guess is you!
There is no way anybody at the 6th floor window could have seen or heard anybody standing or walking directly underneath them. And never mind that it's impossible that Oswald could have looked through a closed window and somehow see Norman and Jarman walking on the sidewalk towards the back of the building or even enter the building itself.
But hey, anything to come up with some sort of "explanation" about how Oswald could have guessed that Norman and Jarman were there a couple of minutes prior to the shots, as both actually confirmed they were.
-
This 'report', which was more like a basic statement, was written up and signed by Baker and it referred to the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke when Baker saw him. The reference to "drinking a coke" was indeed crossed out but by Baker who had to initial his crossing out.
This is confirmed by Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in.
Even you must admit that there wasn't enough time for Oswald to be admiring his handiwork from the Sniper's Nest window then purchasing a coke before Baker entered the lunchroom.
Two men were there and both testified that Oswald was NOT holding a coke, and Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line.
Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did any words pass between you?
Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Were you carrying anything in either of your hands?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. BELIN - What were you carrying?
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jS4MYWYG/Baker-affidavit-coke-crossed-out2.jpg)
And again thanks to DVP's site, here's Roy Truly's affidavit which also displays a signature in a different style yet the bulk of the writing is very much the same as Baker's affidavit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqbRNQrK/Roy-S-Truly-FBI-Statement-September-23-1964-Page-2.png)
JohnM
-
You haven't got a clue what Oswald actually said. The reports of the interrogators about what he said contradict eachother. Even the accounts of Brookhout and Fritz differ.
Bookhout has him seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.
The only one making a guess is you!
There is no way anybody on the 6th floor window could have seen or heard anybody standing or walking directly under them. And never mind that Oswald could have looked through a closed window and somehow see Norman and Jarman walking on the sidewalk towards the back of the building or enter the building itself. But hey, anything to come up with some sort of "explanation" how Oswald could have guessed that Norman and Jarman were there a couple of minutes prior to the shots, as both actually confirmed they were.
Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative?? :D ;D :D ;D
It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!
Bookhout has him seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.
Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"
Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!
JohnM
-
Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative?? :D ;D :D ;D
It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!
Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"
Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!
JohnM
Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative?? :D ;D :D ;D
It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!
What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.
But I'll play along;
Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.
Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?
Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"
Hilarious. So, just because you say what Oswald would have said, and he didn't, means that it didn't happen? Just how pathetic can you get?
Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.
Are you not familiar with the lay out of the 1st floor or are you just being dishonest again, as per usual?
Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!
Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?
-
Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative?? :D ;D :D ;D
It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!
What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.
But I'll play along;
Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.
Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?
Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"
Hilarious. So, just because you say what Oswald would have said, and he didn't, means that it didn't happen? Just how pathetic can you get?
Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.
Are you not familiar with the lay out of the 1st floor or are you just being dishonest again, as per usual?
Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!
Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?
Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.
Think hard, in which direction would they be going when they walked across Oswald's line of sight?
Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?
Are you serious, there are closed rooms facing Houston street and the rest is open warehouse space, nobody would refer to this area which encapsulates virtually the entire first floor area as a room. In fact not one employee refers to this open floor space as a room and no employee refers to any open warehouse space on any floor as a room! Oswald was clearly referring to the room he was in. Your desperation in trying to fit Oswald's words into your narrative is truly bizarre.
Truly doesn't say he went to the north west corner of the room. LOL! "And I ran diagonally across to the northwest corner of the building."
Jarman doesn't say he was walking around the room but around the first floor.
Mr. BALL. You say you ate the rest of it when?
Mr. JARMAN. Walking around on the first floor there.
The experts who created the first floor plan don't refer to the large area as an "Open Storage Room" which is simply absurd but as "Open Storage Space"
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58031/58031-h/images/i_p148.jpg)
JohnM
-
Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative?? :D ;D :D ;D
It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!
What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.
But I'll play along;
Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.
Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?
Answer my question! Or are you simply afraid it makes you look stupid?
Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.
Think hard, in which direction would they be going when they walked across Oswald's line of sight?
Stupid question. All you need to do is look at the first floor plan you've just posted and you've got your answer.
The plan clearly shows that the line of sight, through the door opening of the lunchroom, shows the area next to the elevators.
Norman and Jarman entered through the back door, which can't be seen from the lunchroom and walked to the west elevator, which is when they came in the clear line of sight from the lunchroom.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you went in the building?
Mr. NORMAN. We got the east elevator. No; the west.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. The west elevator. And went to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator is the one you use the push button on?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; the one you pull the gate.
Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?
Are you serious, there are closed rooms facing Houston street and the rest is open warehouse space, nobody would refer to this area which encapsulates the entire floor area as a room.
I don't care how anybody would refer to it. Again, if it isn't a room, what is it?
Oswald was clearly referring to the room he was in.
Says who?
But to follow your "reasoning"; if Oswald referred to the room he was in, then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor, right?
-
Answer my question! Or are you simply afraid it makes you look stupid?
Stupid question. All you need to do is look at the first floor plan you've just posted and you've got your answer.
The plan clearly shows that the line of sight, through the door opening of the lunchroom, shows the area next to the elevators.
Norman and Jarman entered through the back door, which can't be seen from the lunchroom and walked to the west elevator, which is when they came in the clear line of sight from the lunchroom.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you went in the building?
Mr. NORMAN. We got the east elevator. No; the west.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. The west elevator. And went to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator is the one you use the push button on?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; the one you pull the gate.
I don't care how anybody would refer to it. Again, if it isn't a room, what is it?
Says who?
But to follow your "reasoning"; if Oswald referred to the room he was in, then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor, right?
I don't care how anybody would refer to it.
Isn't that the point, if no one refers to the first floor open space as a room, then why would Oswald?
Again, if it isn't a room, what is it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGVRpX1Y/A-warehouse-is-not-a-room.jpg)
JohnM
-
Euins doesn't say "top".
It is something I've inferred from three things:
1] Euins constantly refers to a "bald spot". A bald spot is usually found somewhere on top of the head.
2] Euins constantly refers to the bald spot on the man's head. This supports point #1
3] When Specter asks Euins to describe where the bald spot is Euins points to a spot "about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is." Specter's use of the phrase "above where your hairline is" can only realistically be interpreted as meaning on top of the man's head.
I doubt even you can twist this phrase to mean a receding hairline although I'm sure you'll have a good go.
"And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up?"
If he saw the man standing up it would have been impossible to see a bald spot on top of the man's head but he would have easily seen a receding hairline. The fact that Euins describes that the man had to make a specific maneuver before he could see the bald spot confirms he is not talking about a receding hairline:
Mr. Euins.
All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.
He saw the bald spot BECAUSE the man moved his head in a certain way.
What's interesting about this is that the bald spot only becomes visible when the man looks down the rifle. From Euins point of view this would mean the man had to lean his head to the left before the bald spot became visible. This indicates that the man was shooting the rifle left-handed. Once again pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.
"Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun."
Yeah John, what you've done here is decide what Euins meant.
If any CTer tried the same thing you and the boys would be up in arms.
You have literally based this view on your own belief rather than let the evidence inform that belief.
And if you think you have "easily explained" Euins away then you need to wake up as you are clearly dreaming.
Euins doesn't say "top".
It is something I've inferred...
What's interesting about this is that the bald spot only becomes visible when the man looks down the rifle. From Euins point of view this would mean the man had to lean his head to the left before the bald spot became visible. This indicates that the man was shooting the rifle left-handed. Once again pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.
In the following CBStv recreation which had the same height and distances, the shooter is practically in the same position as Oswald and the lean to the left that you speak of wasn't required. So considering that Euins was 6 floors down, just how big would the bald spot be required to be seen because to be seen from Euins position it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!
(https://i.postimg.cc/fT2wzTcr/Carcano-aim-down-elm-street-CBS-1967.jpg)
And I'm no rifle expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but because the scope was mounted on the left and away from the bolt, wouldn't aiming through the scope mean that the rifle had to be on the right side of your face? But I guess he could have used the iron sight for all three shots??
(https://gunsamerica.com/digest/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZYwxYxK/Carcano-aim-down-elm-street.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/63gHn3kQ/Carcano-aim-down-elm-street3.jpg)
JohnM
-
Oswald said that Norman and Jarman walked "through" the lunch room, so clearly after heard Oswald heard the two men appear directly below his sniper's nest, Oswald made made a guess, an incorrect guess.
Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."
Also Oswald told Fritz;
Mr. BALL. He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President was shot.
Mr. BALL. With whom?
Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
But Junior(Jarman) told the WC that he didn't!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtbbcMQG/Jarman-had-lunch-without-Oswald.jpg)
Oswald tried to cover his tracks by lying and guessing.
JohnM
"Oswald said that Norman and Jarman walked "through" the lunch room..."
Just to be accurate, Bookhout said that Oswald said they walked "through" the lunchroom.
Fritz's notes just said they "came in".
Kelley said they all had lunch together.
Oswald's interrogators recall that when he was having his lunch in the domino room he saw Jarman and Norman. That's all we need to know because the testimonies of Jarman and Norman tell us exactly what happened.
Approximately 5 minutes before the assassination occurred, Jarman and Norman entered the Houston Street loading dock door and it was at this time, and at this time only, that Oswald could have seen them from the domino room.
This places Oswald on the first floor about 5 minutes before the shooting.
Rather than deny Oswald ever mentioned it or just disappear when a topic like this comes up (as true Nutters tend to do), you have tried to deal with this thorny issue for the LNer scenario. I don't accept your explanation as I find it very weak and I'll explain why.
You have Oswald basically hanging out of the SN window making himself as obvious to the world as possible only minutes before the motorcade enters Dealey Plaza. I'm not sure why he would purposely do that.
You have his attention focused on the street directly below at the hundreds of people milling about and, for some inexplicable reason, he makes a special note of Norman and Jarman walking around the side of the building. I'm not sure why he would be so preoccupied with the people in the street when he has Bonnie Ray Williams to deal with, not to mention the little matter of an assassination.
He hears movement below and somehow knows it's Norman and Jarman, maybe they've got loud voices, and when he is being questioned he sees the opportunity to place himself elsewhere in the building - when he saw Norman and Jarman walk around the side of the building they must have been heading for the back door and if they entered through there he could say he was sat in the domino room and saw them, this would put him on the first floor minutes before the shooting. Sneaky Oswald.
As weak as this proposed scenario already is, there is a factor that further undermines it.
When Norman and Jarman enter the loading dock door their intention is to take an elevator to the 5th floor, however, when they get in the building they notice the east elevator isn't down on the 1st floor. This forces them to walk around the elevator shaft to take the west elevator and it is this movement that makes them visible to someone in the domino room. If the east elevator was available and they took that it would be impossible for someone in the domino room to see them. It is the movement around the elevator shaft that makes this possible.
The diagram below represents this situation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDRV5hpr/tsbd-first-floorjarman.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Now, you have Oswald making truly miraculous guesses about the movements of Norman and Jarman. Tucked away in the southeast corner of the 6th floor he has to correctly guess the positions of the elevators in the northwest corner and then remember to incorporate it into to his already elaborate guess??
Obviously you are free to believe whatever you want but as a rational person I find your elaborate 'guessing' hypothesis to be incredibly far-fetched.
It seems far more reasonable to assume that Oswald was in the domino room where he said he was and that he actually saw Norman and Jarman as they made their way around the elevator shaft to the west elevator. This was five minutes before the assassination and ten minutes after Rowland had already observed the man on the 6th floor with the rifle.
I have a feeling we will agree to disagree on this.
-
In the following CBStv recreation which had the same height and distances, the shooter is practically in the same position as Oswald and the lean to the left that you speak of wasn't required. So considering that Euins was 6 floors down, just how big would the bald spot be required to be seen because to be seen from Euins position it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!
(https://i.postimg.cc/fT2wzTcr/Carcano-aim-down-elm-street-CBS-1967.jpg)
And I'm no rifle expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but because the scope was mounted on the left and away from the bolt, wouldn't aiming through the scope mean that the rifle had to be on the right side of your face? But I guess he could have used the iron sight for all three shots??
(https://gunsamerica.com/digest/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZYwxYxK/Carcano-aim-down-elm-street.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/63gHn3kQ/Carcano-aim-down-elm-street3.jpg)
JohnM
"...it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!"
;D maybe he just had the thinnest ring of hair around the bottom of his head or some kind of monk thing going on.
All I can say is 'ask Euins'.
Some people really do tilt their heads when they are taking a shot with a rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZytHnKC/Screenshot-306-headtilt.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Basically, Euins said he could only see the bald spot when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle (I'm paraphrasing)
If he was telling the truth this would mean the shooter was tilting his head to the left. This makes him a left-handed shooter.
You can put words in Euins' mouth or say he's talking Spotty Avocada or that he's lying for some reason. That's your choice.
But it does seem consistent with what he's saying about a bald spot and what he's not saying about a receding hairline. That's how I look at it. I'm just taking his testimony at face value.
-
Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative?? :D ;D :D ;D
It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!
What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.
But I'll play along;
Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.
Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?
Answer my question! Or are you simply afraid it makes you look stupid?
And there we have it, folks. The coward Mytton, who claims to be a man of integrity can't bring himself to honestly answer a simple question about a blatant contradiction between the reports of two of Oswald's interrogators.
Instead he ignores the question and runs as fast as he can.
One can only wonder why..... :D
And here's another one where he goes down in flames;
Oswald was clearly referring to the room he was in.
Says who?
But to follow your "reasoning"; if Oswald referred to the room he was in, then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor, right?
Isn't that the point, if no one refers to the first floor open space as a room, then why would Oswald?
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGVRpX1Y/A-warehouse-is-not-a-room.jpg)
JohnM
Isn't this just hilarious? Mytton can't say what it is, when it isn't a room, and posts some vague jpg he found on the internet.
But if he had read it carefully, even the text of that jpg doesn't support his position, as it speaks about a warehouse not typically being classified as a "room". And, Mytton calling the 1st floor a warehouse, doesn't automatically make it one. Most like, the term warehouse was the only one he got a search result on Google on which he thought he could use.
Too bad that the first floor of the TSBD wasn't a warehouse as it was part of a larger building and housed offices, a lunchroom and the shipping department. It obviously had some boxes in it, otherwise the books could couldn't be packaged, but nothing like the actual storage area on the 4th, 5th and 6th floor.
And it even gets better still, because the jpg text also defines a room as being an enclosed space within a building with walls, a floor and a ceiling and, guess what, the 1st floor of the TSBD has exactly that! I would add, that a room also has at least one door and, go figure, there is a multitude of doors on the first floor as well.
It just goes to show how desperate Mytton must be!
The "honest" man with "integrity" has once again shown he is anything but.
-
"...it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!"
;D maybe he just had the thinnest ring of hair around the bottom of his head or some kind of monk thing going on.
All I can say is 'ask Euins'.
Some people really do tilt their heads when they are taking a shot with a rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZytHnKC/Screenshot-306-headtilt.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Basically, Euins said he could only see the bald spot when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle (I'm paraphrasing)
If he was telling the truth this would mean the shooter was tilting his head to the left. This makes him a left-handed shooter.
You can put words in Euins' mouth or say he's talking Spotty Avocada or that he's lying for some reason. That's your choice.
But it does seem consistent with what he's saying about a bald spot and what he's not saying about a receding hairline. That's how I look at it. I'm just taking his testimony at face value.
Thanks Dan, but the man in your photo would be leaning away from Euins.
If he was telling the truth this would mean the shooter was tilting his head to the left. This makes him a left-handed shooter.
To use the scoped Carcano, you have to shoot it right handed and if Oswald wasn't planning to use the scope, he would have left it behind when he dismantled the rifle to fit his 36 inch rifle sack.
JohnM
-
"Oswald said that Norman and Jarman walked "through" the lunch room..."
Just to be accurate, Bookhout said that Oswald said they walked "through" the lunchroom.
Fritz's notes just said they "came in".
Kelley said they all had lunch together.
Oswald's interrogators recall that when he was having his lunch in the domino room he saw Jarman and Norman. That's all we need to know because the testimonies of Jarman and Norman tell us exactly what happened.
Approximately 5 minutes before the assassination occurred, Jarman and Norman entered the Houston Street loading dock door and it was at this time, and at this time only, that Oswald could have seen them from the domino room.
This places Oswald on the first floor about 5 minutes before the shooting.
Rather than deny Oswald ever mentioned it or just disappear when a topic like this comes up (as true Nutters tend to do), you have tried to deal with this thorny issue for the LNer scenario. I don't accept your explanation as I find it very weak and I'll explain why.
You have Oswald basically hanging out of the SN window making himself as obvious to the world as possible only minutes before the motorcade enters Dealey Plaza. I'm not sure why he would purposely do that.
You have his attention focused on the street directly below at the hundreds of people milling about and, for some inexplicable reason, he makes a special note of Norman and Jarman walking around the side of the building. I'm not sure why he would be so preoccupied with the people in the street when he has Bonnie Ray Williams to deal with, not to mention the little matter of an assassination.
He hears movement below and somehow knows it's Norman and Jarman, maybe they've got loud voices, and when he is being questioned he sees the opportunity to place himself elsewhere in the building - when he saw Norman and Jarman walk around the side of the building they must have been heading for the back door and if they entered through there he could say he was sat in the domino room and saw them, this would put him on the first floor minutes before the shooting. Sneaky Oswald.
As weak as this proposed scenario already is, there is a factor that further undermines it.
When Norman and Jarman enter the loading dock door their intention is to take an elevator to the 5th floor, however, when they get in the building they notice the east elevator isn't down on the 1st floor. This forces them to walk around the elevator shaft to take the west elevator and it is this movement that makes them visible to someone in the domino room. If the east elevator was available and they took that it would be impossible for someone in the domino room to see them. It is the movement around the elevator shaft that makes this possible.
The diagram below represents this situation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDRV5hpr/tsbd-first-floorjarman.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Now, you have Oswald making truly miraculous guesses about the movements of Norman and Jarman. Tucked away in the southeast corner of the 6th floor he has to correctly guess the positions of the elevators in the northwest corner and then remember to incorporate it into to his already elaborate guess??
Obviously you are free to believe whatever you want but as a rational person I find your elaborate 'guessing' hypothesis to be incredibly far-fetched.
It seems far more reasonable to assume that Oswald was in the domino room where he said he was and that he actually saw Norman and Jarman as they made their way around the elevator shaft to the west elevator. This was five minutes before the assassination and ten minutes after Rowland had already observed the man on the 6th floor with the rifle.
I have a feeling we will agree to disagree on this.
You have his attention focused on the street directly below at the hundreds of people milling about and, for some inexplicable reason, he makes a special note of Norman and Jarman walking around the side of the building. I'm not sure why he would be so preoccupied with the people in the street when he has Bonnie Ray Williams to deal with, not to mention the little matter of an assassination.
Williams said that "everybody" was talking about going to the sixth floor, so antisocial Oswald who I doubt was part of "everybody" but was probably aware and keeping an eye on who was where would have been a priority.
Mr. BALL. You say you went back upstairs. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went back up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Why did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
Brennan said that Oswald sat sideways on the window sill, obviously to check out what was happening in the crowd below.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
I can't find any reference to any employee saying that the main floor area was a "room", the first floor plan refers to this area as "Open Storage Space" and the definition of a room is and always will be an enclosed area within a building. This is about as silly as Oswald on TV agreeing that he was inside at the time but CT's claim that outside on the steps was technically inside.
If Oswald did indeed see the two men walk to the elevator and use the elevator then surely he would have said so, because even Oswald would know that the more information he gives makes a better alibi, but simply saying "possibly two negro employees walked through the room" can only mean he guessed since he didn't know if they used the stairs and Oswald based his guess on the limited info he had.
Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."
JohnM
-
The fact that Oswald owned the rifle? Irrelevant.
The fact that a 15-year-old kid who couldn't tell whether the gunman was white or black, tall or short, fat or thin, nevertheless thought he had a "white spot" some 2-1/2" into his hair line? Absolute LN theory-killer. PROOF, I tell you, that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room, placidly eating a 28" peanut-butter-and-baloney sandwich.
And on it goes.
-
You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker.
While complaining others misrepresent your position, it seems to be your entire modus operandi. You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA. My "involvement" started as a casual interest, became more of a hobby, and now is little more than an amusing study of the psychology of the conspiracy mindset (across many other subjects besides the JfKA). Who actually killed JFK, at the level of ontology, will simply never be known, but CTers succeed mostly in muddying the water.
I have come to the conviction that Oswald was the shooter on the basis of the totality of the best evidence, most reasonable inferences, and most plausible and rational chain of logic. I am not driven by the psychological needs described in the APA study. I think you and most of your ilk have great difficulty dealing with someone who won't be sucked into your game.
The basis of your statement that "LNers don't believe they speculate"? The WC Report, which I have read in its entirety, is full of acknowledged speculation. My and most peoples' conviction that OJ was guilty as hell nonetheless requires a fair amount of speculation as to precisely what happened. You live in a CT fantasy world where all LNers must fit your preconceived notions. Read the APA material and take a look in the mirror.
Sure, I have my speculation as to what Oswald was doing between 12 and 12:30. It fits nicely with the known evidence, both affirmative and negative. When I try to picture how my scenario might have looked, it makes far more sense and is far more consistent with the evidence than Oswald being in the first floor lunchroom, out on the TSBD steps, hidden in some back room awaiting instructions, or being restrained in a headlock by Shelley as per his instructions from Cason, Byrd and LBJ.
Thank you for illustrating precisely what the APA materials - and reams upon reams of similar studies - are talking about. Nooooo, none of this applies in JFKA Conspiracy World, where everyone is a rational, hardnosed researcher just trying to get at the truth. We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!
You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA
Listen Lance, I've tried to be as civil with you as I can but you're starting to lose it and I need to nip it in the bud.
You believe you're somehow hidden but your rabid Nutter credentials are starting to show.
As for you having "no emotional involvement", your interactions with me are starting to get slightly hysterical, bordering on unhinged:
"You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker."
"We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!"
"The fact that a 15-year-old kid who couldn't tell whether the gunman was white or black, tall or short, fat or thin, nevertheless thought he had a "white spot" some 2-1/2" into his hair line? Absolute LN theory-killer. PROOF, I tell you, that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room, placidly eating a 28" peanut-butter-and-baloney sandwich."
You seem to imagine you're a free thinker but you're just a "type". I've dealt with the likes of you plenty of times. You come and go.
If you can't be civil don't bother engaging and get your Spotty Avocada together, you sound hysterical.
And don't disappear when the going gets a bit tricky, take a leaf out of John Mytton's book and stand by your theory.
And stop misrepresenting what I post, it really is a loser's strategy:
"The fact that Oswald owned the rifle? Irrelevant."
Nowhere have I said it was irrelevant, it was key to framing him.
If you want a psychology to study try that of the rabid Nutter, you have all the relevant material to hand.
-
You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA
Listen Lance, I've tried to be as civil with you as I can but you're starting to lose it and I need to nip it in the bud.
You believe you're somehow hidden but your rabid Nutter credentials are starting to show.
As for you having "no emotional involvement", your interactions with me are starting to get slightly hysterical, bordering on unhinged:
"You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker."
"We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!"
"The fact that a 15-year-old kid who couldn't tell whether the gunman was white or black, tall or short, fat or thin, nevertheless thought he had a "white spot" some 2-1/2" into his hair line? Absolute LN theory-killer. PROOF, I tell you, that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room, placidly eating a 28" peanut-butter-and-baloney sandwich."
You seem to imagine you're a free thinker but you're just a "type". I've dealt with the likes of you plenty of times. You come and go.
If you can't be civil don't bother engaging and get your Spotty Avocada together, you sound hysterical.
And don't disappear when the going gets a bit tricky, take a leaf out of John Mytton's book and stand by your theory.
And stop misrepresenting what I post, it really is a loser's strategy:
"The fact that Oswald owned the rifle? Irrelevant."
Nowhere have I said it was irrelevant, it was key to framing him.
If you want a psychology to study try that of the rabid Nutter, you have all the relevant material to hand.
I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged." I will leave it to others to assess who appears to fit the American Psychological Association profile of the conspiracy-prone mindset to a T. Not all who accept a JFKA conspiracy theory epitomize the APA profile, of course, but you most emphatically do.
I have no "theory" to "stand by." At this point in life, I am content to amuse myself and watch characters like you underscore my points for me. I don't care about your silly theories. What I find humorous in you and way too many CTers is the bizarre epistemology - the completely topsy-turvy, ass-backwards, upside-down approach to evidence and logic. It's fascinating.
My "rabid Nutter credentials"? Why, thank you. I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct, dull and disappointing as that may be even to me. I think by "your rabid Nutter credentials" what you actually mean is something along the lines of "your irritating propensity to point out that I and my fellow CTers can't think straight, can't articulate a plausible CT narrative, and are more or less making fools of ourselves." Your hysteria, I believe, arises mostly from my refusal to take your nonsense as seriously as you feel it should be taken.
Folks like John are welcome to debate you if they like and find it a worthwhile use of their time. I find it more efficient to genially point out that you make no sense.
-
I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged." I will leave it to others to assess who appears to fit the American Psychological Association profile of the conspiracy-prone mindset to a T. Not all who accept a JFKA conspiracy theory epitomize the APA profile, of course, but you most emphatically do.
I have no "theory" to "stand by." At this point in life, I am content to amuse myself and watch characters like you underscore my points for me. I don't care about your silly theories. What I find humorous in you and way too many CTers is the bizarre epistemology - the completely topsy-turvy, ass-backwards, upside-down approach to evidence and logic. It's fascinating.
My "rabid Nutter credentials"? Why, thank you. I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct, dull and disappointing as that may be even to me. I think by "your rabid Nutter credentials" what you actually mean is something along the lines of "your irritating propensity to point out that I and my fellow CTers can't think straight, can't articulate a plausible CT narrative, and are more or less making fools of ourselves." Your hysteria, I believe, arises mostly from my refusal to take your nonsense as seriously as you feel it should be taken.
Folks like John are welcome to debate you if they like and find it a worthwhile use of their time. I find it more efficient to genially point out that you make no sense.
I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged."
I wouldn't do that if I were you ;D
I have no "theory" to "stand by."
"I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct,"
D'oh!
-
Two men were there and both testified that Oswald was NOT holding a coke, and Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line.
Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did any words pass between you?
Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Were you carrying anything in either of your hands?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. BELIN - What were you carrying?
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jS4MYWYG/Baker-affidavit-coke-crossed-out2.jpg)
Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line
We can leave Truly out of it for now as he wasn't there when Baker first entered the room.
So let me see if I'm getting this straight:
You've posted an actual handwritten version of Baker's affidavit . It reads -
"On the second or third floor, where the lunch room is located, I saw a man standing in the lunch room, drinking a coke. He was alone in the lunch room at this time."
"or third floor" has been crossed out so it reads "on the second floor, where the lunch room is located".
"drinking a coke" has been crossed out and not replaced with anything.
Both crossings out have been initialed by Baker.
Here we have Baker saying that he saw a man standing in the lunchroom, alone and drinking a coke.
Then the "drinking a coke" bit is crossed out and initialed by Baker.
This tallies with Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in the room.
Your argument against this is that the style of Baker's signature at the end of the affidavit is different from the way he's written his name at the bottom of the first page (it's also a different style to the way he's initialed the bits he's crossed out).
Can you please explain how that is an argument in any way.
Can you be more clear regarding what you're driving at.
Can't you recognise this as a potentially important piece of evidence or is it just an inconvenience you feel you need to shut down any way you can?
And again thanks to DVP's site, here's Roy Truly's affidavit which also displays a signature in a different style yet the bulk of the writing is very much the same as Baker's affidavit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqbRNQrK/Roy-S-Truly-FBI-Statement-September-23-1964-Page-2.png)
JohnM
Hmmm...once again, what are you getting at?
That someone faked these affidavits? Is that the hole you're digging for yourself?
Remember, both affidavits were witnessed
-
Yes, I totally agree that finding three shells doesn't prove there was three shots.
Neither does the fact that over 160 witnesses described hearing three shots.
Part of the theory I subscribe to is that there was 3 shots fired from the Sniper's Nest. As you are suggesting, this isn't a fact and in the past you have made an excellent argument for only two shots being fired. It is not something I can totally discount.
The only mystery is where you got the two-shot argument from because I find it hard to believe you came up with it yourself.
Dan, don’t be so hard on yourself. My experience is most everything is a mystery to you.
It is not surprising that you would choose the recollections of 160 earwitnesses who thought they heard something over the statements of 60 + eyewitnesses who related what they heard to what they saw.
Maybe it is best if you just realize you are pointing out the error made in the original WC Conclusion, where the commission made a faulty assumption of three shells meant three shots and pointed the investigation down the wrong path. A path you are still on.
Warren Commission conclusion:
“The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.
The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.”
You seriously cannot understand this simple concept? They simply came to wrong conclusion. They should have completely ignored the earwitness statements and focused on the eyewitness statement made immediately after the assassination. A completely different picture takes shape. They mention media influence as a problem.
A simple review of information. The large number of eyewitnesses around the car and the SN both said there was only two shots. Only two bullets recovered. Only, legitimately, time to have fired two shots. The only way to explain the wounds is two shots. One of three shells exhibited signs of having been dry fired. The FBI verified the chamber of the rifle left a mark on the shells.
It is so obvious that two shots are the answer that it is simply frightening. What can be learned about your intelligence when you admit it is the answer but refuse to accept it? The only reason the WC said there was three shots is because there were three shells found. That is it.
-
Euins' "bald spot" is certainly getting far more attention than it deserves. It seems to me entirely consistent with the gunman being Oswald. The only really salient point is that he most certainly saw a rifle being fired from the 6th floor window.
On 11-22-63, Euins described this as a "white spot," causing the person who prepared his Voluntary Statement to mistakenly have him saying he'd seen a white man. Euins clarified this when he testified before the WC.
His WC testimony, while impressively lowkey and unembellished, makes clear how little of the shooter he actually saw. To wit:
Mr. Mr. SPECTER. Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?
Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. EUINS. I wouldn’t know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. SPECTER Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. EUINS. I didn’t get to see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall or short?
Mr. EUINS. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn’t tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Couldn’t even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald ...
Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes. sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2-1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, right along in here.
Mr. SPFCTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
So we're talking about a free-floating "bald spot" 2-1/2" into the hairline of an unspecified head with unseen hair. Quite possibly simply a reflection on Oswald's distinctly high forehead? Very likely, I would think.
What did Oswald's hairline look like, anyway? Was Euins' description consistent with Oswald's appearance? It certainly seems so to me. There are umpteen images showing Oswald's receding hairline.
https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczPk1fX9zgYrKVtOVp_HbXtyzRCfS0bUGWDjlLQ2mg2t7zHk35fSg5ev=w448-h300-s-no-gm?authuser=0
https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczP9jKvDMaOrNqoYuZUkLvJ0OFt054LQ57bWQY6hvk7DqYDiXpq2g8Hz=w638-h694-s-no-gm?authuser=0
https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczNiPvfe3Fv3g9klJmvjfK4tZ2h8VrkaOuJliYQ92DFBiLTF9kouWaA6=w1024-h798-s-no-gm?authuser=0
Sorry, hard as I try to at least "get into" CT-think, sanity keeps intruding.
-
Dan, don’t be so hard on yourself. My experience is most everything is a mystery to you.
It is not surprising that you would choose the recollections of 160 earwitnesses who thought they heard something over the statements of 60 + eyewitnesses who related what they heard to what they saw.
Maybe it is best if you just realize you are pointing out the error made in the original WC Conclusion, where the commission made a faulty assumption of three shells meant three shots and pointed the investigation down the wrong path. A path you are still on.
Warren Commission conclusion:
“The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.
The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.”
You seriously cannot understand this simple concept? They simply came to wrong conclusion. They should have completely ignored the earwitness statements and focused on the eyewitness statement made immediately after the assassination. A completely different picture takes shape. They mention media influence as a problem.
A simple review of information. The large number of eyewitnesses around the car and the SN both said there was only two shots. Only two bullets recovered. Only, legitimately, time to have fired two shots. The only way to explain the wounds is two shots. One of three shells exhibited signs of having been dry fired. The FBI verified the chamber of the rifle left a mark on the shells.
It is so obvious that two shots are the answer that it is simply frightening. What can be learned about your intelligence when you admit it is the answer but refuse to accept it? The only reason the WC said there was three shots is because there were three shells found. That is it.
I'm happy for you, that you think you've proved the Warren Commission wrong.
Can you point me to the creator of this theory as I'd like to hear more about it.
-
Euins' "bald spot" is certainly getting far more attention than it deserves. It seems to me entirely consistent with the gunman being Oswald. The only really salient point is that he most certainly saw a rifle being fired from the 6th floor window.
On 11-22-63, Euins described this as a "white spot," causing the person who prepared his Voluntary Statement to mistakenly have him saying he'd seen a white man. Euins clarified this when he testified before the WC.
His WC testimony, while impressively lowkey and unembellished, makes clear how little of the shooter he actually saw. To wit:
Mr. Mr. SPECTER. Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?
Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. EUINS. I wouldn’t know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. SPECTER Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. EUINS. I didn’t get to see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall or short?
Mr. EUINS. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn’t tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Couldn’t even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald ...
Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes. sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2-1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, right along in here.
Mr. SPFCTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
So we're talking about a free-floating "bald spot" 2-1/2" into the hairline of an unspecified head with unseen hair. Quite possibly simply a reflection on Oswald's distinctly high forehead? Very likely, I would think.
What did Oswald's hairline look like, anyway? Was Euins' description consistent with Oswald's appearance? It certainly seems so to me. There are umpteen images showing Oswald's receding hairline.
https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczPk1fX9zgYrKVtOVp_HbXtyzRCfS0bUGWDjlLQ2mg2t7zHk35fSg5ev=w448-h300-s-no-gm?authuser=0
https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczP9jKvDMaOrNqoYuZUkLvJ0OFt054LQ57bWQY6hvk7DqYDiXpq2g8Hz=w638-h694-s-no-gm?authuser=0
https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczNiPvfe3Fv3g9klJmvjfK4tZ2h8VrkaOuJliYQ92DFBiLTF9kouWaA6=w1024-h798-s-no-gm?authuser=0
Sorry, hard as I try to at least "get into" CT-think, sanity keeps intruding.
sanity keeps intruding.
:D :D :D
Good one.
When you come up with something a little better than "I know what Euins really meant to say" let me know.
-
Williams said that "everybody" was talking about going to the sixth floor, so antisocial Oswald who I doubt was part of "everybody" but was probably aware and keeping an eye on who was where would have been a priority.
Mr. BALL. You say you went back upstairs. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went back up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Why did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
Brennan said that Oswald sat sideways on the window sill, obviously to check out what was happening in the crowd below.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
I can't find any reference to any employee saying that the main floor area was a "room", the first floor plan refers to this area as "Open Storage Space" and the definition of a room is and always will be an enclosed area within a building. This is about as silly as Oswald on TV agreeing that he was inside at the time but CT's claim that outside on the steps was technically inside.
If Oswald did indeed see the two men walk to the elevator and use the elevator then surely he would have said so, because even Oswald would know that the more information he gives makes a better alibi, but simply saying "possibly two negro employees walked through the room" can only mean he guessed since he didn't know if they used the stairs and Oswald based his guess on the limited info he had.
Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."
JohnM
If Oswald did indeed see the two men walk to the elevator and use the elevator then surely he would have said so, because even Oswald would know that the more information he gives makes a better alibi, but simply saying "possibly two negro employees walked through the room" can only mean he guessed since he didn't know if they used the stairs and Oswald based his guess on the limited info he had.
And there he goes again; Oswald didn't say what I, John Mytton, expect him to say, so what he said can't be true.
Never mind that Mytton hasn't got a clue about what Oswald actually said and is completely ignorant of the fact that the interrogators possibly didn't undertstand what he was saying (as they were not aware of the lay out of the 1st floor) and/or simply misrepresented what he said in their reports, written two weeks after the event.
-
Dan, don’t be so hard on yourself. My experience is most everything is a mystery to you.
It is not surprising that you would choose the recollections of 160 earwitnesses who thought they heard something over the statements of 60 + eyewitnesses who related what they heard to what they saw.
Maybe it is best if you just realize you are pointing out the error made in the original WC Conclusion, where the commission made a faulty assumption of three shells meant three shots and pointed the investigation down the wrong path. A path you are still on.
Warren Commission conclusion:
“The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.
The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.”
You seriously cannot understand this simple concept? They simply came to wrong conclusion. They should have completely ignored the earwitness statements and focused on the eyewitness statement made immediately after the assassination. A completely different picture takes shape. They mention media influence as a problem.
A simple review of information. The large number of eyewitnesses around the car and the SN both said there was only two shots. Only two bullets recovered. Only, legitimately, time to have fired two shots. The only way to explain the wounds is two shots. One of three shells exhibited signs of having been dry fired. The FBI verified the chamber of the rifle left a mark on the shells.
It is so obvious that two shots are the answer that it is simply frightening. What can be learned about your intelligence when you admit it is the answer but refuse to accept it? The only reason the WC said there was three shots is because there were three shells found. That is it.
Rabid Lone Nutter that I am, I'll have to admit I was impressed by the book postulating only two shots. It would also explain the dented shell - wasn't good for anything else (i.e., reloading), was used for dry firing, and was ejected when the bolt was worked to load the first live round. It would also suggest how much (i.e., not much) preparation and planning went into the assassination - the dry-firing shell was still in the gun when Oswald brought it into the TSBD.
I also think a statement by Lee Bowers doesn't get enough attention. From long experience in the tower, Bowers said construction noise from the area of the TSBD often sounded as though it were coming from the area of the overpass. My house happens to sit in its own little simulation of Dealey Plaza (really, that's why I bought it! ;D). I was consistently blaming neighbors to my right (i.e., the Grassy Knoll, if you will) for their damn barking dogs and loud parties when in fact the culprits were neighbors to my left (the TSBD). It was quite uncanny. It took some effort by my wife to convince me I was wrong.
-
sanity keeps intruding.
:D :D :D
Good one.
When you come up with something a little better than "I know what Euins really meant to say" let me know.
That's the problem - for you. I am operating off of what Euins actually said. Much as CTers might wish otherwise, he did not say anything more than a
"white spot" (initially) and then a "bald spot" on a head he couldn't describe with hair he couldn't describe. CTers would like to expand this into something more, a bald guy who could not possibly have been Oswald, but alas for you what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald - but is, of course, Rather Fatal to any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor.
-
Thanks Dan, but the man in your photo would be leaning away from Euins.
Yeah, John...if you scrunch your eyes closed and think really, really hard, you might be able to imagine that his head is tilting the other way.
Great point, by the way, really insightful.
To use the scoped Carcano, you have to shoot it right handed and if Oswald wasn't planning to use the scope, he would have left it behind when he dismantled the rifle to fit his 36 inch rifle sack.
JohnM
The point your making stems from your assumption that it was Oswald using his rifle to take the shots and that he was planning to use the scope.
If you take Euins' testimony at face value, it is evidence suggesting that the shooter was left-handed.
For Euins to see the bald spot only when the shooter was tilting his head to look down the rifle, the shooter must be tilting his head to the left while he is shooting.
That is the logical conclusion one must draw from what Euins is saying.
Your counter argument is, basically, "well, that can't be right because Oswald was right-handed".
Or maybe you know what Euins really meant to say as well. It seems to be catching.
Who needs witness testimony when you already know what they should be saying.
Euins testimony indicates that the shooter was not Oswald.
The shooter had a bald spot on top of his head and tilted his head to the left when he was using the rifle.
It's just one more piece of evidence pointing to someone else being the shooter.
::) Does this help?
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTg3kP6W/Screenshot-306-headtilt2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
That's the problem - for you. I am operating off of what Euins actually said. Much as CTers might wish otherwise, he did not say anything more than a
"white spot" (initially) and then a "bald spot" on a head he couldn't describe with hair he couldn't describe. CTers would like to expand this into something more, a bald guy who could not possibly have been Oswald, but alas for you what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald - but is, of course, Rather Fatal to any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor.
Mr. James Underwood
Assistant News Director TV and radio
"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little
colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice."
Mr. BALL. Euins?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name.
He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle.
He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle
officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir."
I said, "Were they white or black?"
He said, "It was a colored man."
I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?"
He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Euins did what he was told. He did not challenge his own statements on the stand, and was afraid of getting in trouble.
But he was not going to let Spector, or anybody, tell him what he didn't see. He took a safe route.
He tells Spector it was a mistake, written down wrong when the officer took the affidavit. He meant a white spot on the man's head.
Even though he told reporter, James Underwood, he saw a "colored man"
"He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir,""
And then did not put that in an affidavit. Was he not able to?
Arlen Spector is the questioning attorney
Mr. SPECTER Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos. In the statement you say here that he was a white man.
By reading the statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white man or not?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man.
I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro?
All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?
Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder what was discussed in pre interview before testimony. How was he coached to answer these questions?
Was he told, "We know there was no negro man with a gun, so you are obviously mistaken." End of story.
I can't find the date Euins testified, but by March '64, he had been warned:
National Guardian | March 21, 1964
"Dealey Plaza (DP) witness Amos Euins refused to speak with or take questions from the media because “a Secret Service man
said I'd be in real trouble if I talked."
-
Mr. James Underwood
Assistant News Director TV and radio
"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little
colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice."
Mr. BALL. Euins?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name.
He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle.
He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle
officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir."
I said, "Were they white or black?"
He said, "It was a colored man."
I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?"
He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Euins did what he was told. He did not challenge his own statements on the stand, and was afraid of getting in trouble.
But he was not going to let Spector, or anybody, tell him what he didn't see. He took a safe route.
He tells Spector it was a mistake, written down wrong when the officer took the affidavit. He meant a white spot on the man's head.
Even though he told reporter, James Underwood, he saw a "colored man"
"He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir,""
And then did not put that in an affidavit. Was he not able to?
Arlen Spector is the questioning attorney
Mr. SPECTER Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos. In the statement you say here that he was a white man.
By reading the statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white man or not?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man.
I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro?
All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?
Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder what was discussed in pre interview before testimony. How was he coached to answer these questions?
Was he told, "We know there was no negro man with a gun, so you are obviously mistaken." End of story.
I can't find the date Euins testified, but by March '64, he had been warned:
National Guardian | March 21, 1964
Dealey Plaza (DP) witness Amos Euins refused to speak with or take questions from the media because “a Secret Service man
said I'd be in real trouble if I talked.
Euins testified on March 10, '64.
-
That's the problem - for you. I am operating off of what Euins actually said. Much as CTers might wish otherwise, he did not say anything more than a
"white spot" (initially) and then a "bald spot" on a head he couldn't describe with hair he couldn't describe. CTers would like to expand this into something more, a bald guy who could not possibly have been Oswald, but alas for you what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald - but is, of course, Rather Fatal to any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor.
"any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor."
:D :D :D
What on earth are you talking about now??
Take a breath and engage your brain.
You're falling apart in front of the whole forum.
"...what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald"
Apart from the distinctive bald spot on top of his head that Oswald didn't have and that he appeared to be a left-handed shooter...other than that "not at all inconsistent with Oswald".
::) Oh, brother.
-
Rabid Lone Nutter that I am, I'll have to admit I was impressed by the book postulating only two shots. It would also explain the dented shell - wasn't good for anything else (i.e., reloading), was used for dry firing, and was ejected when the bolt was worked to load the first live round. It would also suggest how much (i.e., not much) preparation and planning went into the assassination - the dry-firing shell was still in the gun when Oswald brought it into the TSBD.
I also think a statement by Lee Bowers doesn't get enough attention. From long experience in the tower, Bowers said construction noise from the area of the TSBD often sounded as though it were coming from the area of the overpass. My house happens to sit in its own little simulation of Dealey Plaza (really, that's why I bought it! ;D). I was consistently blaming neighbors to my right (i.e., the Grassy Knoll, if you will) for their damn barking dogs and loud parties when in fact the culprits were neighbors to my left (the TSBD). It was quite uncanny. It took some effort by my wife to convince me I was wrong.
It really is that simple—two shots are all Oswald really fired. Through trajectory analysis two shots account for all the wounds on both JFK and JBC. The eyewitnesses verify that there were only two shots commencing around Z212.
The book Phantom Shot documented the two shot witnesses and two shot evidence. The FBI report presented to Rankin documented the fact CE 544 and CE545 had marks that originated from the chamber of the rifle that the FBI referred to as “chamber marks”. The final piece of information was provided by Josiah Thompson in his book Six Seconds in Dallas, pages 140 through 146 and in the footnotes on page 173. I always thought what was needed was to get the FBI to examine the rifle and determine the extent of the “chamber mark” and possibly photograph it. It turns out that Josiah Thompson as part of the Life Magazine photographing the shells in 1966-67 observed on the shells that the “chamber mark” was present on all the 30+ shells that had been fired in the rifle by the FBI and also included the unfired cartridge CE141. The one and only shell that did not have the “chamber mark” is the “dented shell” CE543.
Of particular importance was the unfired cartridge CE141. It shows all that was needed to make the “chamber mark” was the chamber of the rifle to have been expanded due to the heat generated by the firing of the other two cartridges.
--------
I had a similar experience with sound on the farm. I was working by the shop and they would be target shooting or sighting in rifles 100 yards to the south east and you would have sworn the shots were coming from the west.
-
I'm happy for you, that you think you've proved the Warren Commission wrong.
Can you point me to the creator of this theory as I'd like to hear more about it.
I know you will never understand it. It just makes me laugh watching you fumble around.
-
Mr. James Underwood
Assistant News Director TV and radio
"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little
colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice."
Mr. BALL. Euins?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name.
He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle.
He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle
officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir."
I said, "Were they white or black?"
He said, "It was a colored man."
I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?"
He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Euins did what he was told. He did not challenge his own statements on the stand, and was afraid of getting in trouble.
But he was not going to let Spector, or anybody, tell him what he didn't see. He took a safe route.
He tells Spector it was a mistake, written down wrong when the officer took the affidavit. He meant a white spot on the man's head.
Even though he told reporter, James Underwood, he saw a "colored man"
"He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir,""
And then did not put that in an affidavit. Was he not able to?
Arlen Spector is the questioning attorney
Mr. SPECTER Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos. In the statement you say here that he was a white man.
By reading the statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white man or not?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man.
I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro?
All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?
Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder what was discussed in pre interview before testimony. How was he coached to answer these questions?
Was he told, "We know there was no negro man with a gun, so you are obviously mistaken." End of story.
I can't find the date Euins testified, but by March '64, he had been warned:
National Guardian | March 21, 1964
Dealey Plaza (DP) witness Amos Euins refused to speak with or take questions from the media because “a Secret Service man
said I'd be in real trouble if I talked.
The problem is, the very day of the JFKA Euins signed a Voluntary Statement saying it was a white man. He then explained to the WC on March 10, 1964, that the statement was in error because he had merely said he'd seen a white spot. If he was coached, as you suggest, why didn't he simply tell Specter "Yep, it was a white man who could well have been Oswald"? Consistent with what we find throughout the conspiracy narratives, Specter is an Evil Genius or Incompetent Fool as the CT narrative requires.
Underwood was allowed to testify for the WC on April 1, 1964, three weeks after Euins. Why wasn't he similarly coached or intimidated? Why was he allowed to testify at all? Why did the WC allow this discrepancy to see the late of day? Once again, we have the Evil Genius / Bumbling Idiot thing.
Euins' initial contact was with Officer D. V. Harkness, who testified for the WC on April 9, 1964. In neither his testimony nor his notes taken when speaking with Euins did he have Euins saying the shooter was a Negro - rather an astonishing omission if that is in fact what Euins said. At no time did Harkness suggest to his DPD compadres that the suspect they were seeking might be black. (Despite the clear record, it is a conspiracy factoid all over the internet that Harkness' notes have Euins saying the shooter was black and Belin "cutting him off" when Harkness attempted to say this. Gotta love those conspiracy factoids!)
Forrest Sorrels likewise told the WC on May 7, 1964 that he had interviewed Euins the day of the assassination and that Euins had been unable to say whether the shooter was white or black. In fact, nothing in any of the reports or testimony - other than Underwood's testimony - suggests Euins said anything about the shooter being black. See https://tangodown63.com/amos-euins-statements/.
So, we can rely on Euins, Harkness and Sorrels and chalk up Underwood's recollections to faulty memory and confusion (he thought the kid's name was Eunice), or we can speculate that Euins, Harkness and Sorrels were coached and intimidated and that Specter and his fellow WC attorneys were Rather Inept in failing to coach Euins into saying that by God the shooter was a white man a lot like Oswald (and in allowing Underwood's conflicting testimony to see the light of day).
It appears to me that feisty old Amos was still getting into trouble as recently as 2019 and may still be alive. Track him down and get back to us! Maybe he and Ruth Paine will hold a joint press conference and reveal The Truth at last.
-
"any theory that has no shots being fired from the 6th floor."
:D :D :D
What on earth are you talking about now??
Take a breath and engage your brain.
You're falling apart in front of the whole forum.
"...what Euins actually said is not at all inconsistent with Oswald"
Again, I will leave to others to assess who is falling apart and making rather a spectacular ass of himself. This is, alas, the old "wrestling with a pig" thing. The pig - that would be you in this analogy - enjoys it.
What I was talking about - which I thought was rather clear - was any conspiracy theory that insists Oswald's rifle was merely planted on the 6th floor but no shots were fired from there.
Apart from the distinctive bald spot on top of his head that Oswald didn't have and that he appeared to be a left-handed shooter...other than that "not at all inconsistent with Oswald".
::) Oh, brother.
2-1/2" into the hairline - which was Specter's description, not Euins' - is not "on top of his head." Euins likewise said nothing about a "distinctive" bald spot. Even the CTers at Greg Parker's forum, who were light years ahead of you, were willing to suggest Euins may have been describing a shiny spot on the shooter's forehead. You'll have to refresh my memory - please do - as to where Euins described the shooter appearing to be lefthanded.
-
Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line
We can leave Truly out of it for now as he wasn't there when Baker first entered the room.
So let me see if I'm getting this straight:
You've posted an actual handwritten version of Baker's affidavit . It reads -
"On the second or third floor, where the lunch room is located, I saw a man standing in the lunch room, drinking a coke. He was alone in the lunch room at this time."
"or third floor" has been crossed out so it reads "on the second floor, where the lunch room is located".
"drinking a coke" has been crossed out and not replaced with anything.
Both crossings out have been initialed by Baker.
Here we have Baker saying that he saw a man standing in the lunchroom, alone and drinking a coke.
Then the "drinking a coke" bit is crossed out and initialed by Baker.
This tallies with Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in the room.
Your argument against this is that the style of Baker's signature at the end of the affidavit is different from the way he's written his name at the bottom of the first page (it's also a different style to the way he's initialed the bits he's crossed out).
Can you please explain how that is an argument in any way.
Can you be more clear regarding what you're driving at.
Can't you recognise this as a potentially important piece of evidence or is it just an inconvenience you feel you need to shut down any way you can?
Hmmm...once again, what are you getting at?
That someone faked these affidavits? Is that the hole you're digging for yourself?
Remember, both affidavits were witnessed
Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXzqg74s/Roy-Truly-handwritten-affidavit.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBpXDjBz/Roy-S-Truly-FBI-Statement-September-23-1964-Page-2.png)
Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNsL7KpF/Truly-Baker-affidavit-comparison.gif)
Remember, both affidavits were witnessed
So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.
JohnM
-
Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXzqg74s/Roy-Truly-handwritten-affidavit.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBpXDjBz/Roy-S-Truly-FBI-Statement-September-23-1964-Page-2.png)
Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNsL7KpF/Truly-Baker-affidavit-comparison.gif)
So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.
JohnM
And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.
If Baker was the one who didn't approve of the coke reference, then who was the person that put the reference in there in the first place and based on what?
Do you really believe somebody, out of the blue, came up with the idea to put a reference to the coke in there? What would have been the purpose of that?
-
I know you will never understand it. It just makes me laugh watching you fumble around.
If you can't point me to the person who created the theory you pretend is your own just say so.
-
Again, I will leave to others to assess who is falling apart and making rather a spectacular ass of himself. This is, alas, the old "wrestling with a pig" thing. The pig - that would be you in this analogy - enjoys it.
"Again, I will leave to others to assess who is falling apart and making rather a spectacular ass of himself."
I really wouldn't do that if I were you ;)
"This is, alas, the old "wrestling with a pig" thing. The pig - that would be you in this analogy - enjoys it."
This is one of the creepiest things ever posted on this forum.
What I was talking about - which I thought was rather clear - was any conspiracy theory that insists Oswald's rifle was merely planted on the 6th floor but no shots were fired from there.
??
Who has come up with this theory that Oswald's rifle was planted on the 6th floor but no shots were fired from the 6th floor?
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you having some kind of genuine breakdown?
Really, where are you getting the idea from that no shots were fired from the 6th floor?
2-1/2" into the hairline - which was Specter's description, not Euins' - is not "on top of his head." Euins likewise said nothing about a "distinctive" bald spot. Even the CTers at Greg Parker's forum, who were light years ahead of you, were willing to suggest Euins may have been describing a shiny spot on the shooter's forehead. You'll have to refresh my memory - please do - as to where Euins described the shooter appearing to be lefthanded.
Where are you getting this phrase from that you keep repeating - "into the hairline"?
"Into"?
"Above the hairline" - "Above" - this is the top of the head.
You're starting to sound like a confused old man.
"You'll have to refresh my memory - please do - as to where Euins described the shooter appearing to be lefthanded."
If you can't even be bothered to read what's being posted don't expect me to spoon feed you what's going on.
That's just so lazy on your behalf.
-
Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXzqg74s/Roy-Truly-handwritten-affidavit.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBpXDjBz/Roy-S-Truly-FBI-Statement-September-23-1964-Page-2.png)
Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNsL7KpF/Truly-Baker-affidavit-comparison.gif)
So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.
JohnM
Are you saying these affidavits were faked?
Are you suggesting someone else just made up the contents of the affidavits then asked Baker and Truly to have a look through them?
Why do you think the signatures are different? Are you saying someone faked their signatures?
Are you just waffling because you know how damaging this affidavit is to your theory?
What, exactly, are you saying?
-
And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.
If Baker was the one who didn't approve of the coke reference, then who was the person that put the reference in there in the first place and based on what?
Do you really believe somebody, out of the blue, came up with the idea to put a reference to the coke in there? What would have been the purpose of that?
Ok let's assume that Baker wrote the entire document and that Truly and Baker except for their signatures, wrote in the exact same style. If hiding the Coke reference was so important, wouldn't Baker just rewrite the entire document instead of simply crossing it out and leaving it to be discovered by armchair sleuths?
I believe that by the time the document was written, by most probably the man who witnessed the signatures(Burnett), he simply wrote the coke reference because Oswald holding a coke while in the building was at that time common knowledge but Baker who was there and knew what he saw, simply made an innocuous correction, which he had no inkling would be blown out of all proportion.
JohnM
-
Are you saying these affidavits were faked?
Are you suggesting someone else just made up the contents of the affidavits then asked Baker and Truly to have a look through them?
Why do you think the signatures are different? Are you saying someone faked their signatures?
Are you just waffling because you know how damaging this affidavit is to your theory?
What, exactly, are you saying?
It is exceedingly common practice - I have done it innumerable times - to prepare an affidavit on the basis of the preparer's understanding of the facts and of what the affiant will say. The affiant then makes such corrections as are needed. There may be several drafts before everyone is satisfied. The affiant then signs and the notary or witnesses attest to the affiant's signature. There is nothing siniater about this. DVP's site has an extensive discussion of the circumstances under which these particular affidavits were hurriedly prepared, which explains why they are handwritten rather than being in the more typical typed form. As usual, the phrase Much Ado About Nothing comes to mind.
-
Are you saying these affidavits were faked?
Are you suggesting someone else just made up the contents of the affidavits then asked Baker and Truly to have a look through them?
Why do you think the signatures are different? Are you saying someone faked their signatures?
Are you just waffling because you know how damaging this affidavit is to your theory?
What, exactly, are you saying?
Are you saying these affidavits were faked?
No.
Are you suggesting someone else just made up the contents of the affidavits then asked Baker and Truly to have a look through them?
The two documents were written by the same someone else, most probably the man who witnessed both "Burnett" and were based on established facts and when a human error was observed, Baker corrected the mistake. What is odd that you are placing so much emphasis on a correction that was left in the Official records, like only you have Sherlock Holmes like abilities to decipher the truth.
Why do you think the signatures are different? Are you saying someone faked their signatures?
WTF? Both Baker and Truly looked over the documents, then when satisfied, signed them. How deep does your conspiracy go?
Are you just waffling because you know how damaging this affidavit is to your theory?
Damaging? If Oswald was carrying around a coke, which he could have purchased at any time, how is that in any way problematic?
What, exactly, are you saying?
I'm saying, "let me out of this madhouse"!!!
JohnM
-
DVP's site has an extensive discussion of the circumstances under which these particular affidavits were hurriedly prepared...
LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COKE
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html
-
"This is, alas, the old "wrestling with a pig" thing. The pig - that would be you in this analogy - enjoys it."
This is one of the creepiest things ever posted on this forum.
Sorry, but whenever the wrestling with a pig analogy is trotted out, someone has to be the pig. You're the one who pretty clearly enjoys the JFKA mudfest. (I see creepier things here all the time, but thanks for the compliment. Oink, oink.)
??
Who has come up with this theory that Oswald's rifle was planted on the 6th floor but no shots were fired from the 6th floor?
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you having some kind of genuine breakdown?
Really, where are you getting the idea from that no shots were fired from the 6th floor?
I'm beginning to suspect your pose of vast knowledge about the JFKA is just that, a pose. FWIW, the highly respected folks at Dealey Plaza UK entertained this very possibility in 2018: http://dealeyplazauk.com/uncategorized/no-shots-fired-from-t-s-b-d/
Where are you getting this phrase from that you keep repeating - "into the hairline"?
"Into"?
"Above the hairline" - "Above" - this is the top of the head.
You're starting to sound like a confused old man.
Here is the actual testimony. Unless you have a very odd-shaped head, which I suspect you do, 2-1/2" above the hairline is not the "top of the head." "Right along in here" would be rather an odd way to describe the top of the head.
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUING. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2-1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
"You'll have to refresh my memory - please do - as to where Euins described the shooter appearing to be lefthanded."
If you can't even be bothered to read what's being posted don't expect me to spoon feed you what's going on.
That's just so lazy on your behalf.
Nice try. Euins said nothing about the shooter appearing to be lefthanded. As with your top of the head assertion, this is merely your spin on what he actually said.
You might want to reconsider your approach. Nobody wins a snarky-fest with me, bub. I spent 40 years out-snarkying other professionals in the snarkiest profession of them all.
-
This is the two-shot book to which I was referring, and I now realize Jack Nessan is one of the authors! https://www.amazon.sg/Phantom-Shot-Eyewitnesses-Solve-Assassination/dp/1492738956
I hadn't made the connection to Jack when I mentioned it.
-
Amos Euins did NOT identify Lee Oswald in that window..
Mr. SPECTER. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. EUINS. I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. SPECTER. Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. EUINS. I didn't get to see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall or short?
Mr. EUINS. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--
Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS: No, sir.
Either did Howard Brennan
Mr. BELIN. All right. Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color
of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. I don't know whether you have that in the record or not. I am sure you do.
Also supposed to be mistaken were, Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, Marion Baker, Vickie Adams, Sandra Styles, Jack Dougherty,
Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, Richard Carr, Johnny Powell, Roger Craig, Ruby Henderson, Helen Forrest, Roy Cooper and Marvin Robinson.
..and so many others that destroy the case against Oswald.
-
Amos Euins did NOT identify Lee Oswald in that window..
Mr. SPECTER. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. EUINS. I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. SPECTER. Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. EUINS. I didn't get to see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall or short?
Mr. EUINS. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--
Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS: No, sir.
Either did Howard Brennan
Mr. BELIN. All right. Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color
of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. I don't know whether you have that in the record or not. I am sure you do.
Also supposed to be mistaken were, Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, Marion Baker, Vickie Adams, Sandra Styles, Jack Dougherty,
Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, Richard Carr, Johnny Powell, Roger Craig, Ruby Henderson, Helen Forrest, Roy Cooper and Marvin Robinson.
..and so many others that destroy the case against Oswald.
Amos Euins did NOT identify Lee Oswald in that window..
Who said he did? As you point out Euins(who was just a boy) testimony doesn't say much, so what's your point?
Either did Howard Brennan
Considering out of all the windows facing Elm Street, most of the windows contained people who were either women or Black men, and Brennan gave a first day description that was very close to Oswald. White, slim, about 5'10" looked around 30(Oswald thinning hair is a visual clue) and he said Oswald was wearing a light Khaki shirt and much to Dan's dismay, I showed Oswald's shirt in bright sunlight that appears to be a light Khaki type colour.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNxGc53c/49960.jpg)
Also supposed to be mistaken were, Buell Frazier,
Frazier said he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's package, and since Oswald said that the package contained curtain rods, why would Frazier have any need to pay attention to Oswald's package? But Frazier did remember that the package was a long brown paper package and funnily enough a long brown paper package was discovered in the Sniper's nest with Oswald's prints. And along with Oswald contradicting Frazier about the contents and where in Frazier's car he placed the package, then we can confirm that Frazier strengthens the case against Oswald.
A very observant fellow member whose name alludes me at the present time, discovered that on the afternoon of the assassination, a photo was taken of Oswald's rifle bag in very close proximity to where the shells were discovered.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnsPxpdT/osw-ald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXffgMjB/Osw-ald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
Linnie Mae Randle,
Linnie originally told the FBI that the package was about 3 feet long and later when her brother stared Spotty Avocadating bricks about being involved, her length started reducing. Another good eyewitness who confirms Oswald was carrying a long brown package.
Marion Baker,
Baker saw the same person as Truly who actually knew Oswald and the layout of the Depository, how is that a problem?
Vickie Adams,
She said she sells sea shell by the sea.. that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor when she first arrived, an impossibility.
Sandra Styles,
She later said that she was sure they stayed upstairs longer.
Jack Dougherty,
Read his testimony!
I could go through the rest of your problem eyewitnesses but I couldn't be bothered because the Mountain of Concrete Evidence still to this day hasn't been refuted.
Btw, Hi Michael, hope you are well!
JohnM
-
No.
The two documents were written by the same someone else, most probably the man who witnessed both "Burnett" and were based on established facts and when a human error was observed, Baker corrected the mistake. What is odd that you are placing so much emphasis on a correction that was left in the Official records, like only you have Sherlock Holmes like abilities to decipher the truth.
WTF? Both Baker and Truly looked over the documents, then when satisfied, signed them. How deep does your conspiracy go?
Damaging? If Oswald was carrying around a coke, which he could have purchased at any time, how is that in any way problematic?
I'm saying, "let me out of this madhouse"!!!
JohnM
like only you have Sherlock Holmes like abilities to decipher the truth.
Funny you would say that, because you, who clearly has no Sherlock Holmes like abilities, constantly acts as if he knows what really happened.
I'm saying, "let me out of this madhouse"!!!
The door is permanently wide open, yet you never leave. Why is that?
-
I'm saying, "let me out of this madhouse"!!!
The door is permanently wide open, yet you never leave. Why is that?
What are you talking about?
I leave and have long breaks all the time.
After mid February 2024, I left till June and and after posting in July, I posted once in October and once in November then started again at the end of January, it's called having a life.
Whereas you left recently but as soon as I start posting again you attach yourself to me like a disease ridden parasite.
JohnM
-
What are you talking about?
I leave and have long breaks all the time.
After mid February 2024, I left till June and and after posting in July, I posted once in October and once in November then started again at the end of January, it's called having a life.
Whereas you left recently but as soon as I start posting again you attach yourself to me like a disease ridden parasite.
JohnM
Nice story. Too bad for you that my posting history shows I didn't post anything between July 3, 2024 and February 6, 2025.
So, if what you did is called "having a life", I beat you hands down.
-
Nice story. Too bad for you that my posting history shows I didn't post anything between July 3, 2024 and February 6, 2025.
So, if what you did is called "having a life", I beat you hands down.
Hilarious, like I said, you've attached yourself to me like a blood sucking leach, I left in July and made a single post in October and another in November, then started again regularly in late January and then guess what, lo and behold a week or two later, I turn around and the Bogeyman is right there ready to spit his vile venom. Disgusting!
So, if what you did is called "having a life", I beat you hands down.
Okey dokey, I've just done and exposed the math and you lose, and in fact the 3000+ posts more than me in the exact same amount of time is further proof of your delusion.
You really aren't very good at this, maybe try a new hobby like picking your bum!
JohnM
-
Hilarious, like I said, you've attached yourself to me like a blood sucking leach, I left in July and made a single post in October and another in November, then started again regularly in late January and then guess what, lo and behold a week or two later, I turn around and the Bogeyman is right there ready to spit his vile venom. Disgusting!
Okey dokey, I've just done and exposed the math and you lose, and in fact the 3000+ posts more than me in the exact same amount of time is further proof of your delusion.
You really aren't very good at this, maybe try a new hobby like picking your bum!
JohnM
Your misguided belief of self importance is duly noted!
Only highly insecure people feel the need to constantly try to present themselves as superior, when they actually aren't.
-
Your misguided belief of self importance is duly noted!
Only highly insecure people feel the need to constantly try to present themselves as superior, when they actually aren't.
It is what it is, the dates and numbers speak for themselves, we can't fight facts, they are what they are.
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNxGc53c/49960.jpg)
...and Mytton trolls out the same tired garbage.
Not sure what this means if Brennan said he saw the man from head to toe before the limo arrived.
Trousers lighter than the shirt? - perhaps he bellied danced in front of the window.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnsPxpdT/osw-ald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
This looks like box tops and no way to know when it was taken.
Trolling out the same tired garbage.
-
It is what it is, the dates and numbers speak for themselves, we can't fight facts, they are what they are.
JohnM
I would say; "Says the guy who constantly fights facts and misrepresents them" but you simply are not important or relevant enough, so I won't. ;D
-
No.
The two documents were written by the same someone else, most probably the man who witnessed both "Burnett" and were based on established facts and when a human error was observed, Baker corrected the mistake. What is odd that you are placing so much emphasis on a correction that was left in the Official records, like only you have Sherlock Holmes like abilities to decipher the truth.
WTF? Both Baker and Truly looked over the documents, then when satisfied, signed them. How deep does your conspiracy go?
Damaging? If Oswald was carrying around a coke, which he could have purchased at any time, how is that in any way problematic?
I'm saying, "let me out of this madhouse"!!!
JohnM
I read through DVP's argument about the Baker affidavit and I'm sure you are proposing the same nonsense - the Burnett either shoved a pre-written affidavit in Baker's face because he was in such a massive rush, Baker saw some mistakes and corrected them OR as Burnett was taking the statement from Baker he was adding details that Baker wasn't even saying and when Baker read over the statement he was shocked to discover these irrational additions.
Both are very silly theories born out of the need for Oswald to not have a coke in his hand when Baker first saw him.
Burnett simply dictated what Baker was saying. This was witnessed by Burnett AND Bobby Hargis.
Why couldn't Baker remember which floor it was?
The affidavit was taken ten months after the event itself and six months after his WC testimony. It all seemed done and dusted but then, out of nowhere, he has suddenly got an FBI agent insisting on another affidavit. He couldn't quite remember which floor it was but when he read through the statement he remembered it was definitely the 2nd floor, so he corrected the mistake. No big deal. Some people seem to think Baker wasn't then sharpest tool in the shed at the best of times.
Why did Baker say that the man in the lunchroom was drinking a coke?
Because that's what he remembered happening.
The idea that Burnett just threw it in there is laughable.
As is the idea that the fleeing assassin decided to stop off for a coke.
As is the idea that Baker saw Oswald moving through the vestibule door window.
Oswald reportedly told the officers questioning him that he was having his lunch in the domino room around the time of the shooting (which is when he saw Jarman and Norman making there way around to the west elevator). He then went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom and had just purchased a coke when Baker came in.
If this is true we can dispense with the ridiculous notion that the fleeing assassin stopped off for a coke.
We can also dispense with the apparent impossibility of Baker seeing Oswald moving through the vestibule door window. It makes more sense that Baker moved over to the vestibule door, looked through the window and saw Oswald in the lunchroom at the coke machine.
-
Bonnie Ray said he sat in the isle where his coke was and never went close to the sniper's nest.
I have a theory that Williams when looking for his friends would have checked all the windows because why wouldn't he check the windows overlooking Elm? and would have seen Oswald and perhaps stayed there with Oswald and had his lunch then went down when he heard his friends arrive. In fact the stories coming from these men was a little flexible as they got their stories straight. I reckon Williams who was black wanted no part of being with Oswald in the minutes before they assassination.
In fact the WC I believe share this same theory because when this came up at Williams testimony Dulles suddenly and unexpectedly brought up if Williams had trouble with the law, why at this precise time while questioning would Dulles try this tactic?
JohnM
This is quite an extraordinary theory for an LNer to have and I don't doubt for a second that you are out on your own with this one.
I can't see the likes of Tricky Dicky backing you up as far as this particular theory is concerned.
However, there is a lot of evidence to support this theory.
The most important evidence, by far, is that six of the first officers at the location of the shooting on the 6th floor reported seeing lunch remains in the southeast corner - Mooney, Hill, McCurley, Weatherford, Brewer and Haygood. A number of these officers describe seeing a partially eaten piece of chicken. There is also a small lunch sack and a bottle of Dr Pepper.
The back wall of the Sniper's Nest consisted of three stacks of boxes. Each stack was made up of four boxes but, because of the way the boxes were arranged, the middle stack was taller than the outer stacks. At least three of these first responders specifically place the lunch remains on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the back wall of the Sniper's Nest. However, by the time Fritz arrived on the scene the partially eaten piece of chicken had been placed back inside the lunch sack and the lunch sack, along with the Dr Pepper bottle, had been moved about 10 yards away, near a two-wheeler trolley by the third set of windows from the east side of the 6th floor. This is where they were photographed by the DPD Crime Lab boys, and this is where Bonnie Ray Williams testified to the Warren Commission that he had his lunch.
It is to the great shame of the Warren Commission that the testimonies of the six first responders was ignored even though they completely contradicted the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams, who may well have been coerced into agreeing that he left the remains where they were photographed. IMO the Commission knew that Bonnie Ray's lunch remains had been initially discovered on top of the Sniper's Nest but they ignored this fact because having Bonnie Ray Williams in the Sniper's Nest made everything way too complicated.
Bonnie Ray actually hints at being in the Sniper's Nest in his WC testimony when he is asked about having his lunch on the 6th floor:
Mr. Ball:
What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?
Mr. Williams:
First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.
He describes two different locations. In the first one there are some boxes behind him that he leans back on. This could be the back wall of the Sniper's Nest. He then describes moving to the two-wheeler trolley where he had his lunch but we know he didn't do that because his lunch remains were found on top of the Sniper's Nest.
We are supposed to believe that he sat on this uncomfortable metal trolley, squashed up against a dirty, closed window for almost half an hour.
-
I read through DVP's argument about the Baker affidavit and I'm sure you are proposing the same nonsense - the Burnett either shoved a pre-written affidavit in Baker's face because he was in such a massive rush, Baker saw some mistakes and corrected them OR as Burnett was taking the statement from Baker he was adding details that Baker wasn't even saying and when Baker read over the statement he was shocked to discover these irrational additions.
Both are very silly theories born out of the need for Oswald to not have a coke in his hand when Baker first saw him.
Burnett simply dictated what Baker was saying. This was witnessed by Burnett AND Bobby Hargis.
Why couldn't Baker remember which floor it was?
The affidavit was taken ten months after the event itself and six months after his WC testimony. It all seemed done and dusted but then, out of nowhere, he has suddenly got an FBI agent insisting on another affidavit. He couldn't quite remember which floor it was but when he read through the statement he remembered it was definitely the 2nd floor, so he corrected the mistake. No big deal. Some people seem to think Baker wasn't then sharpest tool in the shed at the best of times.
Why did Baker say that the man in the lunchroom was drinking a coke?
Because that's what he remembered happening.
The idea that Burnett just threw it in there is laughable.
As is the idea that the fleeing assassin decided to stop off for a coke.
As is the idea that Baker saw Oswald moving through the vestibule door window.
Oswald reportedly told the officers questioning him that he was having his lunch in the domino room around the time of the shooting (which is when he saw Jarman and Norman making there way around to the west elevator). He then went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom and had just purchased a coke when Baker came in.
If this is true we can dispense with the ridiculous notion that the fleeing assassin stopped off for a coke.
We can also dispense with the apparent impossibility of Baker seeing Oswald moving through the vestibule door window. It makes more sense that Baker moved over to the vestibule door, looked through the window and saw Oswald in the lunchroom at the coke machine.
I read through DVP's argument about the Baker affidavit and I'm sure you are proposing the same nonsense - the Burnett either shoved a pre-written affidavit in Baker's face.....
For a comparison, here's the document in question as compared to Baker's affidavit and if you think they are written by the same person, then good luck to you.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YSgX48bz/Baker-affidavit-coke-crossed-out.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/htCny4B5/baker-marrion-affidavit.jpg)
Both are very silly theories born out of the need for Oswald to not have a coke in his hand when Baker first saw him.
This theory goes nowhere, Oswald was seen walking INTO the lunchroom and if he was carrying a coke then he was simply carrying around a coke, Big Deal, it was lunch time after all.
Why couldn't Baker remember which floor it was?
Baker wasn't a computer and every insignificant action wasn't necessary to remember with precise detail, their meaningless confrontation was explained away by Truly and that was that, because Baker obviously had bigger fish to fry on the upper floors. Also worth considering is that after entering the enclosed stairs you have no outside visual clues, and you walk up to a landing and then turn and go up a further set of stairs, so for someone not familiar with the building that can be deceiving.
JohnM
-
For a comparison, here's the document in question as compared to Baker's affidavit and if you think they are written by the same person, then good luck to you.
John, you really should read the posts you're responding to as it would save a lot of time.
You're point is that Burnett wrote the affidavit. I agree. I actually posted this:
"Burnett simply dictated what Baker was saying. This was witnessed by Burnett AND Bobby Hargis."
I also make the point that you and DVP want to think that Burnett added things to the affidavit without Baker's knowledge. That's why I posted these two possibilities:
"...Burnett either shoved a pre-written affidavit in Baker's face because he was in such a massive rush, Baker saw some mistakes and corrected them OR as Burnett was taking the statement from Baker he was adding details that Baker wasn't even saying and when Baker read over the statement he was shocked to discover these irrational additions."
You seem to be pushing the second silly possibility, that Burnett was randomly adding details to Baker's affidavit as he was taking it down.
This is one of these times when it's difficult to tell the difference between the LNer and Tinfoil mentalities.
This theory goes nowhere, Oswald was seen walking INTO the lunchroom and if he was carrying a coke then he was simply carrying around a coke, Big Deal, it was lunch time after all.
Oswald was NOT seen walking into the lunchroom.
Baker insists he saw some kind of vague movement through the vestibule door window. This has been demonstrated to be nonsense. The only way he could have seen movement through this small window is if it was a person moving from right to left from Baker's point of view. This could only mean someone entering the vestibule through the door that led to the long corridor and moving across to the lunchroom door.
This movement is represented by the green line in the diagram below. The red line represents Oswald's movement according to the Warren Commission and the "B" is Baker's approximate position when he was supposed to have seen this movement movement:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTNTPzv6/TSBD2ndfloorvestibule2.png) (https://postimages.org/)mouse click test page (https://keyboardtester.co/mouse-click-tester)
The photo below is taken close to where Baker would have been standing when he claimed he saw this movement:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9f0fL7wk/vestibuledoor.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It is clear that anyone entering this door then turning immediately left would have been impossible to see from Baker's position.
That's why I posted the following:
"We can also dispense with the apparent impossibility of Baker seeing Oswald moving through the vestibule door window. It makes more sense that Baker moved over to the vestibule door, looked through the window and saw Oswald in the lunchroom at the coke machine."
Baker wasn't a computer and every insignificant action wasn't necessary to remember with precise detail, their meaningless confrontation was explained away by Truly and that was that, because Baker obviously had bigger fish to fry on the upper floors. Also worth considering is that after entering the enclosed stairs you have no outside visual clues, and you walk up to a landing and then turn and go up a further set of stairs, so for someone not familiar with the building that can be deceiving.
::)
Read the post.
It was clearly a rhetorical question that I then answered:
"Why couldn't Baker remember which floor it was?
The affidavit was taken ten months after the event itself and six months after his WC testimony. It all seemed done and dusted but then, out of nowhere, he has suddenly got an FBI agent insisting on another affidavit. He couldn't quite remember which floor it was but when he read through the statement he remembered it was definitely the 2nd floor, so he corrected the mistake. No big deal. Some people seem to think Baker wasn't then sharpest tool in the shed at the best of times."
I then posed another rhetorical question that I then answered:
"Why did Baker say that the man in the lunchroom was drinking a coke?
Because that's what he remembered happening.
The idea that Burnett just threw it in there is laughable.
As is the idea that the fleeing assassin decided to stop off for a coke.
As is the idea that Baker saw Oswald moving through the vestibule door window."
Read the posts John, then I wouldn't basically have to re-post the whole thing clearing up your misunderstandings.
-
John, you really should read the posts you're responding to as it would save a lot of time.
You're point is that Burnett wrote the affidavit. I agree. I actually posted this:
"Burnett simply dictated what Baker was saying. This was witnessed by Burnett AND Bobby Hargis."
I also make the point that you and DVP want to think that Burnett added things to the affidavit without Baker's knowledge. That's why I posted these two possibilities:
"...Burnett either shoved a pre-written affidavit in Baker's face because he was in such a massive rush, Baker saw some mistakes and corrected them OR as Burnett was taking the statement from Baker he was adding details that Baker wasn't even saying and when Baker read over the statement he was shocked to discover these irrational additions."
You seem to be pushing the second silly possibility, that Burnett was randomly adding details to Baker's affidavit as he was taking it down.
This is one of these times when it's difficult to tell the difference between the LNer and Tinfoil mentalities.
Oswald was NOT seen walking into the lunchroom.
Baker insists he saw some kind of vague movement through the vestibule door window. This has been demonstrated to be nonsense. The only way he could have seen movement through this small window is if it was a person moving from right to left from Baker's point of view. This could only mean someone entering the vestibule through the door that led to the long corridor and moving across to the lunchroom door.
This movement is represented by the green line in the diagram below. The red line represents Oswald's movement according to the Warren Commission and the "B" is Baker's approximate position when he was supposed to have seen this movement movement:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTNTPzv6/TSBD2ndfloorvestibule2.png) (https://postimages.org/)mouse click test page (https://keyboardtester.co/mouse-click-tester)
The photo below is taken close to where Baker would have been standing when he claimed he saw this movement:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9f0fL7wk/vestibuledoor.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It is clear that anyone entering this door then turning immediately left would have been impossible to see from Baker's position.
That's why I posted the following:
"We can also dispense with the apparent impossibility of Baker seeing Oswald moving through the vestibule door window. It makes more sense that Baker moved over to the vestibule door, looked through the window and saw Oswald in the lunchroom at the coke machine."
::)
Read the post.
It was clearly a rhetorical question that I then answered:
"Why couldn't Baker remember which floor it was?
The affidavit was taken ten months after the event itself and six months after his WC testimony. It all seemed done and dusted but then, out of nowhere, he has suddenly got an FBI agent insisting on another affidavit. He couldn't quite remember which floor it was but when he read through the statement he remembered it was definitely the 2nd floor, so he corrected the mistake. No big deal. Some people seem to think Baker wasn't then sharpest tool in the shed at the best of times."
I then posed another rhetorical question that I then answered:
"Why did Baker say that the man in the lunchroom was drinking a coke?
Because that's what he remembered happening.
The idea that Burnett just threw it in there is laughable.
As is the idea that the fleeing assassin decided to stop off for a coke.
As is the idea that Baker saw Oswald moving through the vestibule door window."
Read the posts John, then I wouldn't basically have to re-post the whole thing clearing up your misunderstandings.
Read the posts John
I read your earlier posts where you seemingly didn't agree that both Truly's and Baker's documents were written by someone else, and you are generally inflexible and only double down on your beliefs, but I see now that you see the light!
It is clear that anyone entering this door then turning immediately left would have been impossible to see from Baker's position.
That's why I posted the following:
"We can also dispense with the apparent impossibility of Baker seeing Oswald moving through the vestibule door window. It makes more sense that Baker moved over to the vestibule door, looked through the window and saw Oswald in the lunchroom at the coke machine."
While trying to get to the top of the building, Baker was running and was quickly scanning his surroundings while doing so. So why on Earth would he waste time and specifically go over to the vestibule window? The reason he says, as he turned the corner that he saw a man moving away and that is an obvious red flag, and from his initial position he couldn't see into the lunchroom so Oswald must have been in the hallway outside the lunchroom entrance.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see that caused you to turn away from going up to the third floor?
Mr. BAKER - As I came out of that stairway running, Mr. Truly had already gone on around, see, and I don't know, as I come around----
Mr. DULLES - Gone on around and up?
Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.
Baker goes on to further elaborate that another clue is that the door might have been closing.
Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?
Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8VLXTHc/Through-lunch-door.gif)
Baker says that he ran up to the door and Oswald had moved away a similar distance indicating that Oswald must have been scooting away at a rate of knots. What would cause Oswald to be moving so quickly?
Mr. DULLES - You mean you might have seen him as he was opening and going through the door almost?
Mr. BAKER - Well, to me it was the back of it. Now, through this window you can't see too much but I just caught a glimpse of him through this window going away from me and as I ran to this door and opened it, and looked on down in the lunchroom he was on down there about 20 feet so he was moving about as fast as I was.
I think that Oswald heard the men walking up the wooden stairs and got inside the vestibule door and moved quickly into the lunchroom.
JohnM
-
I think that Oswald heard the men walking up the wooden stairs and got inside the vestibule door and moved quickly into the lunchroom.
IIRC, Truly was ahead of Baker and had already started going up to the 3rd floor when Baker entered the "vestibule" to confront Oswald (either in the "vestibule," itself, or farther inside the lunchroom proper).
Truly, realizing that Baker was no longer following him, went back down and at least partially entered the "vestibule."
Did Truly keep the "vestibule" door open while Baker was dealing with Oswald in the lunchroom, or did it close behind him if-and-when he went completely inside the "vestibule" or even all the way into the lunchroom?
If the former, assuming that Vicki Adams "spaced out" as to how long she and Sandra Styles had stayed on the 4th floor before starting to go down the stairs, wouldn't they have noticed the "vestibule's" door being held open by Truly and/or heard the men talking as they (Adams and Styles) traversed the corner of the 2nd floor to continue going downstairs?
-
IIRC, Truly was ahead of Baker and had already started going up to the 3rd floor when Baker entered the "vestibule" to confront Oswald (either in the "vestibule," itself, or farther inside the lunchroom proper).
Yes thanks, in summarising my scenario I left out a small detail, so I will clarify my post, after Oswald heard footsteps he entered through the vestibule door and looked out through the window and saw Truly run past and up the stairs to the 3rd floor, then Oswald opened the door to proceed back down the stairs to the first floor when he was startled by Officer Baker, so retreated quickly into the lunchroom.
And obviously after seeing and being confronted by a Policeman coming up the stairs and fearing more, Oswald got his coke made the choice to proceed through the offices.
JohnM
-
After Oswald heard footsteps, he entered through the vestibule door and looked out through the window and saw Truly run past and up the stairs to the 3rd floor, then Oswald opened the door to proceed back down the stairs to the first floor when he was startled by Officer Baker, so he retreated quickly into the lunchroom. After being confronted by a policeman coming up the stairs and fearing more, Oswald got his coke made the choice to proceed through the offices.
Works for me -- as long Adams and Styles stayed on the 4th floor significantly longer than Adams thought they had, as long as the "vestibule door" was completely closed behind Truly while Baker was confronting Oswald, and as long as it took Baker and Truly significantly longer to get to the 2nd floor than they thought it had.
-
Yes thanks, in summarising my scenario I left out a small detail, so I will clarify my post, after Oswald heard footsteps he entered through the vestibule door and looked out through the window and saw Truly run past and up the stairs to the 3rd floor, then Oswald opened the door to proceed back down the stairs to the first floor when he was startled by Officer Baker, so retreated quickly into the lunchroom.
And obviously after seeing and being confronted by a Policeman coming up the stairs and fearing more, Oswald got his coke made the choice to proceed through the offices.
JohnM
;D
Good story, John.
It accounts for why Truly didn't see Oswald entering the vestibule even though he was racing ahead of Baker.
Why Oswald was still by the window when Baker came up?
A panicked split-second decision to race through the nearest door into the lunchroom.
Oswald speeding across the lunchroom floor to get 20 ft away by the time Baker enters the vestibule.
Excellent speculation and I will keep this Reply in mind if you ever have the temerity to criticise me for speculating.
-
It accounts for why Truly didn't see Oswald entering the vestibule even though he was racing ahead of Baker.
Which is plausible if it took Truly longer to get to the 2nd floor than he thought it had.
-
;D
Good story, John.
It accounts for why Truly didn't see Oswald entering the vestibule even though he was racing ahead of Baker.
Why Oswald was still by the window when Baker came up?
A panicked split-second decision to race through the nearest door into the lunchroom.
Oswald speeding across the lunchroom floor to get 20 ft away by the time Baker enters the vestibule.
Excellent speculation and I will keep this Reply in mind if you ever have the temerity to criticise me for speculating.
What speculating? I based my scenario on the facts.
Whereas you have Oswald already in the lunchroom because Baker secretly had E.S.P. and sensed a reason to look through the vestibule door window, WOW! Give me a break!
JohnM
-
What speculating? I based my scenario on the facts.
Whereas you have Oswald already in the lunchroom because Baker secretly had E.S.P. and sensed a reason to look through the vestibule door window, WOW! Give me a break!
JohnM
Fact: Baker entered the TSBD looking for a shooter
Fact: As he started making his way up the stairs he pulled his pistol in anticipation.
Fact; He was scanning each floor as he passed by. This is from his WC testimony:
"I was following Mr. Truly and every time I had a chance I would look around over the building."
"Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms..."
"I didn't notice. I was looking around over the building at the time he said, "Let's take the elevator" and I just followed him on around."
Baker was doing what he should have been doing, scanning each floor to see if there was anything out of place.
He arrives on the 2nd floor to a small area that has a door with a window in it. He takes a few steps towards the door and has a quick glance in the window where he sees Oswald at the coke machine.
Fact: This is exactly what he told Burnett when he was giving his affidavit - he looked in the lunch room and saw a man standing alone drinking a coke.
Your wild speculation, that Burnett was adding details to the affidavit that Baker wasn't saying, is genuinely laughable and a source of real embarrassment.
What isn't speculation is that Baker's version of events tallies exactly with what Oswald reportedly told his interrogators.
Fact: Oswald reportedly goes up to the 2nd floor lunch room and has just purchased a coke when officer Baker comes into the lunch room.
Fact: Oswald reported he was coming up from the first floor domino room where he was having his lunch and where he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman
Fact: Junior and Hank report that they did indeed enter the TSBD building around 12:25 pm and moved in such a way as to be visible from the domino room.
Fact: A few weeks after the assassination, serious questions were being raised about whether Oswald could have been the shooter, and these questions revolved around whether or not Oswald was drinking a coke when confronted by Baker:
Leo Sauvage in the Lowell Sun from December 26 1963. Already displayed near the top of
this essay “At that moment we are told officially Oswald was already in the lunchroom
with a Coca-Cola bottle in his hand. This means that, assuming he was the assassin, he had
to cross the floor from the window where the shots were fired to the opposite side of the
building in order to reach the staircase (after concealing the rifle behind some packing
boxes), run down four flights of stairs, walk to the lunch room, put a dime in the vending
machine and open the bottle. Truly and the policeman did not report that Oswald was
panting nor show other signs of having been running.”
[Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter, Kemp]
And then we have your fantasy which you've literally just made up, unless I'm mistaken. Maybe you've posted this little scenario somewhere before but I did get the distinct impression that you'd just made it up out of thin air and are now really offended that I've dared to suggest you're speculating.
1] Oswald hears footsteps coming up the steps - speculation
2] he runs to the vestibule door - speculation
3] He stays there watching Truly pass by - speculation
4] He is just about to emerge when he is surprised by the arrival of Baker - speculation
5] He turns and races into the lunchroom - speculation.
Maybe you could tell us which part of your little fantasy is NOT speculation.
Why are you so offended by my pointing out that it is an exercise in pure speculation when that is exactly what it is?
Is it because when an LNer speculates it has more value? It's 'almost' the truth? Is that what it is?
Why does Oswald wait around to watch who up comes up the stairs?
Why doesn't he simply walk through the door that leads to the corridor that takes him to the exit?
Why doesn't he hear Baker's boots thundering up the stairs?
And on and on...
What facts did you base your imaginative speculation on...that Baker said so? He also said he saw the man drinking a coke.
If he saw the man drinking a coke the man was already in the lunchroom.
If he was already in the lunchroom then Baker didn't "glimpse" him move through the vestibule window.
If he didn't "glimpse" him through the window from the top of the stairs he must have moved towards the vestibule door.
See, I can speculate just as good as you...only I know when I'm speculating. You seem to think you're reporting the facts.
-
Glad to see JohnM speculating :) however that scenario imo is unlikely because Baker probably would have shouted at Oswald to stand still before Oswajd could ever go back thru the door. With gun already drawn and pointed, the meeting would taken place on the landing area, not in the lunchroom.
I think Bakers “something caught his eye” statement could be a sudden illumination from the opening of the lunchroom door allowing a much greater quantity of light to shine thru the outer door. That flicker of light then prompted Baker to move over to the door and at that point he saw Oswald moving away towards the coke machine.
Unfortunately as Dan had pointed out Bakers got several different versions of the specifics so I guess its never going to be clarified unless Baker has any statements on video?
My estimate of timing for Oswald to cross about 15 ft of landing to get to the outer door ,(4 sec) open it and it closes (2sec) and then he travels another 4 ft & opens the lunchroom door(2 sec)
= approx 10 secs from leaving the staircase.
If it’s a reasonable possibility that Oswald took
at least 75 seconds to reach the 2nd floor landing from the 6th floor SN then Truly maybe was shouting up at 75 secs as Oswald steps off the last step of stairs onto the floor landing.
Note: 75 secs for Truly to reach the rear elevator would give Adams and Styles 10 more secs needed after reaching 1st floor by 60 sec , to have crossed past the elevator shaft and go out the rear door to loading dock without being seen by Baker/Truly. A&S might also have to gone out thru rollup door immediately beside the staircase which allows them to travel on the other side of the wall thru the annex building before exiting another door that exits also onto loading dock.
It’s not that implausible that Oswald would run to the lunchroom especially if that had been his plan all along. He might have already pre bought a coke and placed it on the counter or table when he was there in the lunchroom at 12:15 seen by Carolyn Arnold. But it’s a pretty risky plan given he cannot be certain somebody would be on the floors or stairs and see him running down.
As much as thus might be a plausible scenario though, it’s messed up by FBI agent Hosty note stating that he had heard Oswald in the interrogation state that he (Oswald) had been out front watching the P. Parade and that Oswald had bought a coke just a few minutes before that from the lunchroom then came back down to eat lunch in Domino room. This would have been from 12:15-12;25 approx which fits with Carolyn Arnold sighting and Norman and Jarman returning via loading dock back door at about 12:25, which is when Oswald saw them.
The prayer man issue IDK. It still looks a lot like Oswald to me and Marina thought so too. I’d like believe that the latest version of the Darnell film
Is the clearest one and that the white ring around the neck is really there and not some kind of computer digital quirk but I’m no expert on those things. The stepping down one step issue has never actually been tested by real person at the TSBD only by a computer shadowing model. It may be that it’s possible for a 135lb 5’9” man to stand with both feet on the lower step and not have himself in the sunlight.
-
Yes thanks, in summarising my scenario I left out a small detail, so I will clarify my post, after Oswald heard footsteps he entered through the vestibule door and looked out through the window and saw Truly run past and up the stairs to the 3rd floor, then Oswald opened the door to proceed back down the stairs to the first floor when he was startled by Officer Baker, so retreated quickly into the lunchroom.
And obviously after seeing and being confronted by a Policeman coming up the stairs and fearing more, Oswald got his coke made the choice to proceed through the offices.
Isn't it fun to fantasize?
-
Isn't it fun to fantasize?
It's a plausible scenario, Iacoletti, whereas your implicit one -- that Oswald was innocent and therefore lots and lots of evil, evil CIA / FBI / Secret Service bad guys must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up -- is so implausible that it would be laughable if only it hadn't helped "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin install "useful idiot" (or worse) Trump as our "president" in 2017 and 2025..
-
It's a plausible scenario, Iacoletti, whereas your implicit one -- that Oswald was innocent and therefore lots and lots of evil, evil CIA / FBI / Secret Service bad guys must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up -- is so implausible that it would be laughable if only it hadn't helped "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin install "useful idiot" (or worse) Trump as our "president" in 2017 and 2025..
LNs are constantly claiming there is a mountain of evidence that proves Oswald's guilt beyond any doubt.
So, what is this "it's a plausable scenario" BS and the pathetic "your scenario is so implausible" that my "plausible" scenario must be the right one kind of nonsense?
-
LNs are constantly claiming there is a mountain of evidence that proves Oswald's guilt beyond any doubt.
So, what is this "it's a plausable scenario" BS and the pathetic "your scenario is so implausible" that my "plausible" scenario must be the right one kind of nonsense?
How many bad guys do YOU figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, Weidmann?
-
Fact: Baker entered the TSBD looking for a shooter
Fact: As he started making his way up the stairs he pulled his pistol in anticipation.
Fact; He was scanning each floor as he passed by. This is from his WC testimony:
"I was following Mr. Truly and every time I had a chance I would look around over the building."
"Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms..."
"I didn't notice. I was looking around over the building at the time he said, "Let's take the elevator" and I just followed him on around."
Baker was doing what he should have been doing, scanning each floor to see if there was anything out of place.
He arrives on the 2nd floor to a small area that has a door with a window in it. He takes a few steps towards the door and has a quick glance in the window where he sees Oswald at the coke machine.
Fact: This is exactly what he told Burnett when he was giving his affidavit - he looked in the lunch room and saw a man standing alone drinking a coke.
Your wild speculation, that Burnett was adding details to the affidavit that Baker wasn't saying, is genuinely laughable and a source of real embarrassment.
What isn't speculation is that Baker's version of events tallies exactly with what Oswald reportedly told his interrogators.
Fact: Oswald reportedly goes up to the 2nd floor lunch room and has just purchased a coke when officer Baker comes into the lunch room.
Fact: Oswald reported he was coming up from the first floor domino room where he was having his lunch and where he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman
Fact: Junior and Hank report that they did indeed enter the TSBD building around 12:25 pm and moved in such a way as to be visible from the domino room.
Fact: A few weeks after the assassination, serious questions were being raised about whether Oswald could have been the shooter, and these questions revolved around whether or not Oswald was drinking a coke when confronted by Baker:
Leo Sauvage in the Lowell Sun from December 26 1963. Already displayed near the top of
this essay “At that moment we are told officially Oswald was already in the lunchroom
with a Coca-Cola bottle in his hand. This means that, assuming he was the assassin, he had
to cross the floor from the window where the shots were fired to the opposite side of the
building in order to reach the staircase (after concealing the rifle behind some packing
boxes), run down four flights of stairs, walk to the lunch room, put a dime in the vending
machine and open the bottle. Truly and the policeman did not report that Oswald was
panting nor show other signs of having been running.”
[Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter, Kemp]
And then we have your fantasy which you've literally just made up, unless I'm mistaken. Maybe you've posted this little scenario somewhere before but I did get the distinct impression that you'd just made it up out of thin air and are now really offended that I've dared to suggest you're speculating.
1] Oswald hears footsteps coming up the steps - speculation
2] he runs to the vestibule door - speculation
3] He stays there watching Truly pass by - speculation
4] He is just about to emerge when he is surprised by the arrival of Baker - speculation
5] He turns and races into the lunchroom - speculation.
Maybe you could tell us which part of your little fantasy is NOT speculation.
Why are you so offended by my pointing out that it is an exercise in pure speculation when that is exactly what it is?
Is it because when an LNer speculates it has more value? It's 'almost' the truth? Is that what it is?
Why does Oswald wait around to watch who up comes up the stairs?
Why doesn't he simply walk through the door that leads to the corridor that takes him to the exit?
Why doesn't he hear Baker's boots thundering up the stairs?
And on and on...
What facts did you base your imaginative speculation on...that Baker said so? He also said he saw the man drinking a coke.
If he saw the man drinking a coke the man was already in the lunchroom.
If he was already in the lunchroom then Baker didn't "glimpse" him move through the vestibule window.
If he didn't "glimpse" him through the window from the top of the stairs he must have moved towards the vestibule door.
See, I can speculate just as good as you...only I know when I'm speculating. You seem to think you're reporting the facts.
Baker was doing what he should have been doing, scanning each floor to see if there was anything out of place.
He arrives on the 2nd floor to a small area that has a door with a window in it. He takes a few steps towards the door and has a quick glance in the window where he sees Oswald at the coke machine.
There's so much wrong with this statement alone, where do I start?
• Baker's quite clear where he was when he saw Oswald, and he even pinpoints the exact spot on CE 497.
Mr. BELIN - Now, with relation to Exhibit 497 perhaps you can try to trace your route as you came out from the stairway, as to the route you took and the point you were when you first caught a glimpse of some movement through that window or door?
Mr. BAKER - At the upper portion of this stairway leading to the second floor, I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway.
Mr. BELIN - Do you want to put a spot there, with the letter "B" at the point you believe you were when you were looking through that door? You put the letter "B" on Exhibit 497 when you first saw the movement.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs954mpW/ce-497-2nd-floor-lunchroomb.jpg)
• And here inexplicably just yesterday Dan has Baker way out on the floor and nowhere near where Baker says.
Dan O'eara: ...the "B" is Baker's approximate position when he was supposed to have seen this movement movement:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTNTPzv6/TSBD2ndfloorvestibule2.png)
• And today you have Baker even more out on the floor where you claim he can see Oswald at the coke machine, WOW!
Baker was doing what he should have been doing, scanning each floor to see if there was anything out of place.
He arrives on the 2nd floor to a small area that has a door with a window in it. He takes a few steps towards the door and has a quick glance in the window where he sees Oswald at the coke machine.
• Here is yesterday's "estimate" where Dan placed Baker and I have overlayed a purple/yellow Point of View Line of Sight. Which in no way allows a view even close to the Coke Machine or even into the lunchroom itself, therefore even if Dan's fantasy placement of Baker was correct all it does is strengthen the reality that Oswald was moving into the lunchroom.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NQW3CJf/TSBD2ndfloorvestibule2-Dan-s-fantasy.png)
• So as is obvious, CT's will invent their own evidence to fit their speculation whereas honest LNers simply use the evidence. Baker's testimony and from the physical layout of the 2nd floor, it's clear that Baker saw Oswald in the hallway at the vestibule door and next Baker saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
• All I can say Dan, is next time bring your "A" game because this is way too easy.
JohnM
-
There's so much wrong with this statement alone, where do I start?
• Baker's quite clear where he was when he saw Oswald, and he even pinpoints the exact spot on CE 497.
Mr. BELIN - Now, with relation to Exhibit 497 perhaps you can try to trace your route as you came out from the stairway, as to the route you took and the point you were when you first caught a glimpse of some movement through that window or door?
Mr. BAKER - At the upper portion of this stairway leading to the second floor, I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway.
Mr. BELIN - Do you want to put a spot there, with the letter "B" at the point you believe you were when you were looking through that door? You put the letter "B" on Exhibit 497 when you first saw the movement.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs954mpW/ce-497-2nd-floor-lunchroomb.jpg)
• And here inexplicably just yesterday Dan has Baker way out on the floor and nowhere near where Baker says.
Dan O'eara: ...the "B" is Baker's approximate position when he was supposed to have seen this movement movement:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTNTPzv6/TSBD2ndfloorvestibule2.png)
• And today you have Baker even more out on the floor where you claim he can see Oswald at the coke machine, WOW!
• Here is yesterday's "estimate" where Dan placed Baker and I have overlayed a purple/yellow Point of View Line of Sight. Which in no way allows a view even close to the Coke Machine or even into the lunchroom itself, therefore even if Dan's fantasy placement of Baker was correct all it does is strengthen the reality that Oswald was moving into the lunchroom.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NQW3CJf/TSBD2ndfloorvestibule2-Dan-s-fantasy.png)
• So as is obvious, CT's will invent their own evidence to fit their speculation whereas honest LNers simply use the evidence. Baker's testimony and from the physical layout of the 2nd floor, it's clear that Baker saw Oswald in the hallway at the vestibule door and next Baker saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
• All I can say Dan, is next time bring your "A" game because this is way too easy.
JohnM
There's so much wrong with this statement alone, where do I start?
You start by reading the post you are responding to.
READ...THE...POST
You were told this just a few posts ago [REPLY#282]
What's wrong with reading the posts you're replying to?
I then have to go through the whole post again correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. It's like helping someone pretending to be an old man across the road.
All I can say is how desperate you are now to try and score a point.
You're reduced to pointing out that my approximation for Baker's position (which was clearly stated to be an approximation) was a couple of feet away from where his actual position was. Look at the wealth of information in the post you were replying to and this is all you can come up with, this trivial, nit-picking detail. It's sad and desperate.
Just so we don't lose the context of this discussion, it started off with this comprehensive list I posted of the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination and how every piece of it pointed away from Oswald being the shooter [REPLY#212]:
All the evidence, John?
The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.
Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have.
Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.
Three eyewitnesses describe the man having a fair/light complexion, opposed to Oswald's dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.
Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.
Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).
Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).
Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
None of the other women who came out to the 4th floor storage area reported seeing Oswald either.
Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.
Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting. Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.
And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?
This was followed by your incredibly weak rebuttal of these the points (the ones you felt you could manage anyway), which included real beauties such as deciding what witnesses really meant to say and your absolutely bizarre theory that daylight makes all colours look white [REPLY#214]
These points were easily dealt with in REPLY#220
Since then you've been trying desperately to score a point but failing miserably before turning to your tactic of not reading the posts you are replying to.
Just to get you up to speed...at the moment, the specific detail you are trying to score a point about is Baker's claim to have seen movement through the vestibule window. You have created a story about Oswald waiting around at the vestibule door watching Truly pass by, then almost getting caught out by Baker coming up the stairs. It is a completely made up story but when I pointed that out you got really upset:
"What speculating? I based my scenario on the facts."
Ignoring the fact it was still speculation, even if it was "based on the facts", as you put it, it has to be pointed out that your made up story is based on a single fact - Baker said so in his WC testimony. There is no corroborating evidence for your little 'scenario'. Just as there is no corroborating evidence for your belief that Oswald was on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting (but I have presented the evidence against this) and there is no corroborating evidence for your belief Oswald descended the steps from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom (I have presented the evidence against this).
What you can't accept is that Baker told Burnett that he had seen the man standing alone in the lunchroom drinking a coke. This is corroborated by Oswald's statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in the lunchroom. You ignored the vast majority of the post you were responding to which included this:
"What facts did you base your imaginative speculation on...that Baker said so? He also said he saw the man drinking a coke.
If he saw the man drinking a coke the man was already in the lunchroom.
If he was already in the lunchroom then Baker didn't "glimpse" him move through the vestibule window.
If he didn't "glimpse" him through the window from the top of the stairs he must have moved towards the vestibule door.
See, I can speculate just as good as you...only I know when I'm speculating. You seem to think you're reporting the facts".
In order for Baker to see Oswald standing alone in the lunchroom drinking a coke HE MUST HAVE MOVED FROM THE TOP OF THE STAIRS TO THE VESTIBULE DOOR.
It was impossible for him to see Oswald drinking a coke in the lunchroom from the top of the stairs. It's not a difficult point to follow.
-
Getting back to John's theory that Bonnie Ray spent some time in the Sniper's Nest just before the assassination:
Bonnie Ray said he sat in the isle where his coke was and never went close to the sniper's nest.
I have a theory that Williams when looking for his friends would have checked all the windows because why wouldn't he check the windows overlooking Elm? and would have seen Oswald and perhaps stayed there with Oswald and had his lunch then went down when he heard his friends arrive. In fact the stories coming from these men was a little flexible as they got their stories straight. I reckon Williams who was black wanted no part of being with Oswald in the minutes before they assassination.
In fact the WC I believe share this same theory because when this came up at Williams testimony Dulles suddenly and unexpectedly brought up if Williams had trouble with the law, why at this precise time while questioning would Dulles try this tactic?
JohnM
I, too, agree that Bonnie Ray spent his lunch break in the Sniper's Nest, making his way down to the 5th floor minutes before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza.
This is corroborated by the fact that six of the first officers on the scene - Mooney, Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Brewer and Haygood - collectively describe the remains of Bonnie Ray's lunch on one of the stacks of boxes that formed the back wall of the Sniper's Nest. The testimonies of these officers were completely ignored by the Commission.
It is also supported by Arnold Rowland's observation of a black male in the Sniper's Nest around 12:15 pm. Bonnie Ray even alludes to it in his WC testimony when he is asked what he sat on while he had his lunch - "First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first."
However, I disagree that Bonnie Ray discovered Oswald in the Sniper's Nest when he first arrived on the 6th floor as I believe Oswald was on the first floor at this time.
As disgraceful as it was for the Commission to ignore the testimonies of the six officers who saw Bonnie Ray lunch remains on top of the Sniper's Nest, it was nothing compared to the lie that was concocted involving Charles Givens. The Commission tried to make it seem as though Oswald never came down to the first floor when the lunch break started. In order to do this they had to ignore the collective testimonies of the workers on the 6th floor who described Oswald on the 5th floor asking to get a lift down to the first floor but who was ignored because the floor-laying crew were involved in an elevator race, so Oswald called down to make sure they left the gate down so he could call the elevator back, presumably so he could come down to the first floor (as he would have done if Charles Givens stopped to let him on).
The Givens lie - about going back up to the 6th floor to collect his jacket and cigarettes and seeing Oswald near the southeast corner - was created specifically so the Commission could claim that the last employee to see Oswald saw him on the 6th floor near the southeast corner. But Givens wasn't the last employee to see Oswald - Eddie Piper had some kind of interaction with Oswald at 12:00 pm on the first floor. This testimony also had to be ignored by the Commission.
Bonnie Ray broke for lunch, went down to the first floor, washed up, collected his lunch, got himself a Dr. Pepper and went back up to the 6th floor where he found himself a secluded spot in the southeast corner. He stayed here until about 12:25 pm. At least three of the officers who saw his lunch remains on the Sniper's Nest described seeing a partially-eaten piece of chicken, which seems unusual as this formed the main part of his lunch that day and he had been working hard that morning, using the saw and laying the floor. To me, it suggests he left the area unwillingly, that he was told to leave.
-
@Dan: That’s an excellent summary and it’s clear that at the marked point on the floor plan (22) there’s no way Baker was seeing thru both windows into the lunchroom. So if he saw Oswald at that position (22 ) Oswald would have to be in hallway area.
JohnM (if I’m understanding right) , suggests that Oswald managed to just get thru the outer door and it was closed when Baker got to the top of the staircase and Baker stepped onto the landing area of the 2nd floor.
This might be possible but for Oswald then to immediately stop there and turn around and be looking out thru the outer door window, as Baker passes by is an improbable act imo.
So if Oswald is NOT standing next to the outer door window then either Baker is altering the detail of seeing Oswald at position 22 , or Baker moved over for some unclear reason from 22 to a point ( which is not marked on the plan) from which point it would have been possible for Baker to see thru both door windows into a small area of the lunchroom.
This outer door being opened and closed is mostly predicated on the theory Oswald was the 6th floor shooter and was running down stairs and had to divert suddenly on the 2nd floor landing because he heard Truly shout up the elevator shaft.
Ruling this scenario out because of Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor , the only other option would be that Oswald used the east freight elevator with help of an accomplice ( who returns elevator to 5th floor) to bypass Garner unseen.
But this scenario requires Oswald reaching the 2nd floor by approx 55 sec post shots so that the accomplice can return east elevator to 5th floor by 75 sec post shots where it will be seen by Truly when he looks up the shaft as he shouted to send the elevator down.
So in this scenario, it’s possible also that Oswald was IN the lunchroom by 60 secs post shots and maybe he even got a coke from the machine, but if he is the shooter is he going to go back out to stand at the outer door looking thru the window? No, but he might go out the lunchroom door and pass by the outer door on his way to either go down the outer hallway or go into the 2nd floor office, because he is theoretically trying to get out of TSBD asap.
But wait! This is impossible because it’s TOO EARLY! It’s only 60 secs post shots! Mrs Reid took 2 minutes to get to the 2nd floor office. Baker/Truly took at least 75 secs but more likely it was closer to 90 secs to meet Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
So as Sherlock Holmes says, eliminate the impossible ( or at least the improbable) and whatever is left must be the truth.
Therefore , The flight down 4 floors/stairs or taking an elevator scenario is improbable. Baker at Point 22 on the floor plan seeing Oswald just standing at the outer door = improbable. Baker moving over towards the door if not seeing Oswald has no clear explanation by Baker and since that position was NOT marked on the map= improbable as well.
So what is left?
The most probable reason therefore if we are accepting that Baker saw Oswald thru the outer door window at position 22 , is that Oswald was going PAST the window on his way to the lunchroom because he had used the outer hallway to get there after he went up from being in the 1st floor entrance lobby. Oswald either used the front staircase or he used the passenger elevator, to get to the 2nd floor hallway.
Now I’m willing to go further here and try a timing analysis comparing both Baker and Truly going across the 1st floor with Oswald in the entrance lobby going up the lobby staircase or using the passenger elevator, but I’ll save that for another post.
-
It's always about you, isn't it? :). OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.
How sad, just after I accepted your evidence about the Hill/Davenport matter.
Really? And yet, you still managed to convince me that there was no discrepancy in the Hill/Davenport matter
Back in 1963 people still considered what people like notaries, lawyers and priests said to be beyond question. Now we know better.
In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of.
Ok, so Secret Service agent Richard E. Johnson would be the first offical who took possession of the "magic" bullet and he failed to identify it later. Where does that leave us?
This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid.
There is no problem. If evidence is authentic it's valid. So, use the chain of custody to show the evidence is authentic and your problem is solved.
If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid.
If a piece of evidence is not authenticated, it's automatically invalid. But what exactly do you consider an "unreasonable high standard". Could it simply be a standard your evidence can't meet?
If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.
So why not use a reasonable standard? Or do you believe no such thing exists?
You still don't get the difference between "authentic" and "authenticated." "Authentic" is an inherent property of an item. "Authenticated" is a label we assign to that item, based on some test we devise. There is no inherent equivalence between the two, and every authentic item is authentic whether or not it's been "authenticated."
MW: So why not use a reasonable standard? Or do you believe no such thing exists?
Who defines "reasonable?" You think you alone do? In reality, once Hill and Carroll testify that they recognize this pistol with the identifying marks they put on it as the one seized from the defendant at the Texas Theatre," it's going to be considered authenticated at trial, whether you like it or not. The idea that an unequivocal chain of custody must exist is the result of watching too many police procedurals late at night instead of getting a good night's rest.
-
It’s the LAW and ORDER series which has influenced me to be questioning stuff all the time :)
-
It’s the LAW and ORDER series which has influenced me to be questioning stuff all the time :)
It's not bad to question things. The problem I have with Martin's position here isn't so much about authentication as that he wants to use it as a Get Out Of Jail Free card in order to ignore the pistol as evidence. The problem is, this tack will not accomplish that. He would need to show that the Pistol is somehow defective as evidence in this case. That is, that some fact about the pistol would actually disqualify it, like it was the wrong caliber, or that the barrel was welded shut rendering the gun incapable of firing.
-
It's not bad to question things. The problem I have with Martin's position here isn't so much about authentication as that he wants to use it as a Get Out Of Jail Free card in order to ignore the pistol as evidence. The problem is, this tack will not accomplish that. He would need to show that the Pistol is somehow defective as evidence in this case. That is, that some fact about the pistol would actually disqualify it, like it was the wrong caliber, or that the barrel was welded shut rendering the gun incapable of firing.
As Robert Oswald said (I'm paraphrasing), "It's good to question things [the assassination]. But after the third time, the fourth, the fifth at some point it's enough."
This wasn't the police framing a black man or poor white man for shooting a gas station clerk in the middle of the night. Where one or two witnesses were either coerced or "encouraged" to point a finger at that person, someone who was "causing problems" anyway. Other witnesses ignored or not sought. That is either framing him or rushing an arrest. An easy conviction that was on page A-22 in the paper. The evidence is that Wade and the DPD did do things like that. It's a fact.
But this crime was investigated again and again and again (heck, it still is). By others, by the FBI, the WC, news reporters. Did the conspiracy include all of these people and investigations too? We go from a handful of people to dozens and dozens. Over half a century? Do we simply dismiss all of them as well? They were corrupt? Or possibly so? Hugh Aynesworth was on the ground there; he was at the assassination and then rushed to the Tippit scene. He interviewed the people. At that time. He was a heckuva reporter. Was he corrupt? Of course the conspiracists say *he was* corrupt, he was working for the CIA.
This is what, in part, "gets me". It's an endless series of charges of conspiracies, coverups, coverups of those coverups. Multiple generations of Americans in the government and outside of it. Aynesworth was corrupt. The WC was corrupt. The HSCA was corrupt. The news media were corrupt (Operation Mockingbird and all that). Really? This is the world that you think exists?
Asking questions is not only not bad but it's good. But at some point you have to accept the answers. This is all we have. We're not going to have a Perry Mason moment where everything falls into place. If you're not going to accept the answers then they're just not good faith questions but simply attempts to, for some odd reason, exonerate this very odd fellow Lee Harvey Oswald.
-
The Warren Commission was, in effect, the FBI investigation of the JFK assassination.
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover let it be known that the outcome of the investigation was going to be that Oswald was the lone assassin.
This isn't a joke or an exaggeration - the outcome of the investigation was decided before the investigation had really got going.
The loyalty of FBI agents was not to the truth or justice or any of that...their loyalty was to the Bureau and the Bureau was Hoover.
Hoover was the FBI and the FBI was Hoover.
This is a very uncomfortable fact for Lone Nutters, who swallow down the Warren Commission's findings wholesale, because it pulls the rug out from under any notions of "truth".
Trying to present the Oswald-Did-It [ODI] theory as a result of the search for some kind of "truth" is a sick joke and the perpetuation of this sick joke is an indicator of a serious malfunction within society.
There is no more extreme mentality than that of the Lone Nutter.
-
Steve M. Galbraith's contributions have at least been consistently devoid of substance over the last decade. Respect!
-
It's a plausible scenario, Iacoletti, whereas your implicit one -- that Oswald was innocent and therefore lots and lots of evil, evil CIA / FBI / Secret Service bad guys must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up -- is so implausible that it would be laughable if only it hadn't helped "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin install "useful idiot" (or worse) Trump as our "president" in 2017 and 2025..
Nice strawman, but I have no such scenario, "implicit" or otherwise.
-
Who defines "reasonable?" You think you alone do? In reality, once Hill and Carroll testify that they recognize this pistol with the identifying marks they put on it as the one seized from the defendant at the Texas Theatre," it's going to be considered authenticated at trial, whether you like it or not.
You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?
The problem is that neither Hill nor Carroll "seized" anything from anybody, Carroll didn't know whose hand he grabbed a gun from, and he didn't mark anything until long after a gun left his possession.
No chain of custody whatsoever.
-
It's not bad to question things. The problem I have with Martin's position here isn't so much about authentication as that he wants to use it as a Get Out Of Jail Free card in order to ignore the pistol as evidence. The problem is, this tack will not accomplish that. He would need to show that the Pistol is somehow defective as evidence in this case. That is, that some fact about the pistol would actually disqualify it, like it was the wrong caliber, or that the barrel was welded shut rendering the gun incapable of firing.
There is no reason whatsoever (other than faith) to believe that CE143 ever touched Oswald.
-
Asking questions is not only not bad but it's good. But at some point you have to accept the answers. This is all we have.
This is truly the heart of the LN position. This is all we have, so it has to be good enough. Even if our "answer" isn't very well supported, it's better than no answer.
-
This is truly the heart of the LN position. This is all we have, so it has to be good enough. Even if our "answer" isn't very well supported, it's better than no answer.
Why don't you provide us with a plausible alternative scenario, Iacoletti?
-
Why would an implausible scenario need a plausible alternative?
-
Why would an implausible scenario need a plausible alternative?
Because the Warren Commission's "implausible scenario" is a lot less implausible than any of the anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military scenarios that you and the other tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists have been able to come up with over the past sixty years, especially given the fact that most if not all of your conspiracy theories require an implausibly large number of bad guys involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
D'oh
-
Because the Warren Commission's "implausible scenario" is a lot less implausible than any of the anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military scenarios that you and the other tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists have been able to come up with over the past sixty years, especially given the fact that all of your conspiracy theories require an implausibly large number of bad guys involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
D'oh
The WC scenario is junk in it's own right, based on the available evidence. Junk is junk. It doesn't matter what other junk scenarios you can come up with, even if you believe they're worse, so your argument is simply false.
-
The WC scenario is junk in it's own right, based on the available evidence. Junk is junk. It doesn't matter what other junk scenarios you can come up with, even if you believe they're worse, so your argument is simply false.
Admit it, you can't think of any anti-"Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex" JFKA scenarios that are simpler than the Lone Gunman scenario the Warren Commission uncovered.
-
Admit it, you can't think of any anti-"Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex" JFKA scenarios that's simpler than the Lone Gunman scenario the Warren Commission uncovered.
Um, the LG scenario is inherently the simplest, so I would be wasting my time. The WC didn't uncover the LG scenario, that came from above. You didn't know that?
-
You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?
The problem is that neither Hill nor Carroll "seized" anything from anybody, Carroll didn't know whose hand he grabbed a gun from, and he didn't mark anything until long after a gun left his possession.
No chain of custody whatsoever.
No chain of custody whatsoever.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPGSySSV/dude-wtf.jpg)
Do you even know what a "chain of custody" is?
Because this has been explained to you ad nauseum, it's no wonder you earned the nickname "Dishonest John"!
• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll
Mr. BALL - What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD - When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.
• Officer Carroll confirms he kept the pistol on his person until he gave the pistol to Hill
Mr. CARROLL. After I took the pistol, I stuck it in my belt immediately. Then, after we got into the car and pulled out from the theater over there, I gave it to Jerry Hill, Sgt. Jerry Hill.
• Officer Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
Mr. BELIN. And being that he had the keys to the car, Bob Carroll drove the vehicle.
Mr. HILL. As he started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre.
• Officer Hill confirms he kept the pistol and later scratched his name on the same pistol, the same pistol in evidence.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN. Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you?
Mr. HILL. And identified to me as the suspect's weapon.
Mr. BELIN. This is what has now been marked as Commission Exhibit 143, is that correct?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; that is what it says.
• Oswald even admitted to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol because since he knew he was caught with it, he had no choice but to admit the obvious.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
• The revolver in evidence was ordered by Oswald and the address is the same PO Box that Oswald owned.
(https://i.postimg.cc/761sV6yf/oswald-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkLRt8gW/Hidell-Oswald-revolver-order.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/c44VhV4X/Oswald-revolver-Railway-express.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Rb73ndX/Forged-oswald-alex-hidell.jpg)
JohnM
-
Um, the LG scenario is inherently the simplest, so I would be wasting my time. The WC didn't uncover the LG scenario, that came from above. You didn't know that?
Dude, you're wittingly or unwittingly full of KGB* disinformation, compliments of Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, the Communist-owned "Paese Sera" newspaper, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Stone's JFKA guru, Jim "I Never Met a Communist I Didn't Absolutely Adore" DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Does not John Mytton think it was incredibly stupid that Oswald would have filled out a mail order form using his own handwriting style when he could have easily used his left hand and it would have been totally different?
If Oswald was using the fake name Alex Hidel is it not incredibly stupid to allow his own real P.O. Box to receive mail addressed to the fake name?
And is it not incredibly stupid of Oswald to have been carrying this fake ID in his wallet on the day of Nov 22/63 if Oswald was the assassin?
And even more stupid of Oswald to drop that wallet with fake ID in it at the Tippit shooting scene?
Maybe they should exhume Oswald’s body and examine the brain to see if they can determine if he could either have been that stupid or if he was a schizophrenic.
The other remaining options imo are :
1. The DPD and FBI and Will Fritz were engaged in manufacturing , planting and or embellishing evidence.
2. Oswald planned it this way (like smart alek :) would ) thinking he could have his cake and eat it too. Ie: Thinking he could leave evidence in a way which would implicate himself, leading to his arrest , and then he figures he will be able to get an attorney of his choice to argue that it was all obviously a set up. He gets this sensational trial of the century and gets acquitted and he’s now the famous Marxist ( writes a book and then interviews etc.)
-
Does not John Mytton think it was incredibly stupid that Oswald would have filled out a mail order form using his own handwriting style when he could have easily used his left hand and it would have been totally different?
If Oswald was using the fake name Alex Hidel is it not incredibly stupid to allow his own real P.O. Box to receive mail addressed to the fake name?
And is it not incredibly stupid of Oswald to have been carrying this fake ID in his wallet on the day of Nov 22/63 if Oswald was the assassin?
And even more stupid of Oswald to drop that wallet with fake ID in it at the Tippit shooting scene?
Maybe they should exhume Oswald’s body and examine the brain to see if they can determine if he could either have been that stupid or if he was a schizophrenic.
The other remaining options imo are :
1. The DPD and FBI and Will Fritz were engaged in manufacturing , planting and or embellishing evidence.
2. Oswald planned it this way (like smart alek :) would ) thinking he could have his cake and eat it too. Ie: Thinking he could leave evidence in a way which would implicate himself, leading to his arrest , and then he figures he will be able to get an attorney of his choice to argue that it was all obviously a set up. He gets this sensational trial of the century and gets acquitted and he’s now the famous Marxist ( writes a book and then interviews etc.)
Does not John Mytton think it was incredibly stupid that Oswald would have filled out a mail order form using his own handwriting style when he could have easily used his left hand and it would have been totally different?
I think Oswald thought of himself as quite clever to use the alias Hidell.
If Oswald was using the fake name Alex Hidel is it not incredibly stupid to allow his own real P.O. Box to receive mail addressed to the fake name?
The Hidell name was definitely associated with his New Orleans PO Box but I believe that the corresponding Dallas PO documents were not found.
And is it not incredibly stupid of Oswald to have been carrying this fake ID in his wallet on the day of Nov 22/63 if Oswald was the assassin?
No, if Oswald was stopped and questioned and they were looking for a man named Oswald, then having the Hidell ID would be advantageous.
And even more stupid of Oswald to drop that wallet with fake ID in it at the Tippit shooting scene?
Oswald did NOT drop his ID at the Tippit crime scene.
Maybe they should exhume Oswald’s body and examine the brain to see if they can determine if he could either have been that stupid or if he was a schizophrenic.
How much brain would be left after 60+ years? I personally don't think Oswald was stupid, a bit simple perhaps. In fact Oswald reminds me of a lot of members who post here, they think they are a lot smarter than they really are.
1. The DPD and FBI and Will Fritz were engaged in manufacturing , planting and or embellishing evidence.
Is there another recorded case where they manufactured such a large mountain of evidence and at the end of the day why would they even bother, what was in it for them?
2. Oswald planned it this way (like smart alek :) would ) thinking he could have his cake and eat it too. Ie: Thinking he could leave evidence in a way which would implicate himself, leading to his arrest , and then he figures he will be able to get an attorney of his choice to argue that it was all obviously a set up. He gets this sensational trial of the century and gets acquitted and he’s now the famous Marxist ( writes a book and then interviews etc.)
Now you're getting closer. Oswald didn't expect to survive the first day but when he did, he started to plan how infamous he was going to become and even tried to get John Abt to represent him.
John Jacob Abt (May 1, 1904 – August 10, 1991) was an American lawyer and politician, who spent most of his career as chief counsel to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and was a member of the Communist Party and the Soviet spy network "Ware Group" as alleged by Whittaker Chambers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abt
JohnM
-
Where do you get off, dude?
Like, "Where do you get off this bus (or train) -- you're stinking it up?"
What's YOUR favorite scenario, and how many bad guys and bad gals does it require to "work"?
You've already explained the bus analogy once; are you losing track? Cases go cold because pieces are missing, overlooked, or misinterpreted; it happens all the time. In this case the investigation was rigged, so major pieces missing is not surprising.
-
Admit it, you can't think of any anti-"Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex" JFKA scenarios that are simpler than the Lone Gunman scenario the Warren Commission uncovered.
BTW, since the WC narrative is junk, your requirement that an alternative should be simpler is invalid. That's probably a better explanation. Mindlessly repeating an invalid request doesn't make it valid.
-
Dude, you're wittingly or unwittingly full of KGB* disinformation, compliments of Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, the Communist-owned "Paese Sera" newspaper, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Stone's JFKA guru, Jim "I Never Met a Communist I Didn't Absolutely Adore" DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam.
*Today's SVR and FSB
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public....
Thanks Tom, Katzenbach is quite clear, he says it's IMPORTANT that ALL the FACTS surrounding the assassination be MADE PUBLIC, and to the best of their abilities, that's exactly what the WC did. Do you have a problem with his opening line?
JohnM
-
BTW, since the WC narrative is junk, your requirement that an alternative should be simpler is invalid. That's probably a better explanation. Mindlessly repeating an invalid request doesn't make it valid.
It's a pity that you can't tell me how, specifically, the evil, evil, evil "Deep State" / "Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex" / "National Security State" killed JFK. All you can do is criticize the Warren Commission which was tasked by LBJ to finish its report by September 1964.
-
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public....
Thanks Tom, Katzenbach is quite clear, he says it's IMPORTANT that ALL the FACTS surrounding the assassination be MADE PUBLIC, and to the best of their abilities, that's exactly what the WC did. Do you have a problem with his opening line?
JohnM
No, as far as the opening line goes.
-
It's a pity that you can't tell me how, specifically, the evil, evil, evil "Deep State" / "Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex" / "National Security State" killed JFK. All you can do is criticize the Warren Commission which was tasked by LBJ to finish its report by September 1964.
I judge the Warren Commission based on their own report and what JBL's executive order told them to do. How this somehow put Trump into office is unclear to me. Care to elaborate?
-
I judge the Warren Commission based on their own report and what JBL's executive order told them to do. How this somehow put Trump into office is unclear to me. Care to elaborate?
Sixty-plus years (it started in 1959 when the Kremlin set up Department D in the First Chief Directorate -- today's SVR -- and Department 14 in the Second Chief Directorate -- today's FSB) of KGB* disinformation (including, of course, "The CIA Did It" JFKA conspiracy theories),"active measures," and Sun Tzu-like strategic deception counterintelligence operations (look it up) waged against us and our NATO allies, made our (US & UK) bodies politic so cynical, paranoiac and apathetic as to enable "former" KGB* Lieutenant Colonel Putin, with help from his professional trolls in the Internet Research Agency, etc, to kick the EU out Britain and to install "useful idiot" (or worse) Donald J. Trump as our "president" in 2017 and 2025.
Capiche?
-
Sixty-plus years (it started in 1959 when the Kremlin set up Department D in the First Chief Directorate -- today's SVR -- and Department 14 in the Second Chief Directorate -- today's FSB) of KGB* disinformation (including, of course, "The CIA Did It" JFKA conspiracy theories),"active measures," and Sun Tzu-like strategic deception counterintelligence operations (look it up) waged against us and our NATO allies, made our (US & UK) bodies politic so cynical, paranoiac and apathetic as to enable "former" KGB* Lieutenant Colonel Putin, with help from his professional trolls in the Internet Research Agency, etc, to kick the EU out Britain and to install "useful idiot" (or worse) Donald J. Trump as our "president" in 2017 and 2025.
Capiche?
So, where do I fit in?
-
So, where do I fit in?
You, unless you're a witting KGB* agent (are you?), are just a little brainwashed pawn in the scheme of things, but Putin and The Traitorous Orange Xxxx, et al., do appreciate the anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military JFKA conspiracy theories you encourage or actively spread.
Do you even have a coherent JFKA conspiracy theory, dude?
Or do not have one and, like Iacoletti, just enjoy taking potshots at "Lone Nutters" and the Warren Commission Report?
*Today's SVR and FSB
Rhymes with https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html
-
You, unless you're a witting KGB* agent (are you?), are just a little brainwashed pawn in the scheme of things, but Putin and The Traitorous Orange Xxxx, et al., do appreciate the anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military JFKA conspiracy theories you encourage or actively spread.
Do you even have a coherent JFKA conspiracy theory, dude?
Or do not have one and, like Iacoletti, just enjoy taking potshots at "Lone Nutters" and the Warren Commission Report?
*Today's SVR and FSB
Rhymes with https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html
I know Feng Shui; am I close?
-
I know Feng Shui; am I close?
Is that some kind of magic mushroom?
-
Is that some kind of magic mushroom?
BTW, I don't agree with the potshot analogy; it's more like shooting fish in a barrel.
-
BTW, I don't agree with the potshot analogy; it's more like shooting fish in a barrel.
You're a mushroom, right?
-
BTW, I don't agree with the potshot analogy; it's more like shooting fish in a barrel.
Funny, I've never seen a brainwashed zombie shoot or fish.
-
Funny, I've never seen a brainwashed zombie shoot or fish.
Um, it's an analogy. Completely went over your head, it seems. Never mind.
-
Tom Graves, interesting. I would have sworn it was Thomas Graves way back, but I'm fine with Tom. LOL.
-
Tom Graves, interesting. I would have sworn it was Thomas Graves way back, but I'm fine with Tom. LOL.
LOL.
-
Tom Graves, interesting.
You asked me how you, as a JFKA conspiracy theorist, helped Russia win the Cold War on 5 November 2024.
This is my answer:
You, unless you're a witting KGB* agent (are you?), are just a little brainwashed pawn in the scheme of things, but Putin and The Traitorous Orange Xxxx, et al., do appreciate the 60 years' worth of body-politic-destroying anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military JFKA conspiracy theories you've helped the KGB* spread or . . . gasp . . . concocted on your own with a little KGB* input (can you say Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Jimmy DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam?).
Just curious:
Do you even have a favorite JFKA conspiracy theory, coherent or otherwise?
Or do NOT have one, and, like John Iacoletti, get your rocks off by taking cheap potshots at "Lone Nutters" and the Warren Commission Report?
Is it all just a silly game to you?
*Today's SVR and FSB
Rhymes with https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html
-
You asked me how you helped Russia win the Cold War on 5 November 2024.
This is my answer:
You, unless you're a witting KGB* agent (are you?), are just a little brainwashed pawn in the scheme of things, but Putin and The Traitorous Orange Xxxx, et al., do appreciate the 60 years' worth of body-politic-destroying anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military JFKA conspiracy theories you've helped the KGB* spread or . . . gasp . . . concocted on your own with a little KGB* input (can you say Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Jimmy DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam?).
Just curious:
Do you even have a coherent JFKA conspiracy theory?
Or do NOT have one, and, like John Iacoletti, get your rocks off by taking potshots at "Lone Nutters" and the Warren Commission Report?
*Today's SVR and FSB
Rhymes with https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html
I feel honored being placed in a group with John Iacoletti, thanks! I've already covered why no JFKA theory is needed to sink the conclusions in the WCR. I suggest you grow up, suck it up, and move on instead of copy-pasting your KGB babble ad infinitum.
-
I've already covered why no JFKA theory is needed to sink the conclusions in the WCR.
What you're really saying is that you cherish all JFKA conspiracy theories, no matter how complicated and implausible they might be.
-
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public....
Thanks Tom, Katzenbach is quite clear, he says it's IMPORTANT that ALL the FACTS surrounding the assassination be MADE PUBLIC, and to the best of their abilities, that's exactly what the WC did. Do you have a problem with his opening line?
JohnM
Do you mean the report that was rejected as evidence in the Clay Shaw trial as being, "fraught with hearsay and contradictions"
"If we are going to accept the Warren Commission's report as being factual, we have just wasted a whole week of time here."
BY MR. DYMOND:
"If the Court please, at this time pursuant to the provisions of RS 13:3713, the Defense would like to offer,
introduce and file into evidence the report of the Warren Commission, a one-volume report, being the official volume
as published by the United States Printing Office in accordance with the requirements of the statute cited,
and we would like to mark the same D-32."
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
"As to the introduction of that particular volume, Judge O'Hara feels that it is in accordance with the statutes of the
State of Louisiana and should be admitted in evidence. Judge Braniff and I believe that it should not. And my reason is simply this.
If we are going to accept the Warren Commission's report as being factual, we have just wasted a whole week of time here.
I don't care what statute was ever enacted, to accept the Warren Report, even if it were a constitutional amendment,
and at some time later we, or any law abiding agency, law enforcement agency, would some day conceivably come up with six confessions,
six photographs, six eyewitnesses, it would all be for naught."
BY JUDGE BRANIFF:
I am objecting to it because it is fraught with hearsay and contradictions."
BY JUDGE O'HARA:
"Mr. Wegmann, when I agreed that it was admissible, I don't want it implied or inferred that I am in complete agreement
with the findings of the Commission. I would just like to make that perfectly clear. It's admissible for what it's worth.
That's my position."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps you were referring to the Commission that found in Executive Session, the conclusion of a lone assassin was determined before calling the 1st witness.
Rankin: "They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go on home and that is the end of it."
From the Jan. 22nd session...
Dulles: Oh, terrible.
Boggs: Its implications of this are fantastic, don't you think so?
A: Terrific".
Rankin: To have anybody admit to it, even if it was the fact, I am sure that there wouldn't at this point
be anything to prove it.
Dulles: Lee, if this were true, why would it be particularly in their interest -- I could see, it would be
in their interest to get rid of this man but why would it be in their interest to say he is clearly the only guilty one?
I mean I don't see that argument that you raise particularly shows an interest.
Boggs: I can immediately --
A: They would like to have us fold up and quit.
Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don't you see?
Dulles: Yes, I see that.
Rankin: They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go
on home and that is the end of it.
Dulles: But that puts the man right on them. If he was not the killer and they employed him, they are already it, you see.
So your argument is correct if they are sure that this is going to close the case, but if it don't close the case, they are
worse off than ever by doing this.
Boggs: Yes, I would think so. And of course, we are all even grasping in the realm of speculation.
I don't even like to see this being taken down.
Dulles: Yes. I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?
A: I don't, except that we said we would have records of meetings and so we called the reporter in the formal way.
If you think what we have said here should not be upon the record, we can have it done that way. Of course it might. . . .
Dulles: I am just thinking of sending around copies and so forth. The only copies of this record should be kept right here.
Boggs: I would hope that none of these records are circulated to anybody.
A: I would hope so too.
-
What you're really saying is that you cherish all JFKA conspiracy theories, no matter how complicated and implausible they might be.
No, what I'm really saying is that I don't need a JFKA theory to debunk the WC narrative, and consequently don't need to endorse any of them.
-
Tom Graves huh? - and here I thought it was the "Bill Chapman Show".
Regardless; "Don't Feed the Trolls" Thumb1:
-
Tom Graves huh? - and here I thought it was the "Bill Chapman Show".
Regardless; "Don't Feed the Trolls" Thumb1:
Who is Bill Chapman?
-
Why don't you provide us with a plausible alternative scenario, Iacoletti?
Otherwise known as "my implausible scenario is automatically correct until you come up with a better one".
-
Do you even know what a "chain of custody" is?
Yes. But apparently you don't. A list of names cobbled together after the fact is not a chain of custody.
• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.
Ok so far....
• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll
Bzzzt. Nope, not corroborated by Carroll.
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
• Officer Carroll confirms he kept the pistol on his person until he gave the pistol to Hill
• Officer Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
Mr. BELIN. And being that he had the keys to the car, Bob Carroll drove the vehicle.
Mr. HILL. As he started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre.
Bzzzt. Nope. Carroll had no way of knowing that the pistol he had was "taken from the suspect".
• Officer Hill confirms he kept the pistol and later scratched his name on the same pistol, the same pistol in evidence.
"later". LOL.
How would McDonald or Carroll (who also scratched their initials "later") know that this was the same gun either one of them handled earlier? That's why it's not a chain of custody.
• Oswald even admitted to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol because since he knew he was caught with it, he had no choice but to admit the obvious.
Even if he did (and there's no proof of that), it doesn't tell you what pistol he admitted carrying. According to the accounts of the interrogation, he admitted purchasing a gun in Fort Worth.
• The revolver in evidence was ordered by Oswald and the address is the same PO Box that Oswald owned.
Irrelevant to the issue of chain of custody.
P.S. "was ordered by Oswald". LOL
-
I think Oswald thought of himself as quite clever to use the alias Hidell.
There's no evidence of Oswald ever using Hidell as an alias for himself.
The Hidell name was definitely associated with his New Orleans PO Box but I believe that the corresponding Dallas PO documents were not found.
"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A . Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas". (25H859)
-
Yes. But apparently you don't. A list of names cobbled together after the fact is not a chain of custody.
Ok so far....
Bzzzt. Nope, not corroborated by Carroll.
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
Bzzzt. Nope. Carroll had no way of knowing that the pistol he had was "taken from the suspect".
"later". LOL.
How would McDonald or Carroll (who also scratched their initials "later") know that this was the same gun either one of them handled earlier? That's why it's not a chain of custody.
Even if he did (and there's no proof of that), it doesn't tell you what pistol he admitted carrying. According to the accounts of the interrogation, he admitted purchasing a gun in Fort Worth.
Irrelevant to the issue of chain of custody.
P.S. "was ordered by Oswald". LOL
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.
Now John, tell me where in this confirmed "chain of custody" where there is any possibility where the pistol was substituted and don't forget there is a paper trail which has Oswald ordering and having a pistol sent to his PO Box which required pick-up from Railway Express's Dallas office.
By the way John, don't forget the only person who orders a pistol with an oversized barrel is someone who wants to get away with murder.
JohnM
-
There's no evidence of Oswald ever using Hidell as an alias for himself.
"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A . Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas". (25H859)
There's no evidence of Oswald ever using Hidell as an alias for himself.
Seriously? So the "conspirators" invented an alias which added a redundant extra step which makes the entire process even more complicated, when they could have just used the name Oswald was born with?
The only person who invents an alias for himself is someone who wants to divert away from himself. DUH!
"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A . Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas". (25H859)
Hilarious, it's real funny how selective you are with the FBI evidence.
Besides Holmes spells it out quite clearly that mail with the correct address is placed in your PO Box because what the heck is a postal worker gonna do, send it back to the sender? LOL!
Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
JohnM
-
Tom Graves huh? - and here I thought it was the "Bill Chapman Show".
Regardless; "Don't Feed the Trolls" Thumb1:
Capasse's deductive reasoning skills are as usual "par excellence"! Hahahaha!
JohnM
-
Capasse's deductive reasoning skills are as usual "par excellence"! Hahahaha!
JohnM
Whatever happened to Bill?
I see the last time he was here was April 26, 2023.
-
Whatever happened to Bill?
I see the last time he was here was April 26, 2023.
I don't know why Bill left?
Bill was a graphic designer by trade and used to make some real nice graphics and he had a sense of humour which I find is pretty common in LNers whereas CT's take themselves oh so seriously and are usually devoid of any humour of any kind.
JohnM
-
You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?
The problem is that neither Hill nor Carroll "seized" anything from anybody, Carroll didn't know whose hand he grabbed a gun from, and he didn't mark anything until long after a gun left his possession.
No chain of custody whatsoever.
JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?
I've known plenty of attorneys in my life. Occasionally, I've abused those relationships a bit to ask about some of the legal issues involved. Sometimes, I find myself in an interesting discussion. Other times, I've been pointed to a specific article or court decision. The upshot of all this activity is that that admissibility and authentication as practiced is somewhat different than what many conspiracy mavens would like to believe. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.
JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.
-
JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?
I've known plenty of attorneys in my life. Occasionally, I've abused those relationships a bit to ask about some of the legal issues involved. Sometimes, I find myself in an interesting discussion. Other times, I've been pointed to a specific article or court decision. The upshot of all this activity is that that admissibility and authentication as practiced is somewhat different than what many conspiracy mavens would like to believe. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.
JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.
I've linked several times to the full transcripts of the Ruby trial and the preliminary "statements of fact" or evidence hearings. These detailed chain-of-custody requirements by the Oswald defenders are simply not there. Not in the Ruby trial, e.g., the revolver, et cetera. People are using modern standards that simply weren't used at the time.
I would imagine one could find transcripts of other trials during those years to see how they handled custody/evidence questions. But the preliminary trial transcripts for things like habeas, et cetera are hand to find online. You'd probably have to go in person to the Dallas County courthouse and dig them out (if they even exist; which I doubt). I did find the trial transcripts for the famous Roe. v. Wade abortion decision that started in a Dallas County court and worked its way up to the Supremes. But that was in 1970 and the evidence hearings really don't tell us anything.
-
JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?
I've known plenty of attorneys in my life. Occasionally, I've abused those relationships a bit to ask about some of the legal issues involved. Sometimes, I find myself in an interesting discussion. Other times, I've been pointed to a specific article or court decision. The upshot of all this activity is that that admissibility and authentication as practiced is somewhat different than what many conspiracy mavens would like to believe. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.
JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.
I've known plenty of attorneys in my life
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
I know a few highly successfull business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull business man, right?
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on
No, he didn't.
Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum.
Which does not match the claim you made about McDonald and it demonstrates that Carroll didn't know who that somebody was.
Those stories match, even if not perfectly.
No, they don't match at all.
Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill.
True, to some extend. Carroll give Hill a (not "the") revolver and told him he was told that it was the revolver taken from Oswald. Details matter!
Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office.
The problem is that Hill (and Carroll) did not take the revolver to the Personnel Bureau office straight away. In fact, Hill, carried it around (showing it to the media) for more than an hour and then presented a (not "the") revolver to the men at the Personnel Bureau office.
That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.
No it isn't! A chain of custody is unequivocal. This one isn't! You've got Carroll giving Hill a revolver, which he does not know from whom it was taken and saying to Hill he was told it was Oswald's revolver. Then you have Hill who (as the official story goes) carries a revolver on his person for no particular reason instead of delivering it to the evidence room upon arrival at the police station. And then, more than an hour after his arrival, Hill produces a revolver to other officers who mark it. Btw some of those officers als marked the grey jacket despite the fact that they were never part of that chain of custody.
What you have here is no chain of custody.... it's Swiss cheese!
-
I've known plenty of attorneys in my life
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
I know a few highly successfull business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull business man, right?
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on
No, he didn't.
Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum.
Which does not match the claim you made about McDonald and it demonstrates that Carroll didn't know who that somebody was.
Those stories match, even if not perfectly.
No, they don't match at all.
Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill.
True, to some extend. Carroll give Hill a (not "the") revolver and told him he was told that it was the revolver taken from Oswald. Details matter!
Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office.
The problem is that Hill (and Carroll) did not take the revolver to the Personnel Bureau office straight away. In fact, Hill, carried it around (showing it to the media) for more than an hour and then presented a (not "the") revolver to the men at the Personnel Bureau office.
That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.
No it isn't! A chain of custody is unequivocal. This one isn't! You've got Carroll giving Hill a revolver, which he does not know from whom it was taken and saying to Hill he was told it was Oswald's revolver. Then you have Hill who (as the official story goes) carries a revolver on his person for no particular reason instead of delivering it to the evidence room upon arrival at the police station. And then, more than an hour after his arrival, Hill produces a revolver to other officers who mark it. Btw some of those officers als marked the grey jacket despite the fact that they were never part of that chain of custody.
What you have here is no chain of custody.... it's Swiss cheese!
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
I know a few highly successfull business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull business man, right?
Typical Weidmann slop, Todd never equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer, he merely had experts clarify the law. Whereas the only highly successful businessmen Martin knows are the ones he sees on the telly!
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on
No, he didn't.
This is why people don't want to debate you, because you constantly lie and misrepresent the evidence.
• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll
Mr. BALL - What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD - When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.
Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office.
The problem is that Hill (and Carroll) did not take the revolver to the Personnel Bureau office straight away. In fact, Hill, carried it around (showing it to the media) for more than an hour and then presented a (not "the") revolver to the men at the Personnel Bureau office.
How pathetic, it doesn't matter if Hill carried the pistol for 5 minutes or 5 hours, he testified that he never relinquished control of Oswald's revolver, the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald. I'd like to see you convince even the dumbest Jury that Hill substituted your make believe revolver with Oswald's revolver.
No it isn't! A chain of custody is unequivocal.
Welcome to the Bonkers Fantasy CT World populated with Oswald apologists!
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
• McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
• The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.
JohnM
-
Typical Weidmann slop, Todd never equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer, he merely had experts clarify the law. Whereas the only highly successful businessmen Martin knows are the ones he sees on the telly!
This is why people don't want to debate you, because you constantly lie and misrepresent the evidence.
• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll
Mr. BALL - What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD - When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.
How pathetic, it doesn't matter if Hill carried the pistol for 5 minutes or 5 hours, he testified that he never relinquished control of Oswald's revolver, the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald. I'd like to see you convince even the dumbest Jury that Hill substituted your make believe revolver with Oswald's revolver.
Welcome to the Bonkers Fantasy CT World populated with Oswald apologists!
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
• McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
• The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.
JohnM
Your obsession with me playing up again, John?
I've known plenty of attorneys in my life
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
Typical Weidmann slop, Todd never equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer, he merely had experts clarify the law. Whereas the only highly successful businessmen Martin knows are the ones he sees on the telly!
And where exactly did I say that Todd "equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer"? What Todd said was an appeal to authority. It's as simple as that!
Are you so ignorant that you don't understand that there are also people who know the law without being a lawyer?
Misrepresent much?
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
Too bad that Carroll does not confirm that McDonald gave him a pistol.
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
So, somebody is clearly lying here! Who is it; McDonald or Carroll?
-
Your obsession with me playing up again, John?
And where exactly did I say that Todd "equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer"? What Todd said was an appeal to authority. It's as simple as that!
Are you so ignorant that you don't understand that there are also people who know the law without being a lawyer?
Misrepresent much?
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
Too bad that Carroll does not confirm that McDonald gave him a pistol.
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
So, somebody is clearly lying here! Who is it; McDonald or Carroll?
And where exactly did I say that Todd "equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer"?
HUH? Your very own example "I know a few highly successfull(sic) business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull(sic) business man".
So, somebody is clearly lying here! Who is it; McDonald or Carroll?
Double HUH? Neither Police Officer lied!
JohnM
-
HUH? Your very own example "I know a few highly successfull(sic) business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull(sic) business man".
Double HUH? Neither Police Officer lied!
JohnM
HUH? Your very own example "I know a few highly successfull(sic) business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull(sic) business man".
You forgot to quote the question mark!
Double HUH? Neither Police Officer lied!
Hilarious! So, McDonald can give a revolver to Carroll without Carroll knowing who gave it to him? Are you for real?
Carroll said he grabbed a pistol pointing at him.
Just try to be honest for once, John.
-
Double HUH? Neither Police Officer lied!
Hilarious! So, McDonald can give a revolver to Carroll without Carroll knowing who gave it to him? Are you for real?
Carroll said he grabbed a pistol pointing at him.
Just try to be honest for once, John.
Triple HUH? For McDonald to be proved to have lied, then you need evidence that Carroll said he received the pistol from Officer X or perpetrator Y.
• McDonald saw who he gave the pistol to, Officer Carroll.
• Carroll understandably being focused on a pistol pointed at him didn't see who was holding the pistol.
As I said NOBODY lied.
The following images of Oswald's recreated arrest come from the Ruby and Oswald telemovie and the JFK movie. Another interesting observation is how many purely innocent men act this aggressively to an approaching cop and how many would then use their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill this Officer? And just one more thought, if the Dallas Police was involved with the conspiracy then this would be the perfect time to eliminate the "Patsy" but instead, the Dallas Police did everything in their power to keep Oswald alive and gave Oswald the chance to talk to the media and even went one step further and let Oswald have a midnight press conference! Hooray for the Dallas Police!
(https://i.postimg.cc/XNmrqFTt/Ruby-and-Oswald-movie-arrest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8CLnxhLW/JFK-movie-Osw-ald-arrest.jpg)
JohnM
-
Here... give this one a try:
Yes, Earl Warren (1891-1974), the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, was a Freemason. He was active in Freemasonry, rising to become the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of California.
Yes, J. Edgar Hoover, the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was indeed a dedicated Freemason. He was initiated as a Master Mason on November 9, 1920, at Federal Lodge No. 1 in Washington, D.C. Over his lifetime, Hoover received several prestigious honors within the Masonic fraternity. In 1955, he was coroneted a 33rd Degree Inspector General Honorary by the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Southern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States (AASR-SMJ).
Yes, Bill Decker, who served as Sheriff of Dallas County from 1956 to 1966, was a member of the Freemasons. He was affiliated with Dallas Lodge No. 760, where he was listed among notable members in the field of law enforcement.
Additionally, Decker was a 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason, indicating a high level of achievement within the Scottish Rite branch of Freemasonry.
Yes, Lyndon B. Johnson was a Freemason. He was initiated into Johnson City Lodge No. 561 in Johnson City, Texas, in 1937. However, his connection to Freemasonry was somewhat limited, and he never became deeply involved in the organization. Johnson was reportedly more focused on his political career, and while he was a member, he did not prominently participate in Masonic activities.
Yes, Jesse E. Curry, who served as Chief of the Dallas Police Department from 1960 to 1966, was a member of the Freemasons.
Yes, Arlen Specter, who served as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania from 1981 to 2011, was affiliated with Freemasonry. According to the Masonic Library and Museum of Pennsylvania, he is listed among notable Freemasons from Philadelphia.
Additionally, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania's Freemason Magazine mentions that Specter received citations from the office of Pennsylvania U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, among other representatives.
And check out these Warren Commission Freemasons:
Allen Dulles: The former CIA Director and a commission member, Dulles was associated with the Freemasons. His involvement in intelligence and international affairs was complemented by his participation in various fraternal organizations.
John McCloy: Serving as the High Commissioner for Germany post-World War II, McCloy was linked to Freemasonry. His roles in both the public and private sectors were influenced by his affiliations with such organizations.
Gerald Ford: Before becoming President, Ford was a U.S. Congressman and a member of the Warren Commission. He was initiated into Freemasonry in 1949, reflecting his engagement with fraternal societies.
Hale Boggs: A Congressman from Louisiana, Boggs was known to have connections with Freemasonry, which influenced his political and personal life.
Richard Russell: Serving as a Senator from Georgia, Russell's involvement with Freemasonry is documented, highlighting his commitment to its principles.
John Cooper: A Senator from Kentucky, Cooper's affiliation with Freemasonry is noted, reflecting the organization's influence in his personal and professional endeavors.
-
Here... give this one a try:
Yes, Earl Warren (1891-1974), the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, was a Freemason. He was active in Freemasonry, rising to become the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of California.
Yes, J. Edgar Hoover, the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was indeed a dedicated Freemason. He was initiated as a Master Mason on November 9, 1920, at Federal Lodge No. 1 in Washington, D.C. Over his lifetime, Hoover received several prestigious honors within the Masonic fraternity. In 1955, he was coroneted a 33rd Degree Inspector General Honorary by the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Southern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States (AASR-SMJ).
Yes, Bill Decker, who served as Sheriff of Dallas County from 1956 to 1966, was a member of the Freemasons. He was affiliated with Dallas Lodge No. 760, where he was listed among notable members in the field of law enforcement.
Additionally, Decker was a 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason, indicating a high level of achievement within the Scottish Rite branch of Freemasonry.
Yes, Lyndon B. Johnson was a Freemason. He was initiated into Johnson City Lodge No. 561 in Johnson City, Texas, in 1937. However, his connection to Freemasonry was somewhat limited, and he never became deeply involved in the organization. Johnson was reportedly more focused on his political career, and while he was a member, he did not prominently participate in Masonic activities.
Yes, Jesse E. Curry, who served as Chief of the Dallas Police Department from 1960 to 1966, was a member of the Freemasons.
Yes, Arlen Specter, who served as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania from 1981 to 2011, was affiliated with Freemasonry. According to the Masonic Library and Museum of Pennsylvania, he is listed among notable Freemasons from Philadelphia.
Additionally, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania's Freemason Magazine mentions that Specter received citations from the office of Pennsylvania U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, among other representatives.
And check out these Warren Commission Freemasons:
Allen Dulles: The former CIA Director and a commission member, Dulles was associated with the Freemasons. His involvement in intelligence and international affairs was complemented by his participation in various fraternal organizations.
John McCloy: Serving as the High Commissioner for Germany post-World War II, McCloy was linked to Freemasonry. His roles in both the public and private sectors were influenced by his affiliations with such organizations.
Gerald Ford: Before becoming President, Ford was a U.S. Congressman and a member of the Warren Commission. He was initiated into Freemasonry in 1949, reflecting his engagement with fraternal societies.
Hale Boggs: A Congressman from Louisiana, Boggs was known to have connections with Freemasonry, which influenced his political and personal life.
Richard Russell: Serving as a Senator from Georgia, Russell's involvement with Freemasonry is documented, highlighting his commitment to its principles.
John Cooper: A Senator from Kentucky, Cooper's affiliation with Freemasonry is noted, reflecting the organization's influence in his personal and professional endeavors.
And this one...
Yes, Abraham Zapruder, known for filming the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, was a Freemason and held the 33rd degree in the Scottish Rite. He was also associated with the Shriners, a Masonic organization.
-
I've known plenty of attorneys in my life
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
I know a few highly successfull business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull business man, right?
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on
No, he didn't.
Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum.
Which does not match the claim you made about McDonald and it demonstrates that Carroll didn't know who that somebody was.
Those stories match, even if not perfectly.
No, they don't match at all.
Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill.
True, to some extend. Carroll give Hill a (not "the") revolver and told him he was told that it was the revolver taken from Oswald. Details matter!
Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office.
The problem is that Hill (and Carroll) did not take the revolver to the Personnel Bureau office straight away. In fact, Hill, carried it around (showing it to the media) for more than an hour and then presented a (not "the") revolver to the men at the Personnel Bureau office.
That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.
No it isn't! A chain of custody is unequivocal. This one isn't! You've got Carroll giving Hill a revolver, which he does not know from whom it was taken and saying to Hill he was told it was Oswald's revolver. Then you have Hill who (as the official story goes) carries a revolver on his person for no particular reason instead of delivering it to the evidence room upon arrival at the police station. And then, more than an hour after his arrival, Hill produces a revolver to other officers who mark it. Btw some of those officers als marked the grey jacket despite the fact that they were never part of that chain of custody.
What you have here is no chain of custody.... it's Swiss cheese!
MW: You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
What I said is that I've asked lawyers I've known about this particular issue. Somehow you think it's "stupid" ask a lawyer about a legal issue, which goes to show who's really acting stupidly here.
And what I said about the pistol's known chain of possession is correct. Mytton's already set you right on McDonald giving the gun to Carroll, and your notion that Hill somehow disappeared with it the reappeared is similarly incorrect.
-
Here... give this one a try:
Yes, Earl Warren (1891-1974), the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, was a Freemason. He was active in Freemasonry, rising to become the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of California.
Yes, J. Edgar Hoover, the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was indeed a dedicated Freemason. He was initiated as a Master Mason on November 9, 1920, at Federal Lodge No. 1 in Washington, D.C. Over his lifetime, Hoover received several prestigious honors within the Masonic fraternity. In 1955, he was coroneted a 33rd Degree Inspector General Honorary by the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Southern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States (AASR-SMJ).
Yes, Bill Decker, who served as Sheriff of Dallas County from 1956 to 1966, was a member of the Freemasons. He was affiliated with Dallas Lodge No. 760, where he was listed among notable members in the field of law enforcement.
Additionally, Decker was a 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason, indicating a high level of achievement within the Scottish Rite branch of Freemasonry.
Yes, Lyndon B. Johnson was a Freemason. He was initiated into Johnson City Lodge No. 561 in Johnson City, Texas, in 1937. However, his connection to Freemasonry was somewhat limited, and he never became deeply involved in the organization. Johnson was reportedly more focused on his political career, and while he was a member, he did not prominently participate in Masonic activities.
Yes, Jesse E. Curry, who served as Chief of the Dallas Police Department from 1960 to 1966, was a member of the Freemasons.
Yes, Arlen Specter, who served as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania from 1981 to 2011, was affiliated with Freemasonry. According to the Masonic Library and Museum of Pennsylvania, he is listed among notable Freemasons from Philadelphia.
Additionally, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania's Freemason Magazine mentions that Specter received citations from the office of Pennsylvania U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, among other representatives.
And check out these Warren Commission Freemasons:
Allen Dulles: The former CIA Director and a commission member, Dulles was associated with the Freemasons. His involvement in intelligence and international affairs was complemented by his participation in various fraternal organizations.
John McCloy: Serving as the High Commissioner for Germany post-World War II, McCloy was linked to Freemasonry. His roles in both the public and private sectors were influenced by his affiliations with such organizations.
Gerald Ford: Before becoming President, Ford was a U.S. Congressman and a member of the Warren Commission. He was initiated into Freemasonry in 1949, reflecting his engagement with fraternal societies.
Hale Boggs: A Congressman from Louisiana, Boggs was known to have connections with Freemasonry, which influenced his political and personal life.
Richard Russell: Serving as a Senator from Georgia, Russell's involvement with Freemasonry is documented, highlighting his commitment to its principles.
John Cooper: A Senator from Kentucky, Cooper's affiliation with Freemasonry is noted, reflecting the organization's influence in his personal and professional endeavors.
You can add David Harold Byrd to this list. The owner of the building from which the assassination occurred and close friend of the man who benefited most from JFK's death - Lyndon Johnson - was, according to FBI files, "a Mason (32nd degree, Shriner)". He also had a mutual fan club going with Hoover, with whom he corresponded many times.
-
MW: You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
What I said is that I've asked lawyers I've known about this particular issue. Somehow you think it's "stupid" ask a lawyer about a legal issue, which goes to show who's really acting stupidly here.
And what I said about the pistol's known chain of possession is correct. Mytton's already set you right on McDonald giving the gun to Carroll, and your notion that Hill somehow disappeared with it the reappeared is similarly incorrect.
Read what I actually said;
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"
What I said is that I've asked lawyers I've known about this particular issue.
What particular issue? That's way too generic. Just like with most aspects of the law, the devil is in the details! The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer!
Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonald and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?
Somehow you think it's "stupid" ask a lawyer about a legal issue,
So, now you know what I think? Really? But to answer your question, no it's not stupid to ask a lawyer about a legal issue. What is actually stupid is the appeal to authority fallacy you used it for.
And what I said about the pistol's known chain of possession is correct.
Who made that determination? You or the lawyers you've asked?
Mytton's already set you right on McDonald giving the gun to Carroll,
No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.
and your notion that Hill somehow disappeared with it the reappeared is similarly incorrect.
If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?
-
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
Great. So you don't understand what "documented" means, or what "provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence" means. Not to mention what "confirmed" means.
That explains a lot.
Now John, tell me where in this confirmed "chain of custody" where there is any possibility where the pistol was substituted and don't forget there is a paper trail which has Oswald ordering and having a pistol sent to his PO Box which required pick-up from Railway Express's Dallas office.
No, there is no "paper trail" showing that any "pistol" was sent to any PO Box or picked up by Oswald.
By the way John, don't forget the only person who orders a pistol with an oversized barrel is someone who wants to get away with murder.
There no need to "remember" some claim you just pulled out of your azz.
-
Seriously? So the "conspirators" invented an alias which added a redundant extra step which makes the entire process even more complicated, when they could have just used the name Oswald was born with?
The only person who invents an alias for himself is someone who wants to divert away from himself. DUH!
Nice strawman. You trying to take the title away from Strawman "Smith"?
Is this supposed to be evidence of Oswald using Hidell as an alias for himself?
Besides Holmes spells it out quite clearly that mail with the correct address is placed in your PO Box because what the heck is a postal worker gonna do, send it back to the sender? LOL!
FBI informant Holmes' assertion was at odds with the postal regulations at the time.
-
McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.
No, "stories" told long after the fact do not constitute a valid chain of custody. To see why, just ask yourself how McDonald could possibly know that the gun he initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun he handled in the theater?
-
I've linked several times to the full transcripts of the Ruby trial and the preliminary "statements of fact" or evidence hearings. These detailed chain-of-custody requirements by the Oswald defenders are simply not there. Not in the Ruby trial, e.g., the revolver, et cetera. People are using modern standards that simply weren't used at the time.
It has nothing to do with "standards in use at the time". If that was the "standard", then all that means is that at the time they did nothing to ensure the authenticity of evidence. It doesn't magically make the evidence authenticatible. But the fact that they even bothered to initial stuff at all tells you that there were some standards. They just didn't apply them in any reliable way.
-
the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald
LOL.
-
Triple HUH? For McDonald to be proved to have lied, then you need evidence that Carroll said he received the pistol from Officer X or perpetrator Y.
• McDonald saw who he gave the pistol to, Officer Carroll.
• Carroll understandably being focused on a pistol pointed at him didn't see who was holding the pistol.
As I said NOBODY lied.
Just because you can't figure out that there is a difference between being given something and grabbing something doesn't mean that there is no contradiction.
The following images of Oswald's recreated arrest come from the Ruby and Oswald telemovie and the JFK movie. Another interesting observation is how many purely innocent men act this aggressively to an approaching cop and how many would then use their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill this Officer?
Loaded question, given that there is no evidence that anybody used their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill an officer, except maybe in the movies.
-
Read what I actually said;
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"
What I said is that I've asked lawyers I've known about this particular issue.
What particular issue? That's way too generic. Just like with most aspects of the law, the devil is in the details! The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer!
Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonalds and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?
Somehow you think it's "stupid" ask a lawyer about a legal issue,
So, now you know what I think? Really? But to answer your question, no it's not stupid to ask a lawyer about a legal issue. What is actually stupid is the appeal to authority fallacy you used it for.
And what I said about the pistol's known chain of possession is correct.
Who made that determination? You or the lawyers you've asked?
Mytton's already set you right on McDonald giving the gun to Carroll,
No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.
and your notion that Hill somehow disappeared with it the reappeared is similarly incorrect.
If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?
MW: Read what I actually said;
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"
How you prefaced the statement doesn't change its meaning or intent of the rest. Especially the part of it you left off: "Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?"
I said I'd asked lawyers I'd known about admissibility and authentication. You decided I was "stupid" to do so.
So, now you know what I think?
I know what you said. How that relates to what you really think is a question only you can answer.
Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonalds and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?
Carroll remained with Hill the entire time between dropping Oswald off at the Homicide office and turning over the marked pistol. The idea that Hill disappeared with the gun is simply another misapprehension of yours.
No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.
I've made no mistake. McDonald said he "gave" the pistol to Carroll. Carroll said that he saw the pistol being pointed out at him, then he grabbed it. While Carroll couldn't name the person holding the pistol out, Carroll only grabbed on pistol, McDonald said that he handled one pistol and nobody else said they saw two pistols. Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point. The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.
If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?
Hill and Carroll both said that, after depositing Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, they brought the gun with them to the Personnel Bureau office. In the office, the worked on writing reports until the left to turn over the pistol to Fritz' group.
The notion that Hill alone absconded with the firearm is simply wrong.
-
MW: Read what I actually said;
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"
How you prefaced the statement doesn't change its meaning or intent of the rest. Especially the part of it you left off: "Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?"
I said I'd asked lawyers I'd known about admissibility and authentication. You decided I was "stupid" to do so.
So, now you know better than me what I meant by what I wrote?
So, now you know what I think?
I know what you said. How that relates to what you really think is a question only you can answer.
So, you know what I said, but you just don't understand what I said? Is that it?
Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonalds and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?
Carroll remained with Hill the entire time between dropping Oswald off at the Homicide office and turning over the marked pistol. The idea that Hill disappeared with the gun is simply another misapprehension of yours.
Not the answer to my question. I'm curious where you got the information from that Hill and Carroll remained together the entire time. I did find a report they both, and Capt. Westbrook, signed, but beyond that I was unable to find any confirmation for your claim, so why don't you show me where Carroll and Hill said they were together the entire time?
No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.
I've made no mistake. McDonald said he "gave" the pistol to Carroll. Carroll said that he saw the pistol being pointed out at him, then he grabbed it. While Carroll couldn't name the person holding the pistol out, Carroll only grabbed on pistol, McDonald said that he handled one pistol and nobody else said they saw two pistols. Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point. The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.
So, Carroll sees a revolver being pointed at him and doesn't know who is holding it and then you assume that it must have been McDonald handing the revolver to him? Did I get that right?
Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point.
True, but that's exactly what a chain of custody is for; to ensure that there was only one revolver.
The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.
Which is merely your assumption. There is no room for assumptions in a chain of custody!
If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?
Hill and Carroll both said that, after depositing Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, they brought the gun with them to the Personnel Bureau office. In the office, the worked on writing reports until the left to turn over the pistol to Fritz' group.
The notion that Hill alone absconded with the firearm is simply wrong.
Not completely true, I'm a afraid. Hill testified (and there is photographic evidence to support him) that at some point he showed the revolver to reporters.
Also, according to Hill, the revolver wasn't marked until 4 PM, some two hours after Oswald had been brought into the police station. Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for two hours in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?
Apart from this, McDonald also marked the revolver at the Personnel Office, but IMO it's highly doubtful that he got a good enough look at the revolver during the scuffle to be sure the revolver he was marking was the same one Carroll put in his belt at the Texas Theater.
Btw, here's an interesting bit from Hill's testimony;
Mr. HILL. Talked to Walker after he left the interrogation room. He came into the personnel office with us, and we sat down and made sure that--we just talked over our story and made sure that we had all the details as to who was where in the arrest, what door the man came in into the theatre, where they were when the original contact was made, how Bentley hurt his foot, how Lyons hurt his foot, and all this, and decided, well, rather than have to get everybody back together and round them up and all six or seven people sign the one
-
It has nothing to do with "standards in use at the time". If that was the "standard", then all that means is that at the time they did nothing to ensure the authenticity of evidence. It doesn't magically make the evidence authenticatible. But the fact that they even bothered to initial stuff at all tells you that there were some standards. They just didn't apply them in any reliable way.
It would be authenticated because it bears the mark of Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it before turning it over to Homicide. Once Carroll testifies "yes, that is the pistol I grabbed that day, and I see the personal mark I made on it," it would have been authenticated. An item, X, that has travelled from A to B to C to D......to F is still X if someone at F can establish that X at F is the same X at A. Whatever happens in the middle letters is immaterial.
Again, you and Martin are trying to avoid dealing with the pistol by:
a.) demanding that the pistol be "authenticated."
b.) only accepting your own highly personal (and so far undisclosed) method of authentication as the correct one.
c.) declaring the pistol "inauthenticatable"
d.) disingenuously conflating "authenticated" with "authentic" in such a way as to presume that the pistol must in fact be ignored.
-
The evidence room usually closed at noon on Fridays. Why would this Friday be any different? Plus, it gave Hill and the boys time to line up their stories—LOL.
-
It would be authenticated because it bears the mark of Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it before turning it over to Homicide. Once Carroll testifies "yes, that is the pistol I grabbed that day, and I see the personal mark I made on it," it would have been authenticated. An item, X, that has travelled from A to B to C to D......to F is still X if someone at F can establish that X at F is the same X at A. Whatever happens in the middle letters is immaterial.
Again, you and Martin are trying to avoid dealing with the pistol by:
a.) demanding that the pistol be "authenticated."
b.) only accepting your own highly personal (and so far undisclosed) method of authentication as the correct one.
c.) declaring the pistol "inauthenticatable"
d.) disingenuously conflating "authenticated" with "authentic" in such a way as to presume that the pistol must in fact be ignored.
Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it
Where exactly did Carroll say that the revolver remained in his presence until it was marked?
-
Since The Caped One - or Lance Payette, as the case may be - started this thread, I will point out once again in regard to chain-of-custody nonsense:
1. I not only was a practicing lawyer for 40+ years, I also slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.
3. Yes, with respect to some items of evidence there would appear to be chain of custody issues on the basis of what we now know. In a criminal proceeding, the defense counsel would indeed hold the prosecution's feet to the fire on these.
4. However, what we now know is not necessarily what we would know if a prosecutor were to fully prepare his case. A prosecutor in preparing his case would likewise recognize the chain of custody issues and attempt to address them before presenting the evidence at trial. We simply don't know what a rehabilitated chain of custody might look like.
5. Even actual flaws in a chain of custody are not inevitably fatal. Ergo, it is impossible to say (as goofballs like Jim Di Eugenio are wont to do) that an item of evidence would "never" be admitted in a criminal trial.
6. The verdict of history on any subject is always dependent on vast amounts of evidence that might not be admitted in a criminal trial. This is simply the common-sense, real-world reality.
7. Ergo and to wit, all CT-oriented internet forum blather about chain of custody issues is simply uninformed twaddle. Point out apparent discrepancies if you like, but stop playing Pretend Lawyer because you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Since The Caped One - or Lance Payette, as the case may be - started this thread, I will point out once again in regard to chain-of-custody nonsense:
1. I not only was a practicing lawyer for 40+ years, I also slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.
3. Yes, with respect to some items of evidence there would appear to be chain of custody issues on the basis of what we now know. In a criminal proceeding, the defense counsel would indeed hold the prosecution's feet to the fire on these.
4. However, what we now know is not necessarily what we would know if a prosecutor were to fully prepare his case. A prosecutor in preparing his case would likewise recognize the chain of custody issues and attempt to address them before presenting the evidence at trial. We simply don't know what a rehabilitated chain of custody might look like.
5. Even actual flaws in a chain of custody are not inevitably fatal. Ergo, it is impossible to say (as goofballs like Jim Di Eugenio are wont to do) that an item of evidence would "never" be admitted in a criminal trial.
6. The verdict of history on any subject is always dependent on vast amounts of evidence that might not be admitted in a criminal trial. This is simply the common-sense, real-world reality.
7. Ergo and to wit, all CT-oriented internet forum blather about chain of custody issues is simply uninformed twaddle. Point out apparent discrepancies if you like, but stop playing Pretend Lawyer because you have no idea what you're talking about.
2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.
So, the WC conclusions are nothing more than opinions based upon questionable cherry picked evidence, right?
-
2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.
So, the WC conclusions are nothing more than opinions based upon questionable cherry picked evidence, right?
Or one could say that the commission fell short in the facts department when they got carried away with pinning the murders of JFK and Tippit on Oswald.
-
2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.
So, the WC conclusions are nothing more than opinions based upon questionable cherry picked evidence, right?
Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.
The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened." As stated in one USDOJ handbook, "The purpose of criminal trials is not to determine truth but to determine the probability of guilt." The point is whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy. Contrary to what many of you folks believe, the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the accused. Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted, etc., etc. Hence, many of the rules of evidence and procedure have the effect of blocking testimony and evidence of the sort all of us rely upon every day - hearsay, for example.
The focus of the CT community on "court stuff" and whether Oswald would have been found guilty at trial is a massive red herring. A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin or history from accepting this verdict. Do you seriously think the verdict of history will be that OJ didn't kill Nicole because a jury found him not guilty? The civil verdict of liability was directly contrary to the criminal verdict, and the verdict of history will surely be the same.
Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed. The fact that a matter has been litigated tells us little or nothing about the actual truth. The verdict of history is the consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject matter, simple as that. No one thinks historical investigation, research and analysis should be hamstrung by the rules and procedures of litigation. The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone. To change that verdict would require massive new and compelling evidence. A bushel of dubious Conspiracy Factoids and chain-of-custody arguments aren't going to do it.
There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?
-
Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.
The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened." As stated in one USDOJ handbook, "The purpose of criminal trials is not to determine truth but to determine the probability of guilt." The point is whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy. Contrary to what many of you folks believe, the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the accused. Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted, etc., etc. Hence, many of the rules of evidence and procedure have the effect of blocking testimony and evidence of the sort all of us rely upon every day - hearsay, for example.
The focus of the CT community on "court stuff" and whether Oswald would have been found guilty at trial is a massive red herring. A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin or history from accepting this verdict. Do you seriously think the verdict of history will be that OJ didn't kill Nicole because a jury found him not guilty? The civil verdict of liability was directly contrary to the criminal verdict, and the verdict of history will surely be the same.
Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed. The fact that a matter has been litigated tells us little or nothing about the actual truth. The verdict of history is the consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject matter, simple as that. No one thinks historical investigation, research and analysis should be hamstrung by the rules and procedures of litigation. The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone. To change that verdict would require massive new and compelling evidence. A bushel of dubious Conspiracy Factoids and chain-of-custody arguments aren't going to do it.
There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?
The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/50GNv8zt/you-may-have-done-it-but-that-doesn-t-mean-you-re-guilty.jpg)
JohnM
-
No, "stories" told long after the fact do not constitute a valid chain of custody. To see why, just ask yourself how McDonald could possibly know that the gun he initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun he handled in the theater?
Well then, you're outta luck, kid. In court, you still need to have witnesses come in to testify in order to validate any chain of custody, no matter the medium it comes packed in. You can't get away from those stories told long after fact.
-
Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.
The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened." As stated in one USDOJ handbook, "The purpose of criminal trials is not to determine truth but to determine the probability of guilt." The point is whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy. Contrary to what many of you folks believe, the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the accused. Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted, etc., etc. Hence, many of the rules of evidence and procedure have the effect of blocking testimony and evidence of the sort all of us rely upon every day - hearsay, for example.
The focus of the CT community on "court stuff" and whether Oswald would have been found guilty at trial is a massive red herring. A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin or history from accepting this verdict. Do you seriously think the verdict of history will be that OJ didn't kill Nicole because a jury found him not guilty? The civil verdict of liability was directly contrary to the criminal verdict, and the verdict of history will surely be the same.
Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed. The fact that a matter has been litigated tells us little or nothing about the actual truth. The verdict of history is the consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject matter, simple as that. No one thinks historical investigation, research and analysis should be hamstrung by the rules and procedures of litigation. The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone. To change that verdict would require massive new and compelling evidence. A bushel of dubious Conspiracy Factoids and chain-of-custody arguments aren't going to do it.
There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?
Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.
But in no way are you an arrogant jerk, right?
The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened."
Kicking in an open door?
A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin
True, but that still would be a mere conclusion based on questionable cherry picked evidence.
And, of course, if there had been a trial and a verdict, there wouldn't have been a WC and all the "evidence" would have been challegend instead of being cherry picked and blindly accepted
The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone.
Really? And here is little old me thinking that history is written by the victor, regardless if it is true or not.
Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed.
But the opinion of a government commission that tried to hide the evidence for 75 years couldn't possibly be flawed?
There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?
You and your fragile ego don't want to know what I think.
-
It would seem that Mitch can't or doesn't want to answer my question;
Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it
Where exactly did Carroll say that the revolver remained in his presence until it was marked?
So, I'll just assume that his claim is bogus.
-
The Warren Commission was, in effect, the FBI investigation of the JFK assassination.
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover let it be known that the outcome of the investigation was going to be that Oswald was the lone assassin.
This isn't a joke or an exaggeration - the outcome of the investigation was decided before the investigation had really got going.
The loyalty of FBI agents was not to the truth or justice or any of that...their loyalty was to the Bureau and the Bureau was Hoover.
Hoover was the FBI and the FBI was Hoover.
This is a very uncomfortable fact for Lone Nutters, who swallow down the Warren Commission's findings wholesale, because it pulls the rug out from under any notions of "truth".
Trying to present the Oswald-Did-It [ODI] theory as a result of the search for some kind of "truth" is a sick joke and the perpetuation of this sick joke is an indicator of a serious malfunction within society.
There is no more extreme mentality than that of the Lone Nutter.
The Warren Commission’s conclusions have been debated for decades, with many questioning the FBI’s role and Hoover’s influence. Whether one believes Oswald acted alone or not, skepticism about the investigation’s impartiality remains. True justice (https://www.aroundrobin.com/social-justice-issues/) depends on transparency and accountability—key factors that continue to drive discussions about this case.
-
The Warren Commission’s conclusions have been debated for decades, with many questioning the FBI’s role and Hoover’s influence. Whether one believes Oswald acted alone or not, skepticism about the investigation’s impartiality remains. True justice (https://www.aroundrobin.com/social-justice-issues/) depends on transparency and accountability—key factors that continue to drive discussions about this case.
You can find the LBJ and Hoover tapes on YouTube, where Hoover is rambling on about how they've got their man, but they can't quite figure out what the Mexico City deal is about. LBJ is carefully listening, and it's obvious that he's not convinced that Hoover can wrap up the case and sell it to the public. LJB would rather go with Hoover's report, as he politely puts it, but then explains why he needs a blue ribbon commission to block other investigations into the case; the idiom he uses is a three-ring circus. It's pretty obvious where LBJ is headed.
-
Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed. The fact that a matter has been litigated tells us little or nothing about the actual truth. The verdict of history is the consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject matter, simple as that. No one thinks historical investigation, research and analysis should be hamstrung by the rules and procedures of litigation. The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone. To change that verdict would require massive new and compelling evidence. A bushel of dubious Conspiracy Factoids and chain-of-custody arguments aren't going to do it.
Speaking of blather....
There is no "consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject". And your so-called "verdict of history" is illusory.
-
It would seem that Mitch can't or doesn't want to answer my question;
So, I'll just assume that his claim is bogus.
Yep. Thumb1:
There is no evidence beyond Mitch's imagination that Carroll was in the presence of the gun the entire time, or that he had any basis whatsoever for identifying it as the same gun he handled.
-
If I were in charge of the conspiracy, I don't think I would have done anything different. Selectively release certain frames from the Zapruder Film which do not show the head going back and keep information from being released for a very long time as it has implications. This satirical clip sums it up nicely. We know the CIA was following LHO to Cuba, bankrolled a lot of exiles and have been carrying on various programs which meddle heavily in foreign affairs of other nations - as well as their own!
-
The Warren Commission’s conclusions have been debated for decades, with many questioning the FBI’s role and Hoover’s influence. Whether one believes Oswald acted alone or not, skepticism about the investigation’s impartiality remains. True justice (https://www.aroundrobin.com/social-justice-issues/) depends on transparency and accountability—key factors that continue to drive discussions about this case.
You make an important point, Jonithan: The Warren Report does not define the LN narrative. Whether the WC was fair and objective and whether the LN is true are two entirely different issues.
The Warren Commission volumes are simply a vast body of evidence to be taken for what they're worth. The LN narrative, like any CT narrative, is constructed from all the available evidence and whatever inferences one draws from them.
It's kind of like someone who thinks OJ was guilty (me!) spending all his time railing against the jury rather than focusing on the evidence. What would be the point?
The Warren Report doesn't even have the status of a jury verdict. The WC may well have had an agenda, been under political pressure and time pressure, fudged some things, ignored some things, etc. To me, that is all pretty much irrelevant. In the time they had, the WC staff did an astounding amount of work and compiled an astounding body of evidence. Ditto for the HSCA, which almost entirely confirmed the WC with the exception of the last-minute, highly dubious "likely conspiracy, but we have no idea who" conclusion based solely on the Dictabelt.
If someone wants to criticize the WC, be my guest. I have no need to defend the WC. The LN narrative, or any CT narrative for that matter, must be constructed from the evidence and reasonable inferences. CTers' focus on the WC is really kind of a straw man insofar as the LN narrative is concerned.
-
The Warren Commission’s conclusions have been debated for decades, with many questioning the FBI’s role and Hoover’s influence. Whether one believes Oswald acted alone or not, skepticism about the investigation’s impartiality remains. True justice (https://www.aroundrobin.com/social-justice-issues/) depends on transparency and accountability—key factors that continue to drive discussions about this case.
Rep Gerry Ford MOVED the JFK Back Wound to JFK's Neck. THAT all by itself destroys the credibility of the WC.
-
Rep Gerry Ford MOVED the JFK Back Wound to JFK's Neck. THAT all by itself destroys the credibility of the WC.
But wait: Rankin kept Ford's handwritten alteration, which was released by the ARRB in 1997 - why didn't he or some other WC stooge destroy it? Ford freely acknowledged it, although he tap-danced away from the obvious reason (i.e., to bolster the SBT). All the evidence regarding the back wound is there in the Warren volumes for all to see. The precise location is still debated, for that matter.
Ford, who was pretty much the FBI's Inside Guy on the WC, pulled a rather dumb sneaky and got caught with his pants down. So what? What does the "credibility" of the WC have to do with anything? The evidence is what it is. The back wound is located where it is. The precise location and its significance can be legitimately discussed and debated, but the Ford-altered sentence in the Warren Report is irrelevant. I would agree it makes Ford look like the not-too-bright sleaze I always thought he was, but by no means does it "destroy the credibility of the WC." This is just all-too-typical Conspiracy Hyperbole.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/Ford_files/image001.gif)
-
Ford, who was pretty much the FBI's Inside Guy on the WC, pulled a rather dumb sneaky and got caught with his pants down. So what? What does the "credibility" of the WC have to do with anything? The evidence is what it is. The back wound is located where it is. The precise location and its significance can be legitimately discussed and debated, but the Ford-altered sentence in the Warren Report is irrelevant. I would agree it makes Ford look like the not-too-bright sleaze I always thought he was, but by no means does it "destroy the credibility of the WC." This is just all-too-typical Conspiracy Hyperbole.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html
Excerpt from above link:
"I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse. One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory." -- Jean Davison; Dec. 5, 2014
-
Rep Gerry Ford MOVED the JFK Back Wound to JFK's Neck. THAT all by itself destroys the credibility of the WC.
I already explained this to you, all Ford did was clarify and more accurately reflect the same description that was used in the autopsy report.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2r07sJ4/jfk-autopsy-report-neck-entrance.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/GhVtSDYM/ford-neck.gif)
JohnM
-
So, now you know better than me what I meant by what I wrote?
So, you know what I said, but you just don't understand what I said? Is that it?
Not the answer to my question. I'm curious where you got the information from that Hill and Carroll remained together the entire time. I did find a report they both, and Capt. Westbrook, signed, but beyond that I was unable to find any confirmation for your claim, so why don't you show me where Carroll and Hill said they were together the entire time?
So, Carroll sees a revolver being pointed at him and doesn't know who is holding it and then you assume that it must have been McDonald handing the revolver to him? Did I get that right?
Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point.
True, but that's exactly what a chain of custody is for; to ensure that there was only one revolver.
The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.
Which is merely your assumption. There is no room for assumptions in a chain of custody!
Not completely true, I'm a afraid. Hill testified (and there is photographic evidence to support him) that at some point he showed the revolver to reporters.
Also, according to Hill, the revolver wasn't marked until 4 PM, some two hours after Oswald had been brought into the police station. Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for two hours in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?
Apart from this, McDonald also marked the revolver at the Personnel Office, but IMO it's highly doubtful that he got a good enough look at the revolver during the scuffle to be sure the revolver he was marking was the same one Carroll put in his belt at the Texas Theater.
Btw, here's an interesting bit from Hill's testimony;
Mr. HILL. Talked to Walker after he left the interrogation room. He came into the personnel office with us, and we sat down and made sure that--we just talked over our story and made sure that we had all the details as to who was where in the arrest, what door the man came in into the theatre, where they were when the original contact was made, how Bentley hurt his foot, how Lyons hurt his foot, and all this, and decided, well, rather than have to get everybody back together and round them up and all six or seven people sign the one
MW: So, now you know better than me what I meant by what I wrote?
[...]
So, you know what I said, but you just don't understand what I said? Is that it?
Whatever you might have been thinking, I know what you wrote. Going back to the origin of this particular line of argument, here is what I originally wrote, in response to Iacoletti:
MT: I've known plenty of attorneys in my life. Occasionally, I've abused those relationships a bit to ask about some of the legal issues involved [here]. Sometimes, I find myself in an interesting discussion. Other times, I've been pointed to a specific article or court decision. The upshot of all this activity is that that admissibility and authentication as practiced is somewhat different than what many conspiracy mavens would like to believe.
Your response was:
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?
Everyone reading what you wrote knows what you were trying to say. The thing is, it's not so much that I've known lawyers. It is, I've asked more than one of them about authentication and admissibility over the years, as applied to the JFKA. My conversations with them are why I brought up the difference between fungible and non-fungible real evidence, and why it's important when discussing a firearm. One of them pointed me to the SC Supreme Court decision that I linked to a while back, the decision that flatly declared firearms to be inherently non-fungible. And, as I've already said, such authentication doesn't really work they way you (and JI and some other CTs) seem to want to believe it does. You don't like that, but have no real counterarguments. So you resort to your old tactic of claiming that you've somehow been misinterpreted, without being able to explain what you really meant or otherwise describe what specific misinterpretation was made.
MW: Not completely true, I'm a afraid. Hill testified (and there is photographic evidence to support him) that at some point he showed the revolver to reporters.
He said he showed the pistol to reporters when they dropped Oswald off at the Homicide Bureau, before they proceeded to the Personnel Bureau office. Hill didn't disappear with the gun.
MW: I'm curious where you got the information from that Hill and Carroll remained together the entire time
As I've already mentioned, I myself am curious as to where you came up with the idea that Hill somehow disappeared with the pistol. I suppose you wouldn't care to tell us why you think that, would you? And where did you get the notion that authentication requires an "unequivocal chain of custody?"
As for Carroll, this is what he said said when the car reached the Municipal building:
Mr. CARROLL. When we got down in the basement and brought Oswald up, I was in front with everyone else surrounding him and we walked directly from the car to the elevator, got on the elevator and went up to the third floor to the homicide and robbery office and took him right into the homicide and robbery office and took him into one of our interrogation rooms, where we released him to the homicide and robbery office.
Mr. BALL. Whom did you release him to?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't recall which one of the officers it was - there were several standing around there, but they would just take him and hand him to one particular officer. We just put him in the room and they more or less come in and we would back off.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go?
Mr. CARROLL. I went into the police personnel office.
Mr. BALL. Who went In there with you?
Mr. CARROLL. There was Jerry Hill, Ray Hawkins, McDonald, Hutson, Bentley, Lyons, and myself. Oh, by the way, Lyons was in the car with us also when we came from the theatre to the police department. I don't remember whether he was sitting In the front or back seat, though, but he did come down with us. Lyons had sprained his ankle and Paul Bentley also had sprained his ankle, and shortly after we went into the police personnel office Lyons and Bentley left and went to Parkland to have their legs checked and taken care of.
So he went with Hill to the personnel office. Hill's testimony corroborates this. Here's the kicker though:
Mr. BALL. Did you look at it as you were there in the personnel department?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was McDonald there that day?
Mr. CARROLL. I'm sure he was - I don't actually recall him sitting there. He was there most of the time.
Mr. BALL. Did you see McDonald make a mark on the gun?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes; I saw him make a mark.
Mr. BALL. When was this done?
Mr. CARROLL. It was up in the personnel police office.
Carroll knowing that MacDonald was there 'most of the time' implies that Carroll was there the whole time. Hill noted that he wrote the report for both his and Carroll's signature, which also implies Carroll's presence throughout.
Evidence to the contrary is non-existent. No one said that Carrol left or that he was somewhere else.
That being said, where did you get that notion that Hill just up and disappeared with the pistol?
MW: Also, according to Hill, the revolver wasn't marked until 4 PM, some two hours after Oswald had been brought into the police station. Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for two hours in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?
We've already been over the revolver being marked and turned over at 3:15m per Hill's report to Curry. 3:15 and not 4:00. They didn't get to the Municipal Building garage until sometime after 2:00PM, and still had to drag Oswald along to the Homicide Bureau, and deposit him there. They may have only been in the personnel office for an hour before surrendering the pistol. Anyway, Hill and Co. went from the Homicide office to the Personnel office to write reports. That can take a while. As Hill put it:
Walker, Bentley, Lyons, Carroll, and I knew that the prisoner had received a laceration and bruises while effecting his arrest, and that an officer had been scratched while effecting the arrest, and that Bentley had sprained an ankle, and Lyons had sprained an ankle while effecting the arrest--they were fixing to have to make a whole bushel basket of reports--we adjourned to the personnel office, which was further down the hall from homicide and I sat down and started to try to organize the first report on the arrest. I originally had the heading on it, "Injuries sustained by suspect while effecting his arrest in connection with the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit,"
There is a video of a Hill interview that was made about 1990, IIRC, where Hill stated that they had to make a report to Curry any time a suspect was injured during an arrest. That's what Hill and Carroll were doing for the hour and a quarter or so that they had the pistol in the PB office. I'll be they also had to write reports whenever an officer was injured.
And it doesn't matter whether Hill and Carroll marked the pistol at the beginning of their custody of it or at the end.
-
[...]
So, I'll just assume that his claim is bogus.
You've been doing that since the beginning. Why stop now? :D
-
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html
Excerpt from above link:
"I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse. One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory." -- Jean Davison; Dec. 5, 2014
I actually agree with the CTers. It seems very clear to me that Ford was trying to raise the wound to bolster the SBT. There is considerable "meat" above the shoulder blades but below the neck, and it seems to me that the original language "slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine" was exactly correct. The change Ford wanted - "the back of his neck" - was not only not "more precise" as Ford said but blatantly false. The final language - "the base of the back of his neck" - is certainly odd (what is the "base" of the neck?) but less objectionable than Ford's.
Ford was the worst sort of political sleazeball and rather stupid to boot. I am not so wedded to the LN narrative that I feel some need to defend something like this. Ford was definitely on the WC with an agenda. I really don't understand the need on the part of some LNers to oppose everything the CTers say, even when they are right, as though the slightest crack in the LN narrative would cause the entire edifice to fall.
(https://www.ericfavre.com/lifestyle/uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/09/trapeze.jpg)
-
I already explained this to you, all Ford did was clarify and more accurately reflect the same description that was used in the autopsy report.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2r07sJ4/jfk-autopsy-report-neck-entrance.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/GhVtSDYM/ford-neck.gif)
JohnM
ALL anyone has to do is LOOK at the Autopsy Photo of the JFK BACK Wound. Immediately Ends the discussion right there.
-
ALL anyone has to do is LOOK at the Autopsy Photo of the JFK BACK Wound. Immediately Ends the discussion right there.
Kennedy had high trapezium muscles but he still had a neck, so the autopsy report saying that Kennedy was struck at the base of the right side of the neck is anatomically correct.
(https://i.ibb.co/MkTwYYFH/john-f-kennedy-no-shirt2.jpg)
What defines the neck is the underlying bone structure, the cervical vertebrae.
In tetrapods, cervical vertebrae (sg.: vertebra) are the vertebrae of the neck, immediately below the skull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_vertebrae
(https://i.ibb.co/dsVvXB1z/cervical-vertebrae-are-the-vertebrae-of-the-neck.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/7xY5Mt04/neck-transit-lateral.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/bgtZq2Wx/JFK-Autopsy-Photosb.jpg)
JohnM
-
Kennedy had high trapezium muscles but he still had a neck, so the autopsy report saying that Kennedy was struck at the base of the right side of the neck is anatomically correct.
What defines the neck is the underlying bone structure, the cervical vertebrae.
In tetrapods, cervical vertebrae (sg.: vertebra) are the vertebrae of the neck, immediately below the skull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_vertebrae JohnM
:D
-
"I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse. One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory."-- Jean Davison; Dec. 5, 2014
Sibert-O'Neill report says "below the shoulders".
-
You've been doing that since the beginning. Why stop now? :D
So, you can't show at all that Carroll stayed with Hill and the revolver all the time, as you previously claimed?
Thanks for clearing that up! Thumb1:
-
That being said, where did you get that notion that Hill just up and disappeared with the pistol?
There you go trying to shift the burden again.
Your analysis reveals that your claim that the gun remained in Carroll's presence the entire time is merely an assumption that you have no justification for. Carroll didn't say that and Hill didn't say that. Not that it matters because neither Carroll nor Hill knew that any particular gun was ever in the possession of Oswald.
-
OK, conspiracy fans, I've gone back to the drawing board.
Here is what seems to me like a reasonably evidence-based, genuinely simple conspiracy theory that even a Fair & Reasonable Provisional Lone Nutter (F&RPLNer, my new category) can love. The only downside is that it isn’t sexy enough for the agenda-drive CTers who demand that LBJ and the CIA, FBI, DPD and Oodles and Gobs of Others be involved.
1. It’s a fully pro-Castro conspiracy. Oswald is no patsy.
2. On September 9, Oswald sees a newspaper article reporting Castro’s September 7 speech denouncing JFK and the CIA for plotting his assassination.
3. JFK’s trip to Texas is announced to the Dallas Morning News on September 25 and reported by them on September 26. The dates of November 21-22 and the inclusion of Dallas are part of the announcement.
4. Oswald arrives in Mexico City on September 27. Despite the apparent failure of the trip, he makes connections with other pro-Castro types and a possible assassination of JFK may have been mentioned, possibly even at the Cuban or Soviet Embassy.
5. Oswald returns to Dallas and begins to look for work. On October 16, he starts work at the TSBD. Perhaps an assassination plan begins to be formulated with another pro-Castro type since they know JFK will be in Dallas.
6. JFK’s motorcade route is published no later than November 19. Oswald now knows he’ll be sitting in the catbird seat on November 22. He contacts his assassination partner and they agree it’s a go.
7. They scout the area and decide the partner will be in or on the roof of the Dal-Tex Building, which is the same height as the TSBD. It’s perfect.
8. At the appointed time, both fire at JFK. Hence the witness testimony of two shots close together. Oswald’s first shot is the back wound, his second the one that hits Connally; he’s low and to the right on both shots. His partner fires the head shot.
9. They have agreed each is on his own after the assassination. They will rendezvous at the Texas Theater, wait a reasonable time, and make their way to Mexico. Oswald makes his way to the theater, as does his partner – or perhaps the partner sees the activity at the theater and vanishes.
10. Once arrested, there is nothing to be gained for Oswald by revealing the plot, so he adopts an uncooperative attitude and the partner forever remains an unknown.
Not perfect, I’ll admit, which is why I remain a F&RPLNer. But certainly more realistic and consistent with the evidence than the more elaborate Oswald-as-patsy, massive-cover-up theories.
Or, since we’re not trying to fool anyone with a patsy, perhaps the partner is on the Grassy Knoll and the head shot is indeed a frontal one. I prefer the Dal-Tex Building, however, because the risks would be fewer and an escape much easier.
-
OK, conspiracy fans, I've gone back to the drawing board.
Here is what seems to me like a reasonably evidence-based, genuinely simple conspiracy theory that even a Fair & Reasonable Provisional Lone Nutter (F&RPLNer, my new category) can love. The only downside is that it isn’t sexy enough for the agenda-drive CTers who demand that LBJ and the CIA, FBI, DPD and Oodles and Gobs of Others be involved.
1. It’s a fully pro-Castro conspiracy. Oswald is no patsy.
2. On September 9, Oswald sees a newspaper article reporting Castro’s September 7 speech denouncing JFK and the CIA for plotting his assassination.
3. JFK’s trip to Texas is announced to the Dallas Morning News on September 25 and reported by them on September 26. The dates of November 21-22 and the inclusion of Dallas are part of the announcement.
4. Oswald arrives in Mexico City on September 27. Despite the apparent failure of the trip, he makes connections with other pro-Castro types and a possible assassination of JFK may have been mentioned, possibly even at the Cuban or Soviet Embassy.
5. Oswald returns to Dallas and begins to look for work. On October 16, he starts work at the TSBD. Perhaps an assassination plan begins to be formulated with another pro-Castro type since they know JFK will be in Dallas.
6. JFK’s motorcade route is published no later than November 19. Oswald now knows he’ll be sitting in the catbird seat on November 22. He contacts his assassination partner and they agree it’s a go.
7. They scout the area and decide the partner will be in or on the roof of the Dal-Tex Building, which is the same height as the TSBD. It’s perfect.
8. At the appointed time, both fire at JFK. Hence the witness testimony of two shots close together. Oswald’s first shot is the back wound, his second the one that hits Connally; he’s low and to the right on both shots. His partner fires the head shot.
9. They have agreed each is on his own after the assassination. They will rendezvous at the Texas Theater, wait a reasonable time, and make their way to Mexico. Oswald makes his way to the theater, as does his partner – or perhaps the partner sees the activity at the theater and vanishes.
10. Once arrested, there is nothing to be gained for Oswald by revealing the plot, so he adopts an uncooperative attitude and the partner forever remains an unknown.
Not perfect, I’ll admit, which is why I remain a F&RPLNer. But certainly more realistic and consistent with the evidence than the more elaborate Oswald-as-patsy, massive-cover-up theories.
Or, since we’re not trying to fool anyone with a patsy, perhaps the partner is on the Grassy Knoll and the head shot is indeed a frontal one. I prefer the Dal-Tex Building, however, because the risks would be fewer and an escape much easier.
Why do you think the SBT is doubtful enough to encourage your theory?
-
Why do you think the SBT is sufficiently doubtful as to encourage your theory?
I don't, but since it's a given for my theory that there WAS a conspiracy, I may as well eliminate the SBT while I'm at it. With a second gunman in the Dal-Tex Building, we don't need the SBT. I may be misremembering, but wasn't a large caliber shell found on the roof of the Dal-Tex Building by a roofing crew long after the JFKA? I always found that puzzling.
We can also include the KGB as a silent partner if you like.
-
MW: So, I'll just assume that his claim is bogus.
MT: You've been doing that since the beginning. Why stop now?
So, you can't show at all that Carroll stayed with Hill and the revolver all the time, as you previously claimed?
Thanks for clearing that up! Thumb1:
I didn't say that. Either you're misreading or misrepresenting what I said. I said you've refused to believe me from the get go before anything was presented. It's just matter of habit rather than evidence or reason.
BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?
-
There you go trying to shift the burden again.
Your analysis reveals that your claim that the gun remained in Carroll's presence the entire time is merely an assumption that you have no justification for. Carroll didn't say that and Hill didn't say that. Not that it matters because neither Carroll nor Hill knew that any particular gun was ever in the possession of Oswald.
You don't seem to understand what "shifting the burden" is. I would have been shifting the burden had I responded with "no, you prove that Carroll wasn't in the PB office." But that's not what I said. I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver? He brought that notion up well before I brought Carroll into this, and so far hasn't provided any explanation where the notion came from. He brought it up, and should be able to explain where the idea came from.
Some skeptic you are, kid.
-
I didn't say that. Either you're misreading or misrepresenting what I said. I said you've refused to believe me from the get go before anything was presented. It's just matter of habit rather than evidence or reason.
BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?
I didn't say that.
True. You said nothing of significance at all. Instead of actually providing any evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill (who carried the revolver) were together all the time and/or that Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" until it was marked by several officers, you, rather childishly complained that I didn't believe you anyway. Since you didn't offer any evidence, what do you expect me to do? Just believe something because you said it? Really?
The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.
BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?
No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.
What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!
Care to try again?
-
You don't seem to understand what "shifting the burden" is. I would have been shifting the burden had I responded with "no, you prove that Carroll wasn't in the PB office." But that's not what I said. I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver? He brought that notion up well before I brought Carroll into this, and so far hasn't provided any explanation where the notion came from. He brought it up, and should be able to explain where the idea came from.
Some skeptic you are, kid.
I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver?
I never said that Hill "just R-U-N-N-O-F-T" with the revolver.
What I did say is that the record shows that Hill received a revolver from Carroll at the Texas Theater at about 2 PM. It also shows that a revolver was not submitted to the evidence room until well after 3 PM, which means that we don't know where the revolver was between those two times or that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same as the one Hill received from Carroll.
I say again; Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for more than an hour in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?
-
I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver?
I never said that Hill "just R-U-N-N-O-F-T" with the revolver.
What I did say is that the record shows that Hill received a revolver from Carroll at the Texas Theater at about 2 PM. It also shows that a revolver was not submitted to the evidence room until well after 3 PM, which means that we don't know where the revolver was between those two times or that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same as the one Hill received from Carroll.
I say again; Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for more than an hour in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?
Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.
(https://i.ibb.co/60ym4TYb/hidell-id.jpg)
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/fVxkVKP8/Oswald-po-box-2915-b.jpg)
Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/5ggyhNDG/Hidell-Oswald-revolver-order.jpg)
Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/ksTdj66X/Oswald-revolver-Railway-express.jpg)
In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.
(https://i.ibb.co/N6T6KbPB/gloves-holster-1026-Beckley-oswald-possessions-2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/xtcTD3v4/ce-144-holster.jpg)
Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit
The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
(https://i.ibb.co/zTN9dfvp/ce-143-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/208HQYMQ/ce-594-4xshells-tippit.jpg)
JohnM
-
Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915
Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915
Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915
The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915
In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.
Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit
The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
JohnM
Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!
Nice story, but it's the same old superficial one where it is assumed that the revolver Hill marked and submitted to the evidence room is the same one that McDonald took from Oswald.
The only thing that's missing in this "believe me because a cop said so" BS is the actual proof for that assumption.
It's probably in vain, but let me try to dumb it down for you as much as I can.
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
McDonald was in a struggle with Oswald when he took the revolver from him. He claimed that he gave it to Carroll.
Carroll, doesn't say he got a revolver from McDonald. According to his testimony, he saw a pistol pointing at him, during the struggle, which he grabbed and stuck it in his belt.
Now, unless McDonald and Carroll had a extraordinary capability of sight, it's highly unlikely that either man got a good look at the revolver while being in a struggle. Carroll, when asked if he had seen a mark on Oswald's face, said in his testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to anything, because they were trying to get Oswald subdued. That doesn't sound like a man who had a close enough look at a revolver sufficient to identify that weapon more than an hour later.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Carroll, who according to Hill was driving the car, says in his testimony that he gave the revolver to Hill in the car as it pulled out from the Texas Theater.
And Hill did indeed say that he kept the revolver on his person until he marked it more than an hour later. Which of course begs the question why he didn't submit it to the evidence room as soon as he arrived at the police station.
Are we really to believe that McDonald and Carroll had a good enough look at the revolver to identify it, more than an hour after the arrest, when Hill took it out of his pocket at the Personnel room? Or did McDonald and Carroll simply mark the revolved because they assumed it was indeed the same one they took from Oswald? And what plausible reason could Hill have had to walk around with a crucial piece of evidence for more than an hour after the arrest, when he could and should have submitted it to the evidence room directly after his arrival at the police station?
Get back to me when you have something of value to add, John Thumb1:
-
You don't seem to understand what "shifting the burden" is. I would have been shifting the burden had I responded with "no, you prove that Carroll wasn't in the PB office." But that's not what I said. I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver?
Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver. You claimed that Carroll was in the presence of the Hill the entire time and when challenged for evidence for YOUR claim, you shifted it to demand proof that Hill ran off with the revolver.
In case you've already forgotten:
Carroll remained with Hill the entire time between dropping Oswald off at the Homicide office and turning over the marked pistol.
-
Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
That's a brilliant regurgitation of the unverifiable story.
-
I didn't say that.
True. You said nothing of significance at all. Instead of actually providing any evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill (who carried the revolver) were together all the time and/or that Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" until it was marked by several officers, you, rather childishly complained that I didn't believe you anyway. Since you didn't offer any evidence, what do you expect me to do? Just believe something because you said it? Really?
The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.
BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?
No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.
What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!
Care to try again?
MT: I didn't say that.
MW: True. You said nothing of significance at all.
Neither did you. Just your usual attempt to declare yourself the victor.
MW: The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.
Once again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. I said that Carroll was the "first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol", and so is the person where the chain of custody started. I didn't say he was the the only one. I also said that he was present until the pistol was turned over to the Homicide guys. You've confused these two things.
No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.
If McDonald was actually standing rather than sitting down while he was in the room, then Carroll's statement is true. It's also quite possible to be aware of someone's presence nearby while not paying attention to what they're actually doing. Such as, you're busy writing a report with someone else while some other person is standing (or sitting, or kneeling, or laying, or playing tiddly-winks, or what-have-you) behind you and your co-author. That would also lead to a Carroll's statement being true. He's not so stupid to lie about it, then contradict himself in the next sentence.
What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!
What photograph is this? You keep talking about it, but seem quite shy to show it. And, in any case, the photos taken inside the police HQ hallways have a field of view of only a few feet due to the close quarters. Carroll could be less than five feet away from Hill and still be out of frame.
-
Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver. You claimed that Carroll was in the presence of the Hill the entire time and when challenged for evidence for YOUR claim, you shifted it to demand proof that Hill ran off with the revolver.
JI: Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver.
It is exactly what he's arguing, whether he realizes it or not; that Hill had the pistol and just disappeared with it for some amount of time. Otherwise, Martin's argument makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the hyperbole confused you.
-
So is this Both a pre planned AND a post event coverup conspiracy?
I’m still stuck on resolving how (and why) that MC rifle was placed in between the boxes on the 6th floor TSBD if Oswald was not the shooter.
It had be either pre planted or post planted by a conspirator shooter if not by Oswald.
My only explanation so far is that the conspirator shooter must have either gone to great lengths to order the MC rifle, to set up Oswald ,or he found out that Oswald was a kooky guy who took a picture of himself with the rifle, and somehow he stole the rifle from Oswald.
That issue of CE399 chain of custody vs O.P. Wright having found a pointed bullet forces the CT option that the conspirator shooter used a different rifle. (presuming there is just one shooter of course)
So if the conspirator is using a different rifle, why does the conspirator expend extra time and energy to steal Oswald’s rifle just to plant it, knowing that will only temporarily cast suspicion on Oswald for a few hours after the event?
If a post event coverup going on, would the investigators go so far as to substitute one revolver for another, or take prints from Oswalds hand at the morgue to transfer to the barrel of the MC? Or construct a bag and force Oswalds hand to touch the middle of the bag to put a print on that bag?
-
Quite simple really.
One "lone wolf" whos willing to give his life. Take two steps across Main St and shoot JFK in the head at point blank range.
Then get killed by the cops or the Secret Service. Done.
No need for hundreds of people involved, fake coffins, homeless people, two brains, tapping up marines from the mid 50s sending them to Russia, multiple shooters etc.
-
JI: Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver.
It is exactly what he's arguing, whether he realizes it or not; that Hill had the pistol and just disappeared with it for some amount of time. Otherwise, Martin's argument makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the hyperbole confused you.
I’m not confused. I see exactly what you’re doing. You made a claim you have absolutely no evidence for, so you’re trying to turn it around and shift the burden.
This “unambiguous custody” thing is a contrivance too. Where did you pull that out of? And if the chain of custody began with Carroll (who didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from) then why did McDonald initial the gun later?
-
I’m not confused. I see exactly what you’re doing. You made a claim you have absolutely no evidence for, so you’re trying to turn it around and shift the burden.
This “unambiguous custody” thing is a contrivance too. Where did you pull that out of? And if the chain of custody began with Carroll (who didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from) then why did McDonald initial the gun later?
Iacoletti,
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-
Iacoletti,
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
Graves, give it a rest.
-
Graves, give it a rest.
Iacoletti,
Just answer the question.
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you think (sic) were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
1) Just a few
2) Oodles and gobs
3) Somewhere in between
-
Iacoletti,
Just answer the question.
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you think (sic) were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
1) Just a few
2) Oodles and gobs
3) Somewhere in between
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
-
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
In other words, you think (correctly) that there was no conspiracy, but you really get off on 1) helping "former KGB officer" Vladimir Putin tear our body politic apart, and 2) fantasizing that you're Oswald's public defender lawyer?
-
In other words, you think (correctly) that there was no conspiracy, but you really get off on 1) helping "former KGB officer" Vladimir Putin tear our body politic apart, and 2) fantasizing that you're Oswald's public defender lawyer?
Graves, get a life.
Do you ever wondering why you incessantly create these new garbage threads and nobody ever responds to them? Take the hint.
-
Graves, get a life.
Do you ever wondering why you incessantly create these new garbage threads and nobody ever responds to them? Take the hint.
Iacoletti,
Do you think the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, or not?
If so, how many people do you think were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the shooting, the "patsy-ing," and the all-important cover up?
Just a few?
-
I’m not confused. I see exactly what you’re doing. You made a claim you have absolutely no evidence for, so you’re trying to turn it around and shift the burden.
This “unambiguous custody” thing is a contrivance too. Where did you pull that out of? And if the chain of custody began with Carroll (who didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from) then why did McDonald initial the gun later?
Oh, but you are definitely confused.
First, I provided evidence for my claim.
Second, Martin's current positions is this: Hill made off with the revolver by himself for some period of time before it was turned into the Homicide squad. He hasn't provided any evidence for this happening, other than a reference to a photograph that he has neither shown nor linked to. The burden to produce evidence for his take, whether it be a photograph, testimony, or signed gift card from the Truth Fairy, is on him. Period. I can't shift that burden to him because that burden has been on him --and only on him-- since he first made that claim.
Third, Carroll is the first Police Officer that can be shown to had uncontested possession of the pistol. This is not true for McDonald. So he is the first to have unambiguous custody of it. As for your statement that Carroll "didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from," we don't just have Carroll's word for it. Carroll said that he grabbed it after he saw someone hold it towards him from out of the scrum. McDonald said he held it out of the scrum and "gave" it to Carroll. Carroll said he received only one gun from the scrum. McDonald also did not mention giving a second gun to any one. No one reported a second gun or two guns being involved in the scuffle. The logical upshot is Carroll got the gun from McDonald, whether or not Carroll recognized who he seized it from. Carroll giving the gun to Hill doesn't change this. It just adds Hill to the chain of custody. And it especially doesn't matter if Carrol remains with Hill.
-
I’m not confused. I see exactly what you’re doing. You made a claim you have absolutely no evidence for, so you’re trying to turn it around and shift the burden.
This “unambiguous custody” thing is a contrivance too. Where did you pull that out of? And if the chain of custody began with Carroll (who didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from) then why did McDonald initial the gun later?
Unbelievable, just give it up Iacoletti, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.
(https://i.ibb.co/60ym4TYb/hidell-id.jpg)
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/fVxkVKP8/Oswald-po-box-2915-b.jpg)
Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/5ggyhNDG/Hidell-Oswald-revolver-order.jpg)
Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/ksTdj66X/Oswald-revolver-Railway-express.jpg)
In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.
(https://i.ibb.co/N6T6KbPB/gloves-holster-1026-Beckley-oswald-possessions-2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/xtcTD3v4/ce-144-holster.jpg)
Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit
The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
(https://i.ibb.co/zTN9dfvp/ce-143-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/208HQYMQ/ce-594-4xshells-tippit.jpg)
JohnM
-
Unbelievable, just give it up Iacoletti, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.
(https://i.ibb.co/60ym4TYb/hidell-id.jpg)
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/fVxkVKP8/Oswald-po-box-2915-b.jpg)
Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/5ggyhNDG/Hidell-Oswald-revolver-order.jpg)
Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/ksTdj66X/Oswald-revolver-Railway-express.jpg)
In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.
(https://i.ibb.co/N6T6KbPB/gloves-holster-1026-Beckley-oswald-possessions-2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/xtcTD3v4/ce-144-holster.jpg)
Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit
The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
(https://i.ibb.co/zTN9dfvp/ce-143-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/208HQYMQ/ce-594-4xshells-tippit.jpg)
JohnM
You're wrong, JohnM!
Oodles and gobs of bad guys and really, really bad gals were wittingly involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting and the all-important cover up!!!
-- John Iacoletti, aka "John Abt"
-
I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver?
I never said that Hill "just R-U-N-N-O-F-T" with the revolver.
What I did say is that the record shows that Hill received a revolver from Carroll at the Texas Theater at about 2 PM. It also shows that a revolver was not submitted to the evidence room until well after 3 PM, which means that we don't know where the revolver was between those two times or that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same as the one Hill received from Carroll.
I say again; Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for more than an hour in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?
MW: I never said that Hill "just R-U-N-N-O-F-T" with the revolver.
Au contraire! It's exactly what you're arguing when you say things like "what destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!" Admittedly, I was being hyperbolic and a bit facetious with the O Brother Where Art Thou reference, which seems to have caused some confusion.
MT: we don't know where the revolver was between those two times or that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same as the one Hill received from Carroll.
But we do. Carroll gave the revolver to Hill. Hill and Carroll carried it with them to the third floor of the Dallas Municipal building, first to the Homicide Bureau office, then to the Personnel office. There, it was turned over to a detective from the Homicide squad who had been summoned to the Personnel office at Westbrook's request. Homicide forwarded the pistol to the ID Bureau via Davenport. The length of time Hill and Carroll had the pistol in the Personnel office with Hill and Carroll is simply a non issue.
-
MW: I never said that Hill "just R-U-N-N-O-F-T" with the revolver.
Au contraire! It's exactly what you're arguing when you say things like "what destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!" Admittedly, I was being hyperbolic and a bit facetious with the O Brother Where Art Thou reference, which seems to have caused some confusion.
MT: we don't know where the revolver was between those two times or that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same as the one Hill received from Carroll.
But we do. Carroll gave the revolver to Hill. Hill and Carroll carried it with them to the third floor of the Dallas Municipal building, first to the Homicide Bureau office, then to the Personnel office. There, it was turned over to a detective from the Homicide squad who had been summoned to the Personnel office at Westbrook's request. Homicide forwarded the pistol to the ID Bureau via Davenport. The length of time Hill and Carroll had the pistol in the Personnel office with Hill and Carroll is simply a non issue.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill. Hill and Carroll carried it with them to the third floor of the Dallas Municipal building, first to the Homicide Bureau office, then to the Personnel office. There, it was turned over to a detective from the Homicide squad who had been summoned to the Personnel office at Westbrook's request. Homicide forwarded the pistol to the ID Bureau via Davenport. The length of time Hill and Carroll had the pistol in the Personnel office with Hill and Carroll is simply a non issue.
Here we go again.
Yes, Carroll gave a revolver to Hill, as they were leaving the Texas Theater. By his own admission, Carroll didn't know who "gave" him that particular revolver, which means that he can only assume it was the revolver that Oswald was carrying.
Hill received a revolver from Carroll and was told by the latter that it was Oswald's, which, again, was merely an assumption on Carroll's part.
Now, you can argue that it's the most likely scenario that McDonald did in fact take a revolver from Oswald and gave it to Carroll and you can argue that Carroll's claim that it was Oswald's revolver was a reasonable assumption, but none of that is significant for the chain of custody as the sole purpose of a chain of custody is to guarantee that the item taken from the suspect is the same as the one later presented in court.
So, let's carry on with Hill, who is walking around with a revolver that was given to him while being told it belonged to the suspect without having any possible way to verify that information. Obviously, as he knows Carroll, he is going to trust him, but trusting isn't knowing!
Then, to make matters worse, Hill omitted to deliver the revolver to the evidence room directly after his arrival at the police station, which is another violation of the chain of custody rules. Instead he carried the revolver around with him for more than an hour, even showing it to reporters, and we only have his word for it that he took it to the Homicide Bureau office and then the Personnel office. All we really know for a fact is that Hill showed up at the Personnel office and told the people present there that this was Oswald's revolver. So, McDonald and Carroll just accepted what Hill said as the truth without being able to verify it.
In a previous reply to John Iacoletti, you wrote;
Martin's current positions is this: Hill made off with the revolver by himself for some period of time before it was turned into the Homicide squad. He hasn't provided any evidence for this happening,
I don't have to provide evidence for it, because it is a matter of fact. Hill arrived at the Police station at around 2 PM and the revolver wasn't submitted to the evidence room until 3.15 PM. It's really as simple as that. Where was Hill and the revolver for more than an hour? And before you go there.... I know what he said about where he was, but this "cop said" stuff is exactly why a chain of custody is required! Remember the O.J. Simpson trial and the vial of blood that Dennis Fung carried around with him?
But there is more. The next question is; McDonald was fighting with Oswald and suddenly had a revolver in his hand which he says he passed to Carroll. Carroll testified that he stuck the revolver in his belt and took it out again when he entered the car and gave it to Hill. There is no way IMO that McDonald and Carroll had a sufficiently good look at the revolver to be able to identify it more than an hour later. Ergo; McDonald and Carroll marked a revolver based on what Hill told them.
You failed to answer the second part of my question! How can we say with any certainty that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same one Hill received from Carroll or for that matter the same one McDonald claims to have taken from Oswald?
Let me gues.... because "a cop said so", right?
-
You failed to answer the second part of my question! How can we say with any certainty that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same one Hill received from Carroll or for that matter the same one McDonald claims to have taken from Oswald?
Let me gues.... because "a cop said so", right?
And the fact that the revolver in evidence is the exact same one that Oswald purchased! Ouch!
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
BTW if you were going to setup Oswald wouldn't you use a revolver that fires bullets that could be exclusively matched to the recovered bullets?! Stupid conspirators!
JohnM
-
And the fact that the revolver in evidence is the exact same one that Oswald purchased! Ouch!
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
BTW if you were going to setup Oswald wouldn't you use a revolver that fires bullets that could be exclusively matched to the recovered bullets?! Stupid conspirators!
JohnM
You don't seem to understand!
Oodles and gobs of evil, evil people were involved!
-
And the fact that the revolver in evidence is the exact same one that Oswald purchased! Ouch!
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
BTW if you were going to setup Oswald wouldn't you use a revolver that fires bullets that could be exclusively matched to the recovered bullets?! Stupid conspirators!
JohnM
And the fact that the revolver in evidence is the exact same one that Oswald purchased! Ouch!
That's not a fact. What is a fact is the the revolver now in evidence is the same one Oswald allegedly ordered according to an FBI handwriting expert.
The revolver was allegedly shipped c.o.d. with an outstanding balance of $19,95 still to be paid. There is no proof whatsoever that the balance was ever paid or that Oswald was the one who collected the revolver.
-
First, I provided evidence for my claim.
No you didn't. Speculation is not evidence.
Second, Martin's current positions is this: Hill made off with the revolver by himself for some period of time before it was turned into the Homicide squad. He hasn't provided any evidence for this happening,
Strawman. Martin never claimed anything of the kind.
Third, Carroll is the first Police Officer that can be shown to had uncontested possession of the pistol. This is not true for McDonald. So he is the first to have unambiguous custody of it.
Made-up BS. All of these "possessions" are contested as undemonstrable.
As for your statement that Carroll "didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from," we don't just have Carroll's word for it. Carroll said that he grabbed it after he saw someone hold it towards him from out of the scrum. McDonald said he held it out of the scrum and "gave" it to Carroll.
And did he "know" this before talking to Carroll later? Unknown and unknowable.
Carroll said he received only one gun from the scrum. McDonald also did not mention giving a second gun to any one. No one reported a second gun or two guns being involved in the scuffle. The logical upshot is Carroll got the gun from McDonald, whether or not Carroll recognized who he seized it from. Carroll giving the gun to Hill doesn't change this. It just adds Hill to the chain of custody. And it especially doesn't matter if Carrol remains with Hill.
This is all blather to try to excuse away a lack of a chain of custody. It still remains that McDonald was the only one who could establish that a gun was ever in the possession of Oswald, and he had no basis for identifying the gun Hill pulled out of his pocket hours later as the same gun. Apparently the cops were more interested in playing a game of "hot potato" than they were in the provenance of evidence.
-
Unbelievable, just give it up Iacoletti, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Cool story, bro. Having a cool story does not demonstrate that it is actually true.
-
And the fact that the revolver in evidence is the exact same one that Oswald purchased! Ouch!
"Oswald purchased". LOL.