JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on January 05, 2022, 12:51:26 AM
-
Let's have a closer look at the evidence that allegedly links Oswald to the rifle found at the TSBD.
One the one hand there is the Klein's paperwork. The only documents that tentatively link Oswald to the rifle ordered at Klein's are a photocopy of a filled out order form, ordering a rifle in name of A. Hidell, a photocopy of an envelope and a photocopy of a money order that may or may not be linked to that particular order form. It should be noted that the only thing really linking any of these photocopies to Oswald is the opinion of an FBI questioned documents expert.
One the other hand there are the BY photos, which were allegedly taken with a camera that was not found at Ruth Paine's house during the two searches conducted by DPD officers on 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 and was handed in to the authorities by Robert Oswald after (iirc) he had received it from Ruth Paine. There are all sorts of strange things going on with these photos, such as Michael Paine's denial that he knew Oswald had a rifle and yet he admitted in a TV interview some many years later that he had actually seen one of the photos shortly after they had been taken. And then there was the HQ photo that the DeMohrenschildts found in their storage room in 1967, with Russian writing on the back that could never be traced to anybody.
So here are two questions for the LNs.
1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?
These are not trick questions. I really want to find out if any LN can provide a reasonable and plausible justification for the conclusions that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself, actually received it and that he owned it when the BY photos were taken.
To be honest, I expect not much more than diversions, logical fallacies and ad homs, but I am hoping at least one LN is genuinely willing and able to provide an honest answer to my questions.
-
Crickets. They just parrot "Oswald's rifle" without even thinking about it.
I think it would be most instructive to examine the entire original Klein's microfilm (if it were not "missing"). We could see if any of the other orders had serial numbers handwritten in, and if so, if there were other C2766s. We could also see if other orders had the payment instrument photocopied as well as the order coupon and envelope.
Or it could just be an unfortunate coincidence that it is missing...
-
Crickets. They just parrot "Oswald's rifle" without even thinking about it.
I think it would be most instructive to examine the entire original Klein's microfilm (if it were not "missing"). We could see if any of the other orders had serial numbers handwritten in, and if so, if there were other C2766s. We could also see if other orders had the payment instrument photocopied as well as the order coupon and envelope.
Or it could just be an unfortunate coincidence that it is missing...
Crickets. They just parrot "Oswald's rifle" without even thinking about it.
Yes, very sad indeed.
Mind you, it should not come as a total surprise because even the WC itself couldn't provide answers for such basic questions as this. They dealt with them by not dealing with them and just ignoring all other possibilities except for that Oswald ordered, received and owned the rifle. The circular logic they apply in their report is shocking.
-
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO
orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped. [On the same day?]
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons. [A rifle at right shoulder arms and a pistol in his belt Thumb1:]
March 31, 1963: Marina takes the infamous "Backyard Photos" of LHO.
April 1, 1963: LHO is fired by Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Chronicled from the accounts in the Report.
Using the name of A. J. Hidell, Oswald had ordered a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver from Los Angeles on a form which he dated January 27. On March 12, he ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago under the name of A. Hidell.1010 Oswald used the name "Alek James Hidell" on identification cards which he probably produced at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. One of his fellow employees taught him various photographic techniques, which he could have used to prepare not only these cards, but also the samples of his work which he sent to various organizations.1011
Both weapons were shipped on March 20.1012 Oswald kept the rifle in a small storeroom at the Neely Street apartment. He spent long periods of time in the storeroom, which he told Marina she was not to enter.1013 He told her that he intended to use the rifle for hunt-
Page 724
ing 1014 and that he practiced with it. She saw him leave with it once, and clean it several times.1015 He also posed for two pictures, taken by Marina in the backyard of the Neely apartment, in which he held his rifle and copies of the Worker and the Militant and the revolver was strapped to his belt. He gave one of the pictures to his wife and asked her to keep it for June.1016
[where did he get the holster?]
Over the weekend of March 9-10, Oswald photographed the alley which runs behind the home of Gen. Edwin Walker, and probably at about the same time he photographed the rear of Walker's home and a nearby railroad track and right-of-way.1017 He prepared and studied a notebook in which he outlined a plan to shoot General Walker......
...........[taking presumed aim at Walker -Oswald allegedly fired and subsequently missed]
When Oswald told Marina what he had done, she became angry and made him promise never to repeat such an act
:D :D
-
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Chronicled from the accounts in the Report
............[taking presumed aim at Walker -Oswald allegedly fired and subsequently missed]
:D :D
Jerry Freeman "Skeptic" :D :D
-
Jerry Freeman "Skeptic" :D :D
And what are you, except for unable or unwilling to answer the two basic questions asked in the opening post?
-
And what are you, except for unable or unwilling to answer the two basic questions asked in the opening post?
He can't find it yet [in his copy of the Report]
Using the name of A. J. Hidell, Oswald had ordered... a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods....
So----Oswald used the Hidell name so that there would be absolutely no way to trace that order to him ::)
-
So----Oswald used the Hidell name so that there would be absolutely no way to trace that order to him ::)
That's not a LN claim I'm familiar with. After shooting at Walker, Oswald left with the rifle. After shooting at Kennedy, the option to quietly leave with the rifle was no longer there. Oswald then left the building as quickly as he could; he was in flight from having committed murder.
-
After shooting at Walker, Oswald left with the rifle. After shooting at Kennedy, the option to quietly leave with the rifle was no longer there. Oswald then left the building as quickly as he could; he was in flight from having committed murder.
What does that have to do with Hidell?
See the guy with the rolling eyes?----> ::) That's Mr Skeptic.
Oswald used the name "Alek James Hidell" on identification cards which he probably produced at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.
When the Report has no real proof of anything, the word 'probably' is used.
-
That's not a LN claim I'm familiar with. After shooting at Walker, Oswald left with the rifle. After shooting at Kennedy, the option to quietly leave with the rifle was no longer there. Oswald then left the building as quickly as he could; he was in flight from having committed murder.
One thing that has always bugged me about the Walker incident:
How did Oswald get to and back home from Walker's house carrying a rifle without being noticed by anyone? Walker's home was miles away from where Oswald lived and it's broadly assumed that Lee didn't know how to drive. Did he travel on foot? Did someone give him a ride? Did he take a rifle on a public bus without drawing attention to himself?
There are also conflicting stories about what Oswald did with the rifle immediately after the Walker shooting. I think Marina testified that Lee had buried the rifle somewhere near Walker's home and went back to retrieve it later. But that story conflicted with the DeMorenschildts testimony that they saw a rifle in the Oswald home immediately after the shooting.
-
One thing that has always bugged me about the Walker incident:
How did Oswald get to and back home from Walker's house carrying a rifle without being noticed by anyone? Walker's home was miles away from where Oswald lived and it's broadly assumed that Lee didn't know how to drive. Did he travel on foot? Did someone give him a ride? Did he take a rifle on a public bus without drawing attention to himself?
Wouldn't be that unusual in Texas to see a rifle being carried in a non-threatening or disassembled fashion on a bus. Could be the rifle was wrapped in the old raincoat he used to bury the rifle. Folks could assume he was transporting the rifle to go hunting or to get to friend's house so they could go hunting the following morning. Could be Oswald used a cab (he would spend money for his own needs while his children went hungry and shoeless, and his wife's teeth rotted).
There are also conflicting stories about what Oswald did with the rifle immediately after the Walker shooting. I think Marina testified that Lee had buried the rifle somewhere near Walker's home and went back to retrieve it later. But that story conflicted with the DeMorenschildts testimony that they saw a rifle in the Oswald home immediately after the shooting.
April 10: Attempt on Walker's life.
April 12: Retrieve rifle and take to home.
April 13: Jeanne De Mohrenschildt is shown the apartment by Marina and sees the rifle.
-
Wouldn't be that unusual in Texas to see a rifle being carried in a non-threatening or disassembled fashion on a bus. Could be the rifle was wrapped in the old raincoat he used to bury the rifle. Folks could assume he was transporting the rifle to go hunting or to get to friend's house so they could go hunting the following morning. Could be Oswald used a cab (he would spend money for his own needs while his children went hungry and shoeless, and his wife's teeth rotted).
That's 100% speculation on your part. Those who are sure that Oswald shot at Walker can never offer a coherent explanation of how he traveled to Walker's home with a rifle unnoticed.
And that's why it remains a big question mark for me even though I admit that there's more evidence of motive for Oswald in the Walker incident than the Kennedy assassination...
-
What does that have to do with Hidell?
Your dumb question went: "So----Oswald used the Hidell name so that there would be absolutely no way to trace that order to him". I said no LNer ever claimed Oswald would think the rifle was untraceable, and that he left the Walker shooting with the rifle, rather than abandon it there.
See the guy with the rolling eyes?----> ::) That's Mr Skeptic.
So you have got a fat round face, suffer jaundice and can't focus your eyes. Perfect icon for you. :D
When the Report has no real proof of anything, the word 'probably' is used.
What's wrong with the honest use of "probably" when something isn't known for sure? You expect motion picture quality film as proof, or to use time travel to verify it yourself?
How else would the Hidell papers get on his person? See how well your "probabilities" hold up.
-
That's 100% speculation on your part. Those who are sure that Oswald shot at Walker can never offer a coherent explanation of how he traveled to Walker's home with a rifle unnoticed.
You're holding our for some motion picture film of Oswald transporting the rifle? Imagine trying hardened criminals and the defense saying the prosecution first have to prove with motion picture film the defendants traveling to and arriving at the crime scene.
And that's why it remains a big question mark for me even though I admit that there's more evidence of motive for Oswald in the Walker incident than the Kennedy assassination...
If you're ever on a jury, tell them the extraordinary level of proof you expect, and they'll send you home.
-
You're holding our for some motion picture film of Oswald transporting the rifle? Imagine trying hardened criminals and the defense saying the prosecution first have to prove with motion picture film the defendants traveling to and arriving at the crime scene.
If you're ever on a jury, tell them the extraordinary level of proof you expect, and they'll send you home.
Part of establishing a case against a suspect involves presenting a theory of how the suspect might've did it.
-
Your dumb question went: "So----Oswald used the Hidell name so that there would be absolutely no way to trace that order to him". I said no LNer ever claimed Oswald would think the rifle was untraceable, and that he left the Walker shooting with the rifle, rather than abandon it there.
So you have got a fat round face, suffer jaundice and can't focus your eyes. Perfect icon for you. :D
What's wrong with the honest use of "probably" when something isn't known for sure? You expect motion picture quality film as proof, or to use time travel to verify it yourself?
How else would the Hidell papers get on his person? See how well your "probabilities" hold up.
I said no LNer ever claimed Oswald would think the rifle was untraceable, and that he left the Walker shooting with the rifle, rather than abandon it there.
So, what was his reason for using the Hidell alias when he ordered the rifle?
-
So, what was his reason for using the Hidell alias when he ordered the rifle?
Doesn't have a clue and doesn't really care. By the responses-has an obstinate attitude and just here to troll [PROBABLY] What's wrong with the honest use of "probably" when something isn't known for sure?
-
I said no LNer ever claimed Oswald would think the rifle was untraceable, and that he left the Walker shooting with the rifle, rather than abandon it there.
So, what was his reason for using the Hidell alias when he ordered the rifle?
Anything short of the event captured on movie picture film, or you being able to travel back in time to verify it personally, you don't accept or dismiss as assumption rather than a reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence.
-
Anything short of the event captured on movie picture film, or you being able to travel back in time to verify it personally, you don't accept or dismiss as assumption rather than a reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence.
Why don't you simply try to answer the question instead of coming up with an already predicted diversion and ad hom attack?
When you claim that Oswald would not think the rifle was untraceable", you need to explain why he used an alias to order it.
And btw, what makes you think that the WC assumption is a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence".
The mere fact that I can offer you two different explanations for the same event makes that so-called "reasonable assessment" a complete jump to a conclusion not supported by the evidence.
-
What's wrong with the honest use of "probably" when something isn't known for sure?
If it isn't known for sure, it means it's speculation and it could actually be wrong. Would you want to be convicted based on something that probably happened?
-
Why don't you simply try to answer the question instead of coming up with an already predicted diversion and ad hom attack?
When you claim that Oswald would not think the rifle was untraceable", you need to explain why he used an alias to order it.
And btw, what makes you think that the WC assumption is a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence".
The mere fact that I can offer you two different explanations for the same event makes that so-called "reasonable assessment" a complete jump to a conclusion not supported by the evidence.
What "two different explanations" have you offered?
If it isn't known for sure, it means it's speculation and it could actually be wrong. Would you want to be convicted based on something that probably happened?
The jury is asked to look at the evidence as a whole. I don't know of any case where a conviction hinged on a single "probable".
-
What "two different explanations" have you offered?
The jury is asked to look at the evidence as a whole. I don't know of any case where a conviction hinged on a single "probable".
What "two different explanations" have you offered?
More diversion. I did not say I have offered two different explanations. I said I could offer them.
Why don't you simply try to answer my question? If, as you claim, Oswald would not think the rifle was untraceable, then why did he use an alias to order it?
The jury is asked to look at the evidence as a whole. I don't know of any case where a conviction hinged on a single "probable".
Who said a conviction would hinge on a single "probable"? The use of the word "probable" means that something isn't certain. In other words, there is no evidence to support it, yet you consider it nevertheless as a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence", which it clearly isn't. It's an assumption. And the WC case against Oswald is riddled with assumptions for which very often reasonable other explanations have or can be offered.
So if the jury has to look at evidence riddled with assumptions, that would be alright with you?
-
What "two different explanations" have you offered?
More diversion. I did not say I have offered two different explanations. I said I could offer them.
Why don't you simply try to answer my question? If, as you claim, Oswald would not think the rifle was untraceable, then why did he use an alias to order it?
And you would just shoot it down as not being a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" if my explanation implicated Oswald. Been there; bought the T-shirt.
The jury is asked to look at the evidence as a whole. I don't know of any case where a conviction hinged on a single "probable".
Who said a conviction would hinge on a single "probable"?
Even if some isolated claim about Oswald could be out-and-out dismissed or -- rarely in your case -- be convincingly undermined with a counter-explanation, it would do little to weaken the LN evidence overall.
The use of the word "probable" means that something isn't certain. In other words, there is no evidence to support it,
That's your opinion that "there is no evidence to support it". So far, the CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer. Unfortunately the general public is conspiracy-minded and don't want to do the science.
yet you consider it nevertheless as a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence", which it clearly isn't.
Thanks for your opinion.
It's an assumption.
Reasonable judgment, after examining a range of alternatives.
And the WC case against Oswald is riddled with assumptions for which very often reasonable other explanations have or can be offered.
Like, per your OP, Oswald writing the the orderform, envelope and money order and then it not being used? Or Oswald holding somebody else's rifle in the BY photos? That more reasonable? Well, I guess if you can find a judge/jury like-minded.
So if the jury has to look at evidence riddled with assumptions, that would be alright with you?
A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.
-
And you would just shoot it down as not being a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" if my explanation implicated Oswald. Been there; bought the T-shirt.
Even if some isolated claim about Oswald could be out-and-out dismissed or -- rarely in your case -- be convincingly undermined with a counter-explanation, it would do little to weaken the LN evidence overall.
That's your opinion that "there is no evidence to support it". So far, the CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer. Unfortunately the general public is conspiracy-minded and don't want to do the science.
Thanks for your opinion.
Reasonable judgment, after examining a range of alternatives.
Like, per your OP, Oswald writing the the orderform, envelope and money order and then it not being used? Or Oswald holding somebody else's rifle in the BY photos? That more reasonable? Well, I guess if you can find a judge/jury like-minded.
A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.
And you would just shoot it down as not being a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" if my explanation implicated Oswald. Been there; bought the T-shirt.
Another typical LN cop out. You are a die hard LN, so whatever explanation you give will always implicate Oswald in one way or another. By this "logic" you would never have to answer a question, which of course is utter nonsense. You can either tell us why Oswald used the Hidell alias, if he would not think the rifle was untraceable, or you can't.
Why not be honest and simply say that you have no credible answer to the question?
Even if some isolated claim about Oswald could be out-and-out dismissed or -- rarely in your case -- be convincingly undermined with a counter-explanation, it would do little to weaken the LN evidence overall.
The overall LN evidence doesn't need to be undermined with counter-explanations, riddled as it is with speculation and assumptions, it can barely stand up by its own.
That's your opinion that "there is no evidence to support it". So far, the CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer. Unfortunately the general public is conspiracy-minded and don't want to do the science.
If you disagree with my opinion that there is no evidence to support it, why don't you prove me wrong by providing the evidence the "probably" claim is based on?
And even if it is true that "CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer" that still does not make your opinion more valid or credible.
Reasonable judgment, after examining a range of alternatives.
BS. What other alternatives were examined?
Like, per your OP, Oswald writing the the orderform, envelope and money order and then it not being used?
Who said anything about the orderform etc not being used? My question relates to those documents not only having been written by Oswald but also being used.
Or Oswald holding somebody else's rifle in the BY photos? That more reasonable? Well, I guess if you can find a judge/jury like-minded.
I haven't owned any weapon all my life, but I was photographed once holding somebody else's rifle. What's unreasonable about that?
Obviously, my two questions in the OP are asked against the background of the possibility that Oswald was being manipulated to set him up as a fall guy. If you consider it impossible that Oswald was or could be manipulated you will never be able to look beyond yourself.
A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.
What are you babbling about? That jury basically accepted the defense argument that, for a number of reasons, including the lack of a solid chain of custody for a blood vial, the evidence presented by the prosecution could not be trusted. In other words; the prosecution did not present a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you consider what the OJ jury did a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" then I do not understand at all what your problem in the case against Oswald is. The OJ jury did exactly what you would not want a jury to do in Oswald's case, despite the fact that the case against OJ was far more solid than the case against Oswald ever was or will be. A jury can not simply overlook weaknesses in the prosecution's case such as assumptions based on what they think "probably" happened.
Now, can/will you answer the two OP questions, or will you continue to waste my time with cop outs and vague excuses?
Here are the two questions again;
1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?
-
A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.
There is an all-too-common practice in our justice system known as Framing the Guilty. A police officer (or crime lab supervisor or medical examiner or district attorney) is convinced of a suspect's guilt but fears the bastard will walk free. The police officer (or other administrator of justice) will therefore bury exculpatory evidence, manufacture or plant inculpatory evidence, coerce a false confession, or provide favorable treatment to a third party in exchange for false testimony.
Since the dirtbag being framed is guilty, no harm is done.
http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html
"Framing the guilty" (framing people that the police presume to be guilty) is a real problem in Law Enforcement. I don't know how common it is but it does happen.
More video emerges of Baltimore police staging evidence: prosecutors
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-police/more-video-emerges-of-baltimore-police-staging-evidence-prosecutors-idUSKCN1B127W
What I mean is, while OJ may have been guilty as sin, the LAPD did in fact, cut corners and maybe staged some evidence in order to ensure that OJ wouldn't get away with it.
O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2014/06/08/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene/
Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson’s blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson’s home where criminalists were collecting evidence.
Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson’s front walkway.
Black Americans know better than most other Americans how corrupt Law Enforcement can be. So that explains why the Black Jurors in the OJ trial were receptive to the Defense's arguments about evidence tampering and potential staging of evidence.
If Oswald lived to go to trial and got a good lawyer, the problems with the evidence against him would've been exposed and challenged in court. Of course, there might've been fewer problems with the evidence had he lived. Many of the typical things done to preserve evidence and chain of custody were tossed out the window once Ruby killed Oswald.
-
There is an all-too-common practice in our justice system known as Framing the Guilty. A police officer (or crime lab supervisor or medical examiner or district attorney) is convinced of a suspect's guilt but fears the bastard will walk free. The police officer (or other administrator of justice) will therefore bury exculpatory evidence, manufacture or plant inculpatory evidence, coerce a false confession, or provide favorable treatment to a third party in exchange for false testimony.
Since the dirtbag being framed is guilty, no harm is done.
http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html
"Framing the guilty" (framing people that the police presume to be guilty) is a real problem in Law Enforcement. I don't know how common it is but it does happen.
More video emerges of Baltimore police staging evidence: prosecutors
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-police/more-video-emerges-of-baltimore-police-staging-evidence-prosecutors-idUSKCN1B127W
What I mean is, while OJ may have been guilty as sin, the LAPD did in fact, cut corners and maybe staged some evidence in order to ensure that OJ wouldn't get away with it.
O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2014/06/08/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene/
Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson’s blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson’s home where criminalists were collecting evidence.
Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson’s front walkway.
Black Americans know better than most other Americans how corrupt Law Enforcement can be. So that explains why the Black Jurors in the OJ trial were receptive to the Defense's arguments about evidence tampering and potential staging of evidence.
If Oswald lived to go to trial and got a good lawyer, the problems with the evidence against him would've been exposed and challenged in court. Of course, there might've been fewer problems with the evidence had he lived. Many of the typical things done to preserve evidence and chain of custody were tossed out the window once Ruby killed Oswald.
This is exactly why I wonder what Jerry was thinking about when he refered to the OJ case as that case demonstrates extremely clearly why chain of custody is so important for authentication of evidence. The example you gave about Vannatter and the blood vial is highly similar to Hill handing in a revolver some two hours after he allegedly took it from Oswald at the Texas Theater and Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, previously described in radio traffic as white, and marked by officers who never handled the jacket. And there are more examples of this.
And it doesn't even have to be police or prosecutorial misconduct. Evidence could also have been manipulated prior to the investigators obtaining it. Not easy to prove perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility that needs to be considered.
Jerry just wants to ignore all the potential problems with the evidence as if none of it matters because he feels they got the right man. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of those LNs who don't even want to consider the inconsistencies in the official narrative for fear of stumbling onto something that forces him to question his own opinion.
-
This is exactly why I wonder what Jerry was thinking about when he refered to the OJ case as that case demonstrates extremely clearly why chain of custody is so important for authentication of evidence. The example you gave about Vannatter and the blood vial is highly similar to Hill handing in a revolver some two hours after he allegedly took it from Oswald at the Texas Theater and Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, previously described in radio traffic as white, and marked by officers who never handled the jacket. And there are more examples of this.
And it doesn't even have to be police or prosecutorial misconduct. Evidence could also have been manipulated prior to the investigators obtaining it. Not easy to prove perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility that needs to be considered.
Jerry just wants to ignore all the potential problems with the evidence as if none of it matters because he feels they got the right man. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of those LNs who don't even want to consider the inconsistencies in the official narrative for fear of stumbling onto something that forces him to question his own opinion.
Yeah, the OJ case is a terrible example of police behavior with regards to the integrity of the evidence.
The police and prosecutors often get away with improper handling of evidence or staging crime scenes because most suspects can’t afford the kind of legal defense team that OJ had.
In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken. But there are similar problems throughout for the Dallas police evidence and crime scenes. It’s not clear if it was due to malice or negligence. Most likely, both things were at play.
Even FBI agents have criticized the handling of evidence by the DPD.
-
Yeah, the OJ case is a terrible example of police behavior with regards to the integrity of the evidence.
The police and prosecutors often get away with improper handling of evidence or staging crime scenes because most suspects can’t afford the kind of legal defense team that OJ had.
In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken. But there are similar problems throughout for the Dallas police evidence and crime scenes. It’s not clear if it was due to malice or negligence. Most likely, both things were at play.
Even FBI agents have criticized the handling of evidence by the DPD.
In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken.
Well, the absence of an in situ photograph of the location of the paper bag and the conflicting testimony about who found it and where, as well as Capt. Fritz picking up the shells and throwing them back down again and the moving of some boxes between photo shoots certainly isn't in the manual of how to perserve and project the integrity of a crime scene, that's for sure.
And Detective Hill handing in a revolver which he claimed was taken of Oswald at the Texas Theater, some two hours earlier, and Captain Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, which previously was described several times in radio traffic as being white, and with initials of cops on it that never were in the chain of custody while the officers who actually handled the jacket remain unidentified doesn't do much for the credibility of the case against Oswald either.
-
Part of establishing a case against a suspect involves presenting a theory of how the suspect might've did it.
Obviously, no one except Oswald knows for sure how he transported his rifle to Walker scene. By asking that question, therefore, you are calling for some speculation. And not having a film documenting how he carried the rifle in no way precludes him from having done so. What we do know with absolute certainty is that Oswald was the person who pulled the trigger. His own wife confirms that he came home on the night of the Walker attempt and confessed to her. There would have been no way for Oswald to know that an attempt had been made on Walker at that point in time except for his personal knowledge of the event. There were no newspapers, Internet, or TV reports available to Oswald in the middle of the night in 1963. Marina also confirms that he left her a note on what to do if he was killed or arrested that night. He had recon photos of Walker's home etc. It's a slam dunk.
-
I said no LNer ever claimed Oswald would think the rifle was untraceable, and that he left the Walker shooting with the rifle, rather than abandon it there.
So, what was his reason for using the Hidell alias when he ordered the rifle?
Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer. Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle. It is the act of someone attempting to obscure the trail. It doesn't make it "untraceable" per se, but an alias is more difficult to track. It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt. Talk about the rabbit hole. Oswald likely has no idea what information is retrievable when he orders his rifle. He is simply making it as difficult as possible to trace it back to him by using an alias. He has nothing to lose by doing so and, as explained by Jerry, his plan at the time did not entail leaving his rifle at any crime scene to be traced. The alias is just an obvious layer of additional obfuscation to protect someone with bad intentions.
-
So here are two questions for the LNs.
1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?
These are not trick questions. I really want to find out if any LN can provide a reasonable and plausible justification for the conclusions that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself, actually received it and that he owned it when the BY photos were taken.
To be honest, I expect not much more than diversions, logical fallacies and ad homs, but I am hoping at least one LN is genuinely willing and able to provide an honest answer to my questions.
The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.
Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption. Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".
To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle. We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession (If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?). And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.
Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself. Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.
The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.
More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?
1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?
-
Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer. Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle. It is the act of someone attempting to obscure the trail. It doesn't make it "untraceable" per se, but an alias is more difficult to track. It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt. Talk about the rabbit hole. Oswald likely has no idea what information is retrievable when he orders his rifle. He is simply making it as difficult as possible to trace it back to him by using an alias. He has nothing to lose by doing so and, as explained by Jerry, his plan at the time did not entail leaving his rifle at any crime scene to be traced. The alias is just an obvious layer of additional obfuscation to protect someone with bad intentions.
Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer.
BS, as per usual
Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.
True, but what makes you think he used an alias to order the rifle for himself?
It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.
First of all, where did I imply that (other than in your paranoid mind) and secondly, it's absolutely absurd to claim that Oswald used an alias to purchase a rifle, while there are other possibilities as well that he never been explored.
-
The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.
Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption. Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".
To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle. We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession (If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?). And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.
Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself. Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.
The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.
More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?
1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?
The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.
Partially right. My questions are indeed worded to get a genuine honest answer. If that answer weakens the case of the LN theory, then so be it. If you want to find the truth, you shouldn't be worried about the possible weakness of the LN case.
Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption.
Now, there's an honest answer! Kudos! And I agree. The problem is that once you say that, the next question is going to be; If there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle for himself, how can anyone claim his alleged ownership of that rifle as a foundation for the accusation that he shot Kennedy with it?
Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".
That's a moot LN talking point which is of no value, as Oswald didn't say that during interrogation.
To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle.
If you mean by "he definitely did order the rifle" that he ordered it for himself, then I have to disagree with that conclusion as it is also possible (although I admit there is no evidence for it) that he was manipulated into writing the the order documents and making available his P.O. box address for someone else. Perhaps even for somebody he knew as A. Hidell, who asked him for a favor.
The available evidence does not, in any way, shape or form, show us conclusively that Oswald used an alias to order the rifle for himself, but it does also not show he ordered it for somebody else. Nevertheless, if you are honest, you will agree that both options are possible, right?
We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell
Indeed... We are told that the rifle was dispatched based on a marking on an internal document of Klein's (iirc Waldmann 7), but there is no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was actually shipped (there is no record of postage, which seems odd for a postal sale company not to have, in case they had to show a product had indeed been sent). So, yet again, we get to assume that what we are told is in fact true, when we have no evidence to confirm that.
which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession
Do we really know that? Let's consider the facts we do know for a moment. Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car, during the ride to DPD HQ. In a television interview, the next day, he was asked about the content of that wallet and he answered that it contained an ID, in Oswald's name, a credit card and a driver's license. Not a word about an ID in the name of Hidell! In fact, there isn't one report of any DPD officer that mentions the discovery of an Hidell ID in that wallet.
So, now enter Detecive Rose, who was off duty but recalled to help out after the assassination. When he arrived at DPD HQ, Oswald was being brought in and Rose was the first officer to talk to him. Just before that Rose was given a wallet, which he was told belonged to Oswald and that wallet contained a fake Hidell ID. The weird thing is that nobody knows who the person was that gave Rose the wallet. It couldn't have been Bentley, because he had injured his leg during the arrest and had been taken to hospital after his arrival at DPD HQ. So, where did that wallet come from and who gave it to Rose? Where is the chain of custody for that wallet?
(If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?).
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. If Oswald (possibly being manipulated) did somebody he knew as A. Hidell a favor by ordering the rifle and the revolver, then he wasn't trying to hide his identity, right?
And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.
First of all, I'm not so sure that it was the same rifle, but having said that, the fact that Oswald was photographed with a rifle doesn't tell us anything about the ownership of that rifle. I don't have any weapons myself, but I was once photographed holding a rifle that belonged to a friend of mine. That did not make it my rifle!
Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There is no way near sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion.
Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case
So, if there is no definitive proof, as you say, how in the world can you nevertheless reach your conclusion?
but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.
That's an extremely weak LN argument. In most cases ownership of a weapon is not crucial to obtain a conviction. If it was every murderer would use a weapon owned by somebody else to do the killing. The ownership the MC rifle is so crucial in this case simply because there is no other evidence to link Oswald to the Kennedy murder. When you take him owning the rifle out of the equation, you are left with very little else.
The assumption (because that's what it is) that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and received it, allows for the conclusion that he was seen with the same rifle in the BY photos. It subsequently allows for the conclusion that he used this particular rifle to shoot at General Walker, thus demonstrating his willingness to kill and for the conclusion (based on absolutely nothing) that he stored this particular rifle in Ruth Paine's garage for 2 months. All of this and more goes out the window, if the assumption that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and thus owned it is wrong! It's a house of cards!
The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.
If that were true, why are you the first LN to try to answer the questions? The others have all stayed away from this thread or simply avoided answering the questions.
More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?
1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?
First of all, I'm not a CT. I couldn't care less either way. If Oswald did it alone, so be it, and if he didn't there is no other alternative then that there was indeed a conspiracy. I merely want to find out if the case against Oswald holds up under scrutiny.
The answer to your question is; I don't have to. I am not the one proclaiming Oswald to be guilty or innocent. What you are asking me to do is actually prove two negatives, which is near impossible to do.
Based in the available evidence you can not conclude that Oswald did not order the rifle for himself. But you also can not conclude that he actually did buy it for himself, which is exactly the point I was making. And the same goes for the BY photos. The only way you can conclude that Oswald ordered, received and owned that rifle is if you assume he did and there is not even enough circumstantial evidence to justify such an assumption.
-
Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer.
BS, as per usual
Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.
True, but what makes you think he used an alias to order the rifle for himself?
It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.
First of all, where did I imply that (other than in your paranoid mind) and secondly, it's absolutely absurd to claim that Oswald used an alias to purchase a rifle, while there are other possibilities as well that he never been explored.
Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle. This is the most investigated case in history. What fantasy are you entertaining about Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else? LOL. The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box. There are photos of him holding that rifle. His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe. The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box. That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment. Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle. What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else? Nothing. Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case? Rabbit hole nonsense.
-
Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle. This is the most investigated case in history. What fantasy are you entertaining about Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else? LOL. The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box. There are photos of him holding that rifle. His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe. The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box. That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment. Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle. What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else? Nothing. Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case? Rabbit hole nonsense.
Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle.
So, Oswald doing somebody a favor by ordering a rifle in his name and using his P.O. box for it is an "abstract possibility" for you but concluding that he ordered the rifle for himself using an alias isn't?
Do you ever think before you write?
We don't know everything there is to know about Oswald and we never will. All we know about the people around him is what the WC told us. It is most certainly possible that somebody introduced himself to Oswald in New Orleans and called himself A. Hidell. Once that was done, it would have been easy to tell Oswald some story that resulted in Oswald ordering the rifle and revolver for his "friend". Having received both weapons the BY photos could have been taken, as a bit of fun, before "Hidell" collected them. There are all sorts of variables of how something like that could have gone down and to dismiss it all out of hand is a clear sign of how little you are in touch with what goes on in the real world.
In 2017, Kim Jong-un's half-brother was killed at Kuala Lumpur airport by being sprayed nerve gas on him by two women who were tricked in doing that because they were told they were taking part in a TV prank.
This is the most investigated case in history.
So what? It is in fact the most investigate case based on the available evidence. Investigating the same evidence over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a fool's errand.
The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.
There is no evidence for that. Just an assumption of Waldmann based on a marking on a document.
There are photos of him holding that rifle.
No. There are photos of him holding a rifle.
His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe.
No, she didn't. That's an outright lie.
The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box.
No, the rifle found on the 6th floor has a serial number that is the same as the one handwritten on Waldmann 7. There is not a shred of evidence that that rifle was ever sent to Oswald's PO box or that Oswald owned it.
That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment.
So what? Does that prove Oswald put it there?
Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle.
You keep repeating this lie, but no matter how often you claim that, it will never be true. Oswald's palm print was allegedly found on an evidence card that Day did not provide to anybody until a week after the assassination.
What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else? Nothing.
Agreed. The problem is that you can not provide a shred of evidence for any of it being true.
Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case?
What makes you think he lied? There is no verbatim record of what he told the investigators and the reports of the investigators contradict eachother too much to be considered even remotely reliable.
Having said that, I'm not surprised you instantly dismiss all other possibilities out of hand. It is what you do.... Narrowmindedness fits you like a glove!
-
Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle.
So, Oswald doing somebody a favor by ordering a rifle in his name and using his P.O. box for it is an "abstract possibility" for you but concluding that he ordered the rifle for himself using an alias isn't?
This is the most investigated case in history.
So what? It is in fact the most investigate case based on the available evidence.
The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.
There is no evidence for that.
There are photos of him holding that rifle.
No. There are photos of him holding a rifle.
His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe.
No, she didn't.
The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box.
No, the rifle found on the 6th floor has a serial number that is the same as the one handwritting on Waldmann 7. There is not a shred of evidence that that rifle was ever sent to Oswald's PO box.
That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment.
So what? Does that prove Oswald put it there?
Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle.
You keep repeating this lie, but no matter how often you claim that, it will never be true. Oswald's palm print was allegedly found on an evidence card that Day did not provide to anybody until a week after the assassination.
What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else? Nothing.
Agreed. The problem is that you can not provide a shred of evidence for any of it being true.
Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case?
What makes you think he lied? There is no verbatim record of what he told the investigators and the reports of the investigators contradict eachother too much to be considered even remotely reliable.
Having said that, I'm not surprised you instantly dismiss all other possibilities out of hand. It is what you do.... Narrowmindedness fits you like a glove!
This is the old impossible contrarian standard of proof nonsense. You claim to suggest a possibility (i.e. that Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else) to provide a potentially innocent explanation for Oswald to order the rifle but then dismiss as fake all the evidence cited that links Oswald to the rifle. There are photos that experts have confirmed show him holding the rifle found on the 6th floor. There are documents that show that rifle was ordered with a shipping address that is Oswald's PO Box. There is the testimony of the DPD that Oswald's prints were found on the rifle. All that evidence confirms beyond any doubt that Oswald ordered and possessed a specific rifle. There is no point in discussing alternative theories to Oswald ordering and possessing the rifle if you simply dismiss all this evidence as the product of fakery. If it is all fake, then Oswald didn't order the rifle at all much less give it to anyone else. You are not contending that there was some alternative explanation like Oswald ordered for the rifle for someone else but taking issue with the underlying evidence linking him to this specific rifle. Those are entirely different and even contradictory claims.
-
This is the old impossible contrarian standard of proof nonsense. You claim to suggest a possibility (i.e. that Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else) to provide a potentially innocent explanation for Oswald to order the rifle but then dismiss as fake all the evidence cited that links Oswald to the rifle. There are photos that experts have confirmed show him holding the rifle found on the 6th floor. There are documents that show that rifle was ordered with a shipping address that is Oswald's PO Box. There is the testimony of the DPD that Oswald's prints were found on the rifle. All that evidence confirms beyond any doubt that Oswald ordered and possessed a specific rifle. There is no point in discussing alternative theories to Oswald ordering and possessing the rifle if you simply dismiss all this evidence as the product of fakery. If it is all fake, then Oswald didn't order the rifle at all much less give it to anyone else. You are not contending that there was some alternative explanation like Oswald ordered for the rifle for someone else but taking issue with the underlying evidence linking him to this specific rifle. Those are entirely different and even contradictory claims.
This is the old impossible contrarian standard of proof nonsense. You claim to suggest a possibility (i.e. that Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else) to provide a potentially innocent explanation for Oswald to order the rifle but then dismiss as fake all the evidence cited that links Oswald to the rifle.
More of your usual BS. The fact of the matter is a simple one; as there are more possible explanations for Oswald having written the orderform etc, you can not simply ignore the other possibilities and instantly conclude that he ordered the rifle for himself using an alias. But that's what the WC did.
Honest and correct investigations don't use circular logic to jump to flawed conclusions, as the WC did and you constantly do. The WC never identified the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos as the one he ordered from Klein's. They, like Time Magazine, just assumed it was the same rifle and used that to justify their conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself, using an alias.
I also don't dismiss as fake "all the evidence cited" because you haven't cited any. You've just made claims that are not supported by any conclusive evidence.
There are photos that experts have confirmed show him holding the rifle found on the 6th floor.
The opinion of "experts" are always subjective and very often they do not concur. Here we have a blurry picture and a HSCA expert who thinks he can match some markings on the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph to the rifle now at the National Archive. That's not conclusive. Not even close. It was also experts who claimed there had been a fourth shot, based on a analysis of the DPD radio recordings.... So much for experts!
And the mere fact that you have to use something as weak as a BY photo as "evidence" that Oswald owned the rifle actually shows just how weak the case against Oswald really is. It is completely idiotic. The fact that somebody holds a rifle in a photograph does not make him the owner of that rifle. I was once photographed with a rifle of a friend. I have never owned a weapon in my life. Come to think of it, I was also once photographed sitting in the drivers seat of a Rolls Royce. Do you really think I can go back and claim that car as my property?
There are documents that show that rifle was ordered with a shipping address that is Oswald's PO Box.
Yes, nobody denies that. But there is no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was actually shipped to that PO Box and/or that Oswald collected it. In fact, the known details make it more likely it never was shipped, because the order, according to the department number on the order form, was for a 36" MC and Klein's had sold out that particular weapon. So, it's far more likely they would have contacted the client to ask if he would accept a 40" MC instead. No correspondence of such nature was ever found or included in the known evidence, but that doesn't mean it did not happen. Whatever else can be said about the transaction, one would expect from a postal sale company that they keep some sort of proof of shipment for each item they sent out, just in case a client complains he never received it. Apparently Klein's has no such records and thus there is no way of knowing if a rifle was shipped and what happened to it. In any event, the 40" MC found at the TSBD was not the 36" MC that Oswald, according to the order form, ordered.
There is the testimony of the DPD that Oswald's prints were found on the rifle.
No. There is a claim by Lt Day that he took a palmprint of Oswald on an evidence card from the rifle. But he did not tell anybody until a week after the assassination. The FBI examined the rifle in the night after the murder and found not even a trace of a print. The testimony of Lt Day is extremely suspect, because we know from surviving documents that the WC actually edited his testimony.
All that evidence confirms beyond any doubt that Oswald ordered and possessed a specific rifle.
BS. All it confirms beyond doubt is that your bar is an extremely low one.
There is no point in discussing alternative theories to Oswald ordering and possessing the rifle if you simply dismiss all this evidence as the product of fakery.
I don't dismiss "all this evidence as a product of fakery". What you are doing is blowing the significance of the "evidence" you have mentioned out of all reasonable proportions.
If it is all fake, then Oswald didn't order the rifle at all much less give it to anyone else. You are not contending that there was some alternative explanation like Oswald ordered for the rifle for someone else but taking issue with the underlying evidence linking him to this specific rifle. Those are entirely different and even contradictory claims.
Stop rambling. You're not making any sense at all.
-
This is the old impossible contrarian standard of proof nonsense. You claim to suggest a possibility (i.e. that Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else) to provide a potentially innocent explanation for Oswald to order the rifle but then dismiss as fake all the evidence cited that links Oswald to the rifle.
More of your usual BS. The fact of the matter is a simple one; as there are more possible explanations for Oswald having written the orderform etc, you can not simply ignore the other possibilities and instantly conclude that he ordered the rifle for himself using an alias. But that's what the WC did.
Honest and correct investigations don't use circular logic to jump to flawed conclusions, as the WC did and you constantly do. The WC never identified the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos as the one he ordered from Klein's. They, like Time Magazine, just assumed it was the same rifle and used that to justify their conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself, using an alias.
I also don't dismiss as fake "all the evidence cited" because you haven't cited any. You've just made claims that are not supported by any conclusive evidence.
There are photos that experts have confirmed show him holding the rifle found on the 6th floor.
The opinion of "experts" are always subjective and very often they do not concur. Here we have a blurry picture and a HSCA expert who thinks he can match some markings on the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph to the rifle now at the National Archive. That's not conclusive. Not even close. It was also experts who claimed there had been a fourth shot, based on a analysis of the DPD radio recordings.... So much for experts!
And the mere fact that you have to use something as weak as a BY photo as "evidence" that Oswald owned the rifle actually shows just how weak the case against Oswald really is. It is completely idiotic. The fact that somebody holds a rifle in a photograph does not make him the owner of that rifle. I was once photographed with a rifle of a friend. I have never owned a weapon in my life. Come to think of it, I was also once photographed sitting in the drivers seat of a Rolls Royce. Do you really think I can go back and claim that car as my property?
There are documents that show that rifle was ordered with a shipping address that is Oswald's PO Box.
Yes, nobody denies that. But there is no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was actually shipped to that PO Box and/or that Oswald collected it. In fact, the known details make it more likely it never was shipped, because the order, according to the department number on the order form, was for a 36" MC and Klein's had sold out that particular weapon. So, it's far more likely they would have contacted the client to ask if he would accept a 40" MC instead. No correspondence of such nature was ever found or included in the known evidence, but that doesn't mean it did not happen. Whatever else can be said about the transaction, one would expect from a postal sale company that they keep some sort of proof of shipment for each item they sent out, just in case a client complains he never received it. Apparently Klein's has no such records and thus there is no way of knowing if a rifle was shipped and what happened to it. In any event, the 40" MC found at the TSBD was not the 36" MC that Oswald, according to the order form, ordered.
There is the testimony of the DPD that Oswald's prints were found on the rifle.
No. There is a claim by Lt Day that he took a palmprint of Oswald on an evidence card from the rifle. But he did not tell anybody until a week after the assassination. The FBI examined the rifle in the night after the murder and found not even a trace of a print. The testimony of Lt Day is extremely suspect, because we know from surviving documents that the WC actually edited his testimony.
All that evidence confirms beyond any doubt that Oswald ordered and possessed a specific rifle.
BS. All it confirms beyond doubt is that your bar is an extremely low one.
There is no point in discussing alternative theories to Oswald ordering and possessing the rifle if you simply dismiss all this evidence as the product of fakery.
I don't dismiss "all this evidence as a product of fakery". What you are doing is blowing the significance of the "evidence" you have mentioned out of all reasonable proportions.
If it is all fake, then Oswald didn't order the rifle at all much less give it to anyone else. You are not contending that there was some alternative explanation like Oswald ordered for the rifle for someone else but taking issue with the underlying evidence linking him to this specific rifle. Those are entirely different and even contradictory claims.
Stop rambling. You're not making any sense at all.
You began this entire thread asking about a premise that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's but that when he received the rifle, he gave it someone else (described as a "possibility" although a completely baseless one). You then spent countless words arguing that the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was suspect (i.e. he never received it). Thereby undermining the original premise that Oswald ordered and received the rifle but gave it someone. Obviously, Oswald could not give it to someone else if he never received it. Presumably you made this pivot when you came to realize the absolute absurdity of suggesting that Oswald ordered, paid for, received, and posed with a rifle that he intended to give to some mysterious person. The same rifle that then shows up at Oswald's place of work on the day of the assassination. And when asked about this particular rifle instead of explaining that to the authorities so that they could confirm with the individual with whom he gave it too, Oswald instead lies to them for some unknown reason and denies ever obtaining the rifle. Rabbit hole after rabbit hole. It is a dizzying display of contractions and tortured logic.
-
You began this entire thread asking about a premise that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's but that when he received the rifle, he gave it someone else (described as a "possibility" although a completely baseless one). You then spent countless words arguing that the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was suspect (i.e. he never received it). Thereby undermining the original premise that Oswald ordered and received the rifle but gave it someone. Obviously, Oswald could not give it to someone else if he never received it. Presumably you made this pivot when you came to realize the absolute absurdity of suggesting that Oswald ordered, paid for, received, and posed with a rifle that he intended to give to some mysterious person. The same rifle that then shows up at Oswald's place of work on the day of the assassination. And when asked about this particular rifle instead of explaining that to the authorities so that they could confirm with the individual with whom he gave it too, Oswald instead lies to them for some unknown reason and denies ever obtaining the rifle. Rabbit hole after rabbit hole. It is a dizzying display of contractions and tortured logic.
You began this entire thread asking about a premise that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's but that when he received the rifle, he gave it someone else (described as a "possibility" although a completely baseless one).
No I didn't, fool. I began the thread asking two questions;
1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?
Too bad that you seem to be unable to understand what you read, but it doesn't come as a real surprise.
I'm not going to waste any time on your usual strawman crap, but I'll gladly add some more to your confusion. I started with the assumption that Oswald indeed wrote the Klein's order documents for a 36" rifle. I never said he received a rifle or paid for one nor did I say he gave it to someone else.
Obviously there is a MC rifle in play here, but there is not a shred of evidence that a rifle of any description was ever sent by Klein's to Oswald's P.O. box, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he received any rifle.
Rather than making up a strawman, perhaps you should try to answer the questions instead, but, knowing you, you most likely won't.
-
This is the old impossible contrarian standard of proof nonsense. You claim to suggest a possibility (i.e. that Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else) to provide a potentially innocent explanation for Oswald to order the rifle but then dismiss as fake all the evidence cited that links Oswald to the rifle.
More of your usual BS. The fact of the matter is a simple one; as there are more possible explanations for Oswald having written the orderform etc, you can not simply ignore the other possibilities and instantly conclude that he ordered the rifle for himself using an alias. But that's what the WC did.
Honest and correct investigations don't use circular logic to jump to flawed conclusions, as the WC did and you constantly do. The WC never identified the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos as the one he ordered from Klein's. They, like Time Magazine, just assumed it was the same rifle and used that to justify their conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself, using an alias.
I also don't dismiss as fake "all the evidence cited" because you haven't cited any. You've just made claims that are not supported by any conclusive evidence.
There are photos that experts have confirmed show him holding the rifle found on the 6th floor.
The opinion of "experts" are always subjective and very often they do not concur. Here we have a blurry picture and a HSCA expert who thinks he can match some markings on the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph to the rifle now at the National Archive. That's not conclusive. Not even close. It was also experts who claimed there had been a fourth shot, based on a analysis of the DPD radio recordings.... So much for experts!
And the mere fact that you have to use something as weak as a BY photo as "evidence" that Oswald owned the rifle actually shows just how weak the case against Oswald really is. It is completely idiotic. The fact that somebody holds a rifle in a photograph does not make him the owner of that rifle. I was once photographed with a rifle of a friend. I have never owned a weapon in my life. Come to think of it, I was also once photographed sitting in the drivers seat of a Rolls Royce. Do you really think I can go back and claim that car as my property?
There are documents that show that rifle was ordered with a shipping address that is Oswald's PO Box.
Yes, nobody denies that. But there is no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was actually shipped to that PO Box and/or that Oswald collected it. In fact, the known details make it more likely it never was shipped, because the order, according to the department number on the order form, was for a 36" MC and Klein's had sold out that particular weapon. So, it's far more likely they would have contacted the client to ask if he would accept a 40" MC instead. No correspondence of such nature was ever found or included in the known evidence, but that doesn't mean it did not happen. Whatever else can be said about the transaction, one would expect from a postal sale company that they keep some sort of proof of shipment for each item they sent out, just in case a client complains he never received it. Apparently Klein's has no such records and thus there is no way of knowing if a rifle was shipped and what happened to it. In any event, the 40" MC found at the TSBD was not the 36" MC that Oswald, according to the order form, ordered.
There is the testimony of the DPD that Oswald's prints were found on the rifle.
No. There is a claim by Lt Day that he took a palmprint of Oswald on an evidence card from the rifle. But he did not tell anybody until a week after the assassination. The FBI examined the rifle in the night after the murder and found not even a trace of a print. The testimony of Lt Day is extremely suspect, because we know from surviving documents that the WC actually edited his testimony.
All that evidence confirms beyond any doubt that Oswald ordered and possessed a specific rifle.
BS. All it confirms beyond doubt is that your bar is an extremely low one.
There is no point in discussing alternative theories to Oswald ordering and possessing the rifle if you simply dismiss all this evidence as the product of fakery.
I don't dismiss "all this evidence as a product of fakery". What you are doing is blowing the significance of the "evidence" you have mentioned out of all reasonable proportions.
If it is all fake, then Oswald didn't order the rifle at all much less give it to anyone else. You are not contending that there was some alternative explanation like Oswald ordered for the rifle for someone else but taking issue with the underlying evidence linking him to this specific rifle. Those are entirely different and even contradictory claims.
Stop rambling. You're not making any sense at all.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nLdXFVzw/thousand.png)
-
Get back in your cage.
-
The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.
Partially right. My questions are indeed worded to get a genuine honest answer. If that answer weakens the case of the LN theory, then so be it. If you want to find the truth, you shouldn't be worried about the possible weakness of the LN case.
Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption.
Now, there's an honest answer! Kudos! And I agree. The problem is that once you say that, the next question is going to be; If there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle for himself, how can anyone claim his alleged ownership of that rifle as a foundation for the accusation that he shot Kennedy with it?
Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".
That's a moot LN talking point which is of no value, as Oswald didn't say that during interrogation.
Well, how do we know he didn't say that during interrogation? My point here is that if everyone were to adopt your attitude of not believing anything we're told then we can't dismiss the fact that he might have admitted to buying it for himself.
As absurd as it may be, there's as much evidence suggesting Oswald admitted this during interrogation than there is evidence that he purchased the rifle for someone else, yet you're willing to dismiss this without questioning the lack of evidence. You can't just pick whatever unproven aspects of the Warren Commission you choose to believe to suit your theory.
To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle.
If you mean by "he definitely did order the rifle" that he ordered it for himself, then I have to disagree with that conclusion as it is also possible (although I admit there is no evidence for it) that he was manipulated into writing the the order documents and making available his P.O. box address for someone else. Perhaps even for somebody he knew as A. Hidell, who asked him for a favor.
The available evidence does not, in any way, shape or form, show us conclusively that Oswald used an alias to order the rifle for himself, but it does also not show he ordered it for somebody else. Nevertheless, if you are honest, you will agree that both options are possible, right?
No, by saying "he definitely did order the rifle" I meant that Oswald physically wrote the order form and sent it off. Indicating that he was clearly involved in obtaining the rifle. Whether it be for him or for someone else.
We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell
Indeed... We are told that the rifle was dispatched based on a marking on an internal document of Klein's (iirc Waldmann 7), but there is no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was actually shipped (there is no record of postage, which seems odd for a postal sale company not to have, in case they had to show a product had indeed been sent). So, yet again, we get to assume that what we are told is in fact true, when we have no evidence to confirm that.
Yes, I purposely worded it as "we are told" because I knew that is something you'd have picked up on otherwise.
Again, this is selective choosing on what you want to believe. You're also indirectly suggesting that Klein's are therefore somehow involved in the whole conspiracy which is just widening the circle of people involved which makes it even more unlikely.
And it's easy to say in 2022, when everything is computerised, every parcel has a barcode and every parcel is scanned upon being posted and delivered, that for there to be no record of the rifle being posted is "odd". But even as recent as 2010 I worked at a place that would just print postage labels off via their franking machine and just drop letters and parcels off at the post office with no record of what had or hadn't been sent.
I have to admit I haven't tried to find out what Klein's official postal procedure was back in 1963. Was there a record for every single parcel they sent out? Was it ONLY the AJ Hiddell parcel that had no record of postage from all of the mail orders they did that year?
It's like the people who like to point out that it was odd that Oswald's interrogation wasn't taped, which by today's standards is quite peculiar.
But the reason it wasn't taped was because they didn't have recording facilties at the Dallas Police Dept because recording the interviewing of suspects wasn't their standard procedure so therefore not taping their conversations with Oswald wasn't particularly out of the ordinary after all.
which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession
Do we really know that? Let's consider the facts we do know for a moment. Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car, during the ride to DPD HQ. In a television interview, the next day, he was asked about the content of that wallet and he answered that it contained an ID, in Oswald's name, a credit card and a driver's license. Not a word about an ID in the name of Hidell! In fact, there isn't one report of any DPD officer that mentions the discovery of an Hidell ID in that wallet.
So, now enter Detecive Rose, who was off duty but recalled to help out after the assassination. When he arrived at DPD HQ, Oswald was being brought in and Rose was the first officer to talk to him. Just before that Rose was given a wallet, which he was told belonged to Oswald and that wallet contained a fake Hidell ID. The weird thing is that nobody knows who the person was that gave Rose the wallet. It couldn't have been Bentley, because he had injured his leg during the arrest and had been taken to hospital after his arrival at DPD HQ. So, where did that wallet come from and who gave it to Rose? Where is the chain of custody for that wallet?
Ah, the whole wallet mystery thing. CTers like to make a big deal of this. Was Bentley expected to give a whole itinerary of every single item that was in the wallet to the public? There was (allegedly) photos of his family in the wallet as well which Bentley didn't list, or are you suggesting they were planted later too?
Also, at that point the Dallas Police probably didn't know if AJ Hiddell was a real person or not so would it have been a good idea to blab it all over the national TV and potentially give AJ Hiddell (if he was a real person) the heads up that the police might be looking for him?
Once again though, we're back at the same notion of selecting what you want to believe and what you don't. Just because Bentley didn't mention the fake ID doesn't mean that it's conclusive proof that it wasn't in the wallet originally.
(If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?).
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. If Oswald (possibly being manipulated) did somebody he knew as A. Hidell a favor by ordering the rifle and the revolver, then he wasn't trying to hide his identity, right?
Again, I'm not sure what the procedure was for obtaining a PO Box and collecting stuff from it in 1963 but I don't think it's a wild assumption to say that some form of ID would be required.
Also, if It was completely innocent and he was just ordering it for someone he knew, why didn't he just use his own name rather than go though the whole routine of doing it in someone else's name and potentially have to make a fake ID to do it?
He was definitely up to something dodgy. Even without hard evidence I think even you'd have to admit that, right?
And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.
First of all, I'm not so sure that it was the same rifle, but having said that, the fact that Oswald was photographed with a rifle doesn't tell us anything about the ownership of that rifle. I don't have any weapons myself, but I was once photographed holding a rifle that belonged to a friend of mine. That did not make it my rifle!
Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There is no way near sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion.
Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case
So, if there is no definitive proof, as you say, how in the world can you nevertheless reach your conclusion?
Well there's a thing called circumstantial evidence. From what I've listed I don't think it's a totally unreasonable conclusion to arrive at.
If as you stated Oswald did indeed write the envelope, money order and send off for the rifle, then there is clear evidence that he intended to purchase a rifle. Shortly after this time he is photographed holding a rifle, his wife is aware of him being in possession of a rifle and, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), George de Mohrenschildt also claims to have seen a rifle in Oswald's apartment shortly after the Walker shooting. A rifle that was linked to the exact one Oswald sent off for was then discovered at his place of work, on a floor that Oswald was seen on on the day of the assassination.
Now, whether he ordered the rifle for himself or for someone else isn't really relevant. We know that Oswald had a rifle, or if you want to be pedantic, we know he HAD ACCESS to a rifle shortly after ordering a rifle from Klein's. Whether it was actually his or someone else's doesn't alter the fact that he had access to it and therefore could have used it to shoot the President.
but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.
That's an extremely weak LN argument. In most cases ownership of a weapon is not crucial to obtain a conviction. If it was every murderer would use a weapon owned by somebody else to do the killing. The ownership the MC rifle is so crucial in this case simply because there is no other evidence to link Oswald to the Kennedy murder. When you take him owning the rifle out of the equation, you are left with very little else.
The assumption (because that's what it is) that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and received it, allows for the conclusion that he was seen with the same rifle in the BY photos. It subsequently allows for the conclusion that he used this particular rifle to shoot at General Walker, thus demonstrating his willingness to kill and for the conclusion (based on absolutely nothing) that he stored this particular rifle in Ruth Paine's garage for 2 months. All of this and more goes out the window, if the assumption that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and thus owned it is wrong! It's a house of cards!
Well, I don't think it is a house of cards. Like I said, I don't think the actual ownership of the rifle makes much difference. It's clear that Oswald had access to it due to photographs and witness testimony.
You argued that you yourself was once photographed holding a rifle but it didn't belong to you, suggesting that makes the BY photos invalid. But on the flip side, just because it wasn't your actual rifle, there's nothing to say that you couldn't have used that exact rifle to shoot someone with. Whether it was your gun or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, what the photo shows is that you had access to the gun.
The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.
If that were true, why are you the first LN to try to answer the questions? The others have all stayed away from this thread or simply avoided answering the questions.
More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?
1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?
2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?
First of all, I'm not a CT. I couldn't care less either way. If Oswald did it alone, so be it, and if he didn't there is no other alternative then that there was indeed a conspiracy. I merely want to find out if the case against Oswald holds up under scrutiny.
The answer to your question is; I don't have to. I am not the one proclaiming Oswald to be guilty or innocent. What you are asking me to do is actually prove two negatives, which is near impossible to do.
Based in the available evidence you can not conclude that Oswald did not order the rifle for himself. But you also can not conclude that he actually did buy it for himself, which is exactly the point I was making. And the same goes for the BY photos. The only way you can conclude that Oswald ordered, received and owned that rifle is if you assume he did and there is not even enough circumstantial evidence to justify such an assumption.
I think if this whole thread is entirely just to question whether Oswald ordered the rifle solely for himself or whether he ordered it as a favour for someone else, then you're right in that there is no conclusive evidence to prove this.
However, if the whole point of this was to somehow prove that Oswald was less likely to be the assassin then I genuinely don't think it's made the slightest bit of difference.
There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else. I haven't even bothered mentioning the revolver that he ordered and that was, allegedly, found on him at the Texas Theatre. I say 'allegedly' because I'm guessing you doubt the authenticity of that account bearing in mind that other than a few policemen's testimonies, there's no physical or hard evidence to suggest he was carrying the revolver and it could well have been planted by the Police, but this just refers back to the point of where do you draw a line on witness testimony? You can even apply doubt to hard evidence like DNA at a crime scene by suggesting that someone purposely planted DNA to frame someone.
If the criminal justice system took your approach then we might as well just abolish trials and let every accused criminal walk free.
There is more than enough reasoning to come to the conclusion that Oswald was guilty. You don't need physical hard evidence to see that. Going a bit off subject but Charles Manson was convicted (and rightly so I believe) of the Tate and LaBianca murders without even being at the murder scene or committing the murders himself. But with the amount circumstantial evidence and testimony against him he was convicted. Applying your rule of hard evidence only would have meant Manson walking free, and in this case Oswald potentially too.
-
Well, how do we know he didn't say that during interrogation? My point here is that if everyone were to adopt your attitude of not believing anything we're told then we can't dismiss the fact that he might have admitted to buying it for himself.
The problem is not that I believe something or not. The problem is that the interrogators failed to document correctly and verbatim what was being said during interrogation. The problem gets subsequently even bigger when individual interrogators write things in their reports that either don't match or even contradict eachother.
Having said that, the interrogators told us that Oswald denied owning a rifle. Now, unless you can tell me how somebody who denies owning a rifle can admit to buying a rifle for himself, it is not unreasonable to assume that Oswald never admitted to buying the rifle.
As absurd as it may be, there's as much evidence suggesting Oswald admitted this during interrogation than there is evidence that he purchased the rifle for someone else, yet you're willing to dismiss this without questioning the lack of evidence. You can't just pick whatever unproven aspects of the Warren Commission you choose to believe to suit your theory.
I agree that there is no evidence for either, but I disagree that I am willing to dismiss either option, because I am not. What I find amazing is that you seem to agree with me that the Warren Commission failed to prove that Oswald bought the rifle for himself, when there were two other possibilities they never even looked at. They just assumed Oswald bought the rifle for himself and presented it as fact. Now, please tell me why I can't choose to believe one thing, which you reject, but the WC can choose to believe the other, which you accept?
No, by saying "he definitely did order the rifle" I meant that Oswald physically wrote the order form and sent it off. Indicating that he was clearly involved in obtaining the rifle. Whether it be for him or for someone else.
You get no disagreement from me. I'll go even one step further and say that it's nearly impossible for Oswald to simply have been an innocent bystander, as some CTs claim. That's why I am willing to accept the possibility that he actually wrote the order documents instead of them being faked. He was most surely involved, but how and to what extent, that is the question. But let there be no doubt about my position. Having worked with handwriting experts in the past, I know from my own observations about how they work, that the conclusions reached by the FBI expert about the handwriting on the order documents are at best questionable.
Yes, I purposely worded it as "we are told" because I knew that is something you'd have picked up on otherwise. Again, this is selective choosing on what you want to believe. You're also indirectly suggesting that Klein's are therefore somehow involved in the whole conspiracy which is just widening the circle of people involved which makes it even more unlikely.
No, I am not suggesting for one moment that Klein's were somehow involved in the conspiracy. I actually believe that Waldman testified to the best of his ability and knowledge. The problem is that Waldman had no direct knowledge of any of the details in this case. He was Vice-President of an entirely different department of Klein's and had nothing to do with the sale of weapons.
All Waldman could do was confirm the information contained in the photocopies of documents. When he testified he had no way of telling if these were the exact copies from the micro-film in November 1963 or if they were manipulated. After all, we're talking about photocopies and not the original documents!
In order to create such a chain of documents, all that was required is sending in an orderform and a money order. The rest of the documents were internal ones from Klein's that were automatically generated when the order was received. The most important document Waldman "authenticated" was # 7, of which the original is remarkably lost. On that "order blank" document everything was typed except for the handwritten serial number of the rifle and a control number and the letters "PP" were encircled.
That serial number is the only link between the Klein's order and the rifle found at the TSBD. The encirclement of the letters "PP" was apparently enough for Waldman to conclude that the rifle had been sent by Parcel Post and that, in turn, was enough for the WC to conclude that the rifle had been sent to Oswald's P.O. box as well as that he had received it. You may consider this sufficient evidence to justify the conclusions, but I don't.
And it's easy to say in 2022, when everything is computerised, every parcel has a barcode and every parcel is scanned upon being posted and delivered, that for there to be no record of the rifle being posted is "odd". But even as recent as 2010 I worked at a place that would just print postage labels off via their franking machine and just drop letters and parcels off at the post office with no record of what had or hadn't been sent.
I have to admit I haven't tried to find out what Klein's official postal procedure was back in 1963. Was there a record for every single parcel they sent out? Was it ONLY the AJ Hiddell parcel that had no record of postage from all of the mail orders they did that year?
If Klein's was sending any old parcel I would probably agree with you, but they were sending a weapon by Parcel Post. It seems incomprehensible to me that they would do so without keeping some proof of shipment and/or receipt.
It's like the people who like to point out that it was odd that Oswald's interrogation wasn't taped, which by today's standards is quite peculiar. But the reason it wasn't taped was because they didn't have recording facilties at the Dallas Police Dept because recording the interviewing of suspects wasn't their standard procedure so therefore not taping their conversations with Oswald wasn't particularly out of the ordinary after all.
If we were talking about a petty crime, I would agree with you. But we are talking about a suspect in the killing of the President and a DPD officer. They had Oswald in custody and could have easily arranged to obtain recording equipment from somewhere. Or are you trying to tell me that nowhere in the state of Texas was there any recording equipment? For crying out loud, they could have had it flown in from Washington, if they really wanted to have and use it. The conclusion must be that they were not interested in recording verbatim what the suspect had to say and that's on them. The WC may have accepted the word of the interrogators but I seriously doubt that a court of law would have done the same.
Ah, the whole wallet mystery thing. CTers like to make a big deal of this. Was Bentley expected to give a whole itinerary of every single item that was in the wallet to the public? There was (allegedly) photos of his family in the wallet as well which Bentley didn't list, or are you suggesting they were planted later too?
Also, at that point the Dallas Police probably didn't know if AJ Hiddell was a real person or not so would it have been a good idea to blab it all over the national TV and potentially give AJ Hiddell (if he was a real person) the heads up that the police might be looking for him?
Once again though, we're back at the same notion of selecting what you want to believe and what you don't. Just because Bentley didn't mention the fake ID doesn't mean that it's conclusive proof that it wasn't in the wallet originally.
Was Bentley expected to give a whole itinerary of every single item that was in the wallet to the public?
No, but a second ID would have been remarkable enough to be mentioned, don't you think? And why do you focus only on what Bentley said in the TV interview?
There was (allegedly) photos of his family in the wallet as well which Bentley didn't list, or are you suggesting they were planted later too?
Your use of the word "allegedly" makes your question a moot one. It also tells me that you seem to believe that the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car must be the same one that Detective Rose was given at the police station. There is no evidence for that, simply because there is no chain of custody for the wallet.
Also, at that point the Dallas Police probably didn't know if AJ Hiddell was a real person or not so would it have been a good idea to blab it all over the national TV and potentially give AJ Hiddell (if he was a real person) the heads up that the police might be looking for him?
So, let's see if I understand this correctly. You are saying that DPD was aware of the Hidell ID (which I presume means that Bentley did find it) from the start, but kept the information to themselves? Really? Then please explain to me, if you can, why there is not a single day one report by any DPD officer about Bentley finding the Hidell ID in Oswald's wallet? In fact there isn't a single report which details the exact content of that wallet. About just about everything else there are all sorts of reports all over the place, but there is none about this crucial piece of evidence. Now, why do you think that is?
And not only that. It has also never been established who gave Detective Rose the wallet that contained the Hidell ID.
Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Just how many unanswered questions and honest mistakes do you need before you start wondering what in the world was really going on?
Btw, do you know if the wallet and Hidell ID were part of the evidence shipped to the FBI on Friday night? I can't remember, but if they were not, why do you think the DPD held that back?
Again, I'm not sure what the procedure was for obtaining a PO Box and collecting stuff from it in 1963 but I don't think it's a wild assumption to say that some form of ID would be required.
Also, if It was completely innocent and he was just ordering it for someone he knew, why didn't he just use his own name rather than go though the whole routine of doing it in someone else's name and potentially have to make a fake ID to do it?
He was definitely up to something dodgy. Even without hard evidence I think even you'd have to admit that, right?
I have already said that I don't see how Oswald could be completely innocent. It is pretty obvious that he was involved in something dodgy. Which may in fact be the reason why he did not use his own name to order the rifle and revolver.
Obviously, this is a hypothetical scenario, but it could have gone down this way. At some point in time Oswald was introduced to a man who called himself A. Hidell. After having gained Oswald's trust, that man told him some story about how he wanted to order a rifle and a revolver but he didn't want the people around him (like for instance a wife) to know, so he asks Oswald if he can use his P.O. box to receive the weapons. Oswald agrees but doesn't really trust it completely, so to keep his name out of the transactions, he puts Hidell's name on the orderforms.
And btw, what makes you think that Oswald made a fake ID? Just because we are told one was found in "his" wallet?
Well there's a thing called circumstantial evidence. From what I've listed I don't think it's a totally unreasonable conclusion to arrive at.
If as you stated Oswald did indeed write the envelope, money order and send off for the rifle, then there is clear evidence that he intended to purchase a rifle. Shortly after this time he is photographed holding a rifle, his wife is aware of him being in possession of a rifle and, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), George de Mohrenschildt also claims to have seen a rifle in Oswald's apartment shortly after the Walker shooting. A rifle that was linked to the exact one Oswald sent off for was then discovered at his place of work, on a floor that Oswald was seen on on the day of the assassination.
Now, whether he ordered the rifle for himself or for someone else isn't really relevant. We know that Oswald had a rifle, or if you want to be pedantic, we know he HAD ACCESS to a rifle shortly after ordering a rifle from Klein's. Whether it was actually his or someone else's doesn't alter the fact that he had access to it and therefore could have used it to shoot the President.
Well there's a thing called circumstantial evidence. From what I've listed I don't think it's a totally unreasonable conclusion to arrive at.
I agree. The problem with a circumstantial case is that you require assumptions and speculation to fill in the blanks. The more assumptions, the weaker the case. It's all about interpretations and the desired result. Using assumptions and speculation (as much as the WC did) I can easily use the same evidence to build a circumstantial case for Oswald having been set up as a patsy as part of a conspiracy to kill the President, although I will admit that would be a uphill battle, as most people - unfortunately - find it easier to jump to conclusion than honestly examine all the information put before them.
If as you stated Oswald did indeed write the envelope, money order and send off for the rifle, then there is clear evidence that he intended to purchase a rifle.
True, although I did not state that Oswald wrote those documents. I merely asked my question based on the assumption that he did.
Shortly after this time he is photographed holding a rifle, his wife is aware of him being in possession of a rifle and, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), George de Mohrenschildt also claims to have seen a rifle in Oswald's apartment shortly after the Walker shooting.
Well, the WC never identified the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos as the MC that was purchased at Klein's. They just assumed it was. All we have to make that connection is the opinion of HSCA experts who compared markings they said were on the rifle with the rifle in the blurry BY photos. But then, the HSCA also had experts who concluded there had been a fourth shot, right. So, so much for the opinion of experts! On the evening of day one, Marina was shown the MC rifle found at the TSBD and she failed to identify it. If I recall correctly she even said that Oswald only had a rifle in Russia. And De Mohrenschildt did indeed claim he saw a rifle in Oswald's appartment, but he failed to mention in his testimony that Oswald had given them a HQ print of a BY photo (making him a less than credible witness) and he also never identified the MC rifle as the one he said he had seen.
And what to think of the Russian text written on the back of the DeMohrenschildt's copy? Marina denied having written that text, so who did? Doesn't that make you think there must at least been one more person involved we know nothing about?
A rifle that was linked to the exact one Oswald sent off for was then discovered at his place of work, on a floor that Oswald was seen on on the day of the assassination.
And there we go with the assumptions to fill in the blanks of insufficient circumstantial evidence. According to the orderform, a 36" MC rifle was ordered. A 40,2" MC rifle was found at the TSBD. The only thing potentially linking both rifles is a handwritten serial number on a photocopy of a Klein's document (Waldman 7). Everything else is supposition. Can you explain the discrepancy ?
Now, whether he ordered the rifle for himself or for someone else isn't really relevant. We know that Oswald had a rifle, or if you want to be pedantic, we know he HAD ACCESS to a rifle shortly after ordering a rifle from Klein's. Whether it was actually his or someone else's doesn't alter the fact that he had access to it and therefore could have used it to shoot the President.
Well, we know he was photographed holding a rifle shortly after the Klein's order, so that's a given. But the BY photos were taken nearly 8 months prior to the assassination and during all that time nobody has seen Oswald anywhere near a rifle. So, how do we know he had access to a rifle on 11/22/63?
Well, I don't think it is a house of cards. Like I said, I don't think the actual ownership of the rifle makes much difference. It's clear that Oswald had access to it due to photographs and witness testimony.
You argued that you yourself was once photographed holding a rifle but it didn't belong to you, suggesting that makes the BY photos invalid. But on the flip side, just because it wasn't your actual rifle, there's nothing to say that you couldn't have used that exact rifle to shoot someone with. Whether it was your gun or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, what the photo shows is that you had access to the gun.
I agree that the actual ownership of the rifle normally doesn't make much difference, but in this case it clearly did. Why else would the WC go out of it's way to claim that Oswald owned the rifle? The answer is simple; if he had borrowed the rifle from somebody else, that person would be involved, at least to some extent, and that would open up the door to the possibility of a conspiracy. And, btw, I had never access to the rifle I was photographed with, after the photo was taken.
I think if this whole thread is entirely just to question whether Oswald ordered the rifle solely for himself or whether he ordered it as a favour for someone else, then you're right in that there is no conclusive evidence to prove this.
However, if the whole point of this was to somehow prove that Oswald was less likely to be the assassin then I genuinely don't think it's made the slightest bit of difference.
Actually, the first question was only one of many I could be asking. As you have demonstrated clearly there is only circumstantial evidence that tentatively links Oswald to the rifle found at the TSBD and that's not really a good way to start if you want to build a credible and persuasive case against Oswald. And, no, the question was not asked to prove that Oswald was less likely to be the assassin. Just as the case against Oswald is circumstantial, so also is the case for him not being the assassin. I've said this before and I'll say it again; I don't really care if Oswald was the assassin or not. My only interest in this case is to determine if the case against him is solid enough to withstand scrutiny.
There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else. I haven't even bothered mentioning the revolver that he ordered and that was, allegedly, found on him at the Texas Theatre. I say 'allegedly' because I'm guessing you doubt the authenticity of that account bearing in mind that other than a few policemen's testimonies, there's no physical or hard evidence to suggest he was carrying the revolver and it could well have been planted by the Police, but this just refers back to the point of where do you draw a line on witness testimony?
In this particular case, that's an easy question to answer. Detective Hill was given a revolver at the TSBD and he was told it belonged to Oswald. That, by itself, is bad enough, but it gets worse. Instead of handing in the revolver immediately after arriving at the DPD office, with Oswald, Hill allegedly carried that revolver around for some two hours. Regardless of what Hill said about it in his testimony, nobody knows what happened to the revolver during the time it was out of sight. In other words, there was no chain of custody to prove the authenticity of that revolver. I know most LNs say that the absence of a chain of custody isn't a big thing, but that's wrong. The purpose of a chain of custody is to ensure that the evidence can not be tampered with by anybody handling it.
And btw the purchase of the revolver has similar evidentiary problems as the order for the rifle.
You can even apply doubt to hard evidence like DNA at a crime scene by suggesting that someone purposely planted DNA to frame someone. If the criminal justice system took your approach then we might as well just abolish trials and let every accused criminal walk free.
Funny you should say that, because a detective walking around with a vial of OJ Simpson's blood, and thus breaking the chain of custody, was one of the reasons why OJ walked, so the criminal justice system is exactly taking my approach.
There is more than enough reasoning to come to the conclusion that Oswald was guilty. You don't need physical hard evidence to see that. Going a bit off subject but Charles Manson was convicted (and rightly so I believe) of the Tate and LaBianca murders without even being at the murder scene or committing the murders himself. But with the amount circumstantial evidence and testimony against him he was convicted. Applying your rule of hard evidence only would have meant Manson walking free, and in this case Oswald potentially too.
There is more than enough reasoning to come to the conclusion that Oswald was guilty. You don't need physical hard evidence to see that.
Now you are losing it. If the physical evidence is ignored, such a conclusion based on "reasoning" would be no more than an assumption of guilt, which, funny enough, is exactly what seems to have happened in the case against Oswald.
Going a bit off subject but Charles Manson was convicted (and rightly so I believe) of the Tate and LaBianca murders without even being at the murder scene or committing the murders himself. But with the amount circumstantial evidence and testimony against him he was convicted. Applying your rule of hard evidence only would have meant Manson walking free, and in this case Oswald potentially too.
You've got the wrong end of the stick on this one. To be an accessory to murder you don't have to commit the actual murder yourself, nor do you need to be present when it happened. All you have to be is a co-conspirator and that's exactly what Manson was convicted for; being part of a conspiracy for the murder of seven people. In other words, the physical (or as you seem to call it "hard") evidence that was used against the actual killers was also applied to Manson.
Thanks for the conversation. You did in fact raise some interesting points. If you have more, I'll gladly take them in consideration.
-
Get back in your cage.
Get back to your word-salads
-
Get back to your word-salads
I'm sorry that you can't understand anything that has more than 5 words in it.
Now, get back into your cage.
-
I'm sorry that you can't understand anything that has more than 5 words in it.
Now, get back into your cage.
Cage: The angry bird and other angry wildlife in my 'American Psycho' initiative are meant as symbolic of Oswald's demonstrated psychopathy
I'm sorry that you can't understand anything that has more than 5 words in it.
_What I do understand is that you rarely have less that 5 insults in any given post
-
Cage: The angry bird and other angry wildlife in my 'American Psycho' initiative are meant as symbolic of Oswald's demonstrated psychopathy
I'm sorry that you can't understand anything that has more than 5 words in it.
_What I do understand is that you rarely have less that 5 insults in any given post
Fool, I wasn't talking, or even thinking, about your "American Psycho initiative", whatever that may be. You can't even understand that... wow!
-
Fool, I wasn't talking, or even thinking, about your "Amercan Psycho initiative", whatever that may be. You can't even understand that... wow!
'Amercan' LOL. Are you faking a good-old-boy Texas accent? You sound like LBJ FFS
'American Psycho'
It's an important chapter of my overall 'Dead Oswald Walking' campaign. Thanks so much for showing interest. In any case, that 'whatever that may be' thang might just be Oswald and his well-documented psychopathy.
And since you don't appeal to authority apparently, I can see where you have to speculate, making things up while peppering your word-salads with insults at the first sign of resistance.
'Caged'
I can't recall you hurling that little gem at me at any point, so naturally I attached that to the raven/omen/angry-bird Oswald-as-Damien imagery.
-
'Amercan' LOL. Are you faking a good-old-boy Texas accent? You sound like LBJ FFS
'American Psycho'
It's an important chapter of my overall 'Dead Oswald Walking' campaign. Thanks so much for showing interest. In any case, that 'whatever that may be' thang might just be Oswald and his well-documented psychopathy.
And since you don't appeal to authority apparently, I can see where you have to speculate, making things up while peppering your word-salads with insults at the first sign of resistance.
'Caged'
I can't recall you hurling that little gem at me at any point, so naturally I attached that to the raven/omen/angry-bird Oswald-as-Damien imagery.
There is nothing important about your "overall Dead Oswald Walking campaign".
Stop wilfully disturbing other threads, like this one, with your baiting posts filled with garbage and get back in your cage.
No need to reply further. I will not respond to your BS from now on. Further baiting posts will be reported.
-
There is nothing important about your "overall Dead Oswald Walking campaign".
Stop wilfully disturbing other threads, like this one, with your baiting posts filled with garbage and get back in your cage.
No need to reply further. I will not respond to your BS from now on. Further baiting posts will be reported.
It ain't no assumption that you're a word-salad jockey
Its a conclusion
There is nothing important about your "overall Dead Oswald Walking campaign".
_It's meant to keep witness testimony front & centre.
_There is nothing important about your word-salads
_I don't intend to bait anyone. My campaign has a Public Service Announcement perspective
Further baiting posts will be reported.
_You bait every time you open your cake-hole
Now stay away from my campaign and keep your stench to yourself.
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
When the Report has no real proof of anything, the word 'probably' is used.
a-yup.
-
There is more than enough reasoning to come to the conclusion that Oswald was guilty.
You base your conclusion on feeling and not facts based on logic and research. You don't need physical hard evidence to see that.
How would you like to be imprisoned or hung based on lack of evidence?Going a bit off subject but Charles Manson was convicted (and rightly so I believe) of the Tate and LaBianca murders without even being at the murder scene or committing the murders himself. But with the amount circumstantial evidence and testimony against him he was convicted.
Not too far off subject it would seem as none other than Vincent Bugliosi [Reclaiming History] was the prosecuting DA.
The Manson murder trial was the longest murder trial in American history when it occurred, lasting nine and a half months. The trial was among the most publicized American criminal cases of the twentieth century and was dubbed the "trial of the century". The jury had been sequestered for 225 days, longer than any jury before it. The trial transcript alone ran to 209 volumes or 31,716 pages.[88]
Wiki
Manson is dead and undoubtedly will rot in hell. Oswald was denied his right to a defense.
-
Says the guy who forgot his helmet
Says the guy who can't stop polishing his :D
-
(https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Feldsott%20affidavit.jpg)
This past weekend...a terrorist named Akram invaded a synagogue in a Dallas suburb and held four worshipers hostage with a gun.
Some 200 federal, state and local agents arrived on the *scene.
Where this gun came from still remains a mystery unlike the supposed rifle mentioned above that was allegedly located with prompt expedience the very same day of a murder some nearly 60 years ago.
* https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/17/us/colleyville-texas-synagogue-hostage-situation-monday/index.html