JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Lee Johnson on September 03, 2012, 11:12:54 PM

Title: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 03, 2012, 11:12:54 PM
OK, let's say for the sake of argument that Oswald was on the first floor during the shooting and strolled up to the second floor to get a Coke when confronted by Baker. What else must be or is in all probability true?

1. Howard Brennan gave an Oswald-like description of the shooter who was nonetheless not Oswald. (They used an Oswald "double.")
2. No one else saw this Oswald-like character leave the building. (Could have hidden and been ferried out later.)
3. This Oswald-looking character used Oswald's real rifle for the assassination, or alternatively, this rifle was later linked to Oswald by massive fabrication of evidence and the lying of witnesses.
4. The conspirators needed to make sure Oswald remained out of sight during the motorcade. (I suppose you could have lured Oswald there under false pretenses.)

After the assassination, and after going to get a Coke (for whatever reason), Oswald suddenly realizes that he's the patsy. He flees and the rest of the scenario happens basically as the Warren Report says.

OK, you just need to fabricate all the evidence connecting the rifle to Oswald. Well, the backyard photos are real. And Oswald is NOT going to turn over his real rifle is an assassin and then wait on the first floor.

I don't see how you can get Oswald's real rifle on the sixth floor and Oswald on the first floor.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 04, 2012, 01:46:26 AM
5. Make sure all the false witnesses and planted evidence stays false and planted for 48+ years.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 04, 2012, 03:55:06 AM
Re: "I don't see how you can get Oswald's real rifle on the sixth floor and Oswald on the first floor."

... And: do it without smudging Oswald's fresh fingerprints on the trigger-guard housing.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: David Von Pein on September 04, 2012, 04:47:44 AM

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 04, 2012, 05:11:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html)

Thanks, David. You thought this through more thoroughly. Yes, you would need to keep Oswald on the sixth floor and either suicide him or kill him outright. Then you just have the issue of getting the real killer out of the building.

Jerry: I suppose you could ... actually, I don't know. Fix the evidence later?

Ron: Good addition. Tks.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 04, 2012, 04:25:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks, David. You thought this through more thoroughly. Yes, you would need to keep Oswald on the sixth floor and either suicide him or kill him outright. Then you just have the issue of getting the real killer out of the building.

Jerry: I suppose you could ... actually, I don't know. Fix the evidence later?

Ron: Good addition. Tks.

Sorry, Lee. I was being flippant.

Hypothetical, they could have gotten Oswald to demonstrate the bolt-action, putting prints on the housing below, maybe on the pretext of purchasing the rifle. If held hostage, they would have forced him.

They could have detained Oswald below if with one or two people.

Why not let him live and leave? With his record and off-putting demeanor; that's why he was singled out. He was his own worst enemy.

A known liar, Oswald's tale of being set-up wouldn't be believed (except by certain ... well, you know who you are).
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 04, 2012, 09:22:14 PM
I'm convinced it was Oswald and Oswald alone based on the totality of evidence.  However, one of the often unstated factors in discussing various alternative scenarios is specifying Oswald's exact role.  Is the premise that Oswald was entirely innocent, involved in a conspiracy only indirectly, or an active member perhaps even as the shooter?  CTers usually are not specific on Oswald himself in discussing the evidence.  They simply defend him against every piece of evidence as though it's all one and the same regardless of his role.  However, the strongest conspiracy scenario is to place Oswald in the 6th window as a shooter.  Maybe the only shooter but recruited and assisted by some unknown entity.  It would avoid the necessity of disputing a mountain of evidence that is consistent with his guilt.  The absurd lengths they go to dispute this evidence undermines any real credibility in a conspiracy that must involve Oswald doubles, Z-film alterations, SS participation, body thefts and other absurdities necessary to support these bizarre conspiracy scenarios. However, if you accept Oswald's participation as a shooter then you have a more plausible conspiracy case.  Although one I still believe is lacking in any credible evidence.  As is stands now, CTers are simply not credible in defending Oswald in a passive or non-participant role.  The evidence and circumstances do not support that interpretation of events.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 04, 2012, 09:45:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm convinced it was Oswald and Oswald alone based on the totality of evidence.  However, one of the often unstated factors in discussing various alternative scenarios is specifying Oswald's exact role.  Is the premise that Oswald was entirely innocent, involved in a conspiracy only indirectly, or an active member perhaps even as the shooter?  CTers usually are not specific on Oswald himself in discussing the evidence.  They simply defend him against every piece of evidence as though it's all one and the same regardless of his role.  However, the strongest conspiracy scenario is to place Oswald in the 6th window as a shooter.  Maybe the only shooter but recruited and assisted by some unknown entity.  It would avoid the necessity of disputing a mountain of evidence that is consistent with his guilt.  The absurd lengths they go to dispute this evidence undermines any real credibility in a conspiracy that must involve Oswald doubles, Z-film alterations, SS participation, body thefts and other absurdities necessary to support these bizarre conspiracy scenarios. However, if you accept Oswald's participation as a shooter then you have a more plausible conspiracy case.  Although one I still believe is lacking in any credible evidence.  As is stands now, CTers are simply not credible in defending Oswald in a passive or non-participant role.  The evidence and circumstances do not support that interpretation of events.

I too have been surprised that CTers go down the road of denying Oswald's culpability as well -- they deny every piece of evidence. I have no idea why they do that, and yes, it undermines their credibility. But their positing these fantastical scenarios has an unintended effect -- CTers make it very difficult to discuss scenarios involving Oswald. That's why I kidded around and suggested that some CTers were actually intelligence plants -- to keep generating these scenarios and muddying the waters so it became impossible to actually get through to conspiracy involving Oswald.

For example, there are some suspicious things going on. George DeM, for example, as well as the Paines' connection to intelligence. It is certainly likely that George was asked to get to know Oswald, and less likely, but possible, that George reported back that Oswald had possibly taken a shot at Walker. If this were so, then someone knew that there was a ready-made Lone Nut in Dallas. You keep an eye on him. It is likely that Oswald got his job at the TSBD innocently, but this was reported back. The Lone Nut is now in place, and nothing was done to help him. Now it's just a question of guiding, not conspiring, the motorcade in front of that workplace and see if the Lone Nut takes a shot. There's an air wall between the conspiracy, which was tiny and perhaps only involved one person, probably a mid-level operative in the CIA or other spooky agency, and Oswald.

Of course, this is speculation, but at least it's somewhat plausible.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 04, 2012, 10:16:08 PM
There's simply no way that conspirators could control the movements of the patsy-to-be.  If the patsy is seen anywhere besides the sixth floor by a single person, the conspiracy is exposed.  Conspirators could try to control the patsy's movements, but they could not be guaranteed that the patsy would be where they want him.  Therefore, because of the uncertainty, they would not even attempt this.  They would have went a different route.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 04, 2012, 10:32:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I too have been surprised that CTers go down the road of denying Oswald's culpability as well -- they deny every piece of evidence. I have no idea why they do that, and yes, it undermines their credibility. But their positing these fantastical scenarios has an unintended effect -- CTers make it very difficult to discuss scenarios involving Oswald. That's why I kidded around and suggested that some CTers were actually intelligence plants -- to keep generating these scenarios and muddying the waters so it became impossible to actually get through to conspiracy involving Oswald.

For example, there are some suspicious things going on. George DeM, for example, as well as the Paines' connection to intelligence. It is certainly likely that George was asked to get to know Oswald, and less likely, but possible, that George reported back that Oswald had possibly taken a shot at Walker. If this were so, then someone knew that there was a ready-made Lone Nut in Dallas. You keep an eye on him. It is likely that Oswald got his job at the TSBD innocently, but this was reported back. The Lone Nut is now in place, and nothing was done to help him. Now it's just a question of guiding, not conspiring, the motorcade in front of that workplace and see if the Lone Nut takes a shot. There's an air wall between the conspiracy, which was tiny and perhaps only involved one person, probably a mid-level operative in the CIA or other spooky agency, and Oswald.

Of course, this is speculation, but at least it's somewhat plausible.

I agree with your first paragraph.  I think it's somewhat incredible to suggest Oswald was framed - as Bill suggests below, if Oswald was meant to be a patsy, there would have needed to be a lot more control of his movements to ensure he was where he needed to be.  And there is absolutely no evidence of this.  I also tend to agree that the most aggressive CTers tend to focus only on clearing Oswald (which is pretty tough to do) and have lost any focus on trying to find out what really happened on that day.

I have a bit more trouble with the second paragraph though.  I don't think there's any Lone Nut in Oswald whatsoever, and in spite of the heckling I've taken for my feelings about it, I think his midnight press conference is the most telling 45 seconds of the entire day.  The careful and calm way in which he "denies" his involvement - he actually only denies being charged.  It seems that the "Oswald is innocent" camp feels that this is proof he's just a patsy, but I think it proves exactly the opposite.  Those 30-40 seconds, to me, show an operative caught behind enemy lines, reciting a carefully planned denial that isn't far above name,rank, and serial number.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Brian Walker on September 05, 2012, 02:08:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with your first paragraph.  I think it's somewhat incredible to suggest Oswald was framed - as Bill suggests below, if Oswald was meant to be a patsy, there would have needed to be a lot more control of his movements to ensure he was where he needed to be.  And there is absolutely no evidence of this. 

There also would be a need to control the movements of everyone else in the building, and I have never seen any evidence of that..
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 05, 2012, 02:51:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There also would be a need to control the movements of everyone else in the building, and I have never seen any evidence of that..

Exactly.  For everything to have worked out the way it did would have taken - in my view - a team of at least 5 people.  Someone would have to be on the fifth floor, watching Jarman, Norman and Williams.  Someone would have to watch the stairwell to make sure Oswald didn't come down, or, if you will, go up.  Someone on the first floor to monitor who tried to go up.  Someone on the second floor to make sure Oswald got there on time.  And someone on the Sixth floor to put earmuffs on Oswald and send him downstairs (or upstairs from the First floor, whatever one believes).  And to top it all off, all five (at least) of this team have to completely avoid detection in a building that has about 20-30 people in it, all coming and going excitedly due to a Presidential motorcade.  Seems like a snap to me.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 05, 2012, 05:52:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly.  For everything to have worked out the way it did would have taken - in my view - a team of at least 5 people.  Someone would have to be on the fifth floor, watching Jarman, Norman and Williams.  Someone would have to watch the stairwell to make sure Oswald didn't come down, or, if you will, go up.  Someone on the first floor to monitor who tried to go up.  Someone on the second floor to make sure Oswald got there on time.  And someone on the Sixth floor to put earmuffs on Oswald and send him downstairs (or upstairs from the First floor, whatever one believes).  And to top it all off, all five (at least) of this team have to completely avoid detection in a building that has about 20-30 people in it, all coming and going excitedly due to a Presidential motorcade.  Seems like a snap to me.

According to the WC the lifts were locked on 5. According to the WC there was someone on the floor between the lifts and the stairwell. According to the WC there was someone between the lifts and the stairwell on the second floor too. They were found there a minute or so after the shots. Not a bad way to control movement around the 6th floor is it?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 05, 2012, 06:03:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's simply no way that conspirators could control the movements of the patsy-to-be.  If the patsy is seen anywhere besides the sixth floor by a single person, the conspiracy is exposed.  Conspirators could try to control the patsy's movements, but they could not be guaranteed that the patsy would be where they want him.  Therefore, because of the uncertainty, they would not even attempt this.  They would have went a different route.

Bill, peoples actions may be controlled even without them understanding what the significance is at the time.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 05, 2012, 06:29:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill, peoples actions may be controlled even without them understanding what the significance is at the time.

That doesn't change the idea that the patsy could easily be encountered by someone somewhere in the building at a time when he is supposed to be, according to their plan in framing him, in place on the sixth floor.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 05, 2012, 06:36:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That doesn't change the idea that the patsy could easily be encountered by someone somewhere in the building at a time when he is supposed to be, according to their plan in framing him, in place on the sixth floor.

This is predicated on the notion that the assassination plan was for a LN senario to be developed after the shooting. What if the conspiracy to assassinate was hoping for a conspiracy to be the initial outcome? One seemingly involving pro-Castro plotters including Oswald in some way. Not necessarily as a shooter.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 05, 2012, 06:52:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is predicated on the notion that the assassination plan was for a LN senario to be developed after the shooting. What if the conspiracy to assassinate was hoping for a conspiracy to be the initial outcome? One seemingly involving pro-Castro plotters including Oswald in some way. Not necessarily as a shooter.

Well, anything's possible I guess.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 05, 2012, 07:01:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, anything's possible I guess.

So just humor me for a bit. Let's say Oswald bought the rifle and pistol, shot at Walker, and somehow others found out about his little misadventure. Let's say via George De M. He is a person of interest now. He moves to NO. Hands out proCastro literature goes to Mexico and returns to Dallas. This may or may not be controlled by others at this time. He obtains a job at the TSBD. This does not require manipulation, he is just there. Now we have a left wing nut, already capable of attempted assassination, in place weeks before the motorcade. This may have required very little or no manipulation to this point. Only knowledge. The trick is, getting Oswald to bring the rifle to work and maybe keeping him somewhere away from watching JFK.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 05, 2012, 07:19:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An even better trick is to get him to bring the rifle as a plant for someone else. When that someone else doesn't eventuate he then realizes he is the someone else so he flees like someone who is at least guilty of something.
I can't believe that Oswald brings the rifle to work in the event that he may have a chance to shoot JFK which is what the WC would have you believe. The fact that BRW was on the same floor as Oswald when he is supposedly working out where best he could get a good shot in is too much left up to chance. Extremely high risk. This is the guy who planned the Walker hit so well that he got away with it.

The way I see it Paul is either he brings the rifle to work that day thinking that there is no way it is to be used for a real assassination attempt. Or he brings part of the rifle to work (ie the disassemble barrel). There is something definitely going on, only he is not aware of the real plan, it has been hijacked by others he is unaware of and probably never knows who.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 05, 2012, 07:29:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An even better trick is to get him to bring the rifle as a plant for someone else. When that someone else doesn't eventuate he then realizes he is the someone else so he flees like someone who is at least guilty of something.
I can't believe that Oswald brings the rifle to work in the event that he may have a chance to shoot JFK which is what the WC would have you believe. The fact that BRW was on the same floor as Oswald when he is supposedly working out where best he could get a good shot in is too much left up to chance. Extremely high risk. This is the guy who planned the Walker hit so well that he got away with it.

I think Oswald's bringing his rifle to work on the half chance he'd get a shot at JFK is the most likely scenario. Remember -- there's absolutely no risk if he doesn't shoot. He just takes his curtain rods home, JFK goes to the Trade Mart, and no one is the wiser. So Oswald thinks strategically and waits for a chance, scopes out the sixth floor, and yes, he has to wait until people leave. The most likely scenario is really that simple.

He had to do some planning, but he had too much work in the work that morning to come up with much of an escape plan. He followed his MO from the Walker shooting, walk away, blend in, grab a bus ... and it almost worked. In fact, lots of people still think he's innocent, even though the evidence has him dead to rights. "If you have a shot, take it" is very military-style thinking. That's exactly what he must have been thinking. Yes, much was left to chance. But that's because we're blinded by hindsight and all the facts seem fixed. But looking forward, Oswald looked for a chance and found one.



Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 05, 2012, 07:34:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The way I see it Paul is either he brings the rifle to work that day thinking that there is no way it is to be used for a real assassination attempt. Or he brings part of the rifle to work (ie the disassemble barrel). There is something definitely going on, only he is not aware of the real plan, it has been hijacked by others he is unaware of and probably never knows who.

"Bring your rifle to work, Lee" on the same day the president is passing by and "Give the rifle to us and go wait in the lunchroom" and he can't figure out the real plan? He left money for Marina and his wedding ring behind. I think he might have been clued in something was up.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 05, 2012, 07:54:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Bring your rifle to work, Lee" on the same day the president is passing by and "Give the rifle to us and go wait in the lunchroom" and he can't figure out the real plan? He left money for Marina and his wedding ring behind. I think he might have been clued in something was up.



He left most of his money behind. He kept $13 from memory. If he planned to be caught it's too much. If he planned to escape, not enough. Maybe he thought someone would be paying for his transportation and expenses. A foiled assassination attempt by a pro Castro commies. Finds a way to get to Cuba, assisted by Castro. Wonder what the reaction would be?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 05, 2012, 03:41:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So just humor me for a bit. Let's say Oswald bought the rifle and pistol, shot at Walker, and somehow others found out about his little misadventure. Let's say via George De M. He is a person of interest now. He moves to NO. Hands out proCastro literature goes to Mexico and returns to Dallas. This may or may not be controlled by others at this time. He obtains a job at the TSBD. This does not require manipulation, he is just there. Now we have a left wing nut, already capable of attempted assassination, in place weeks before the motorcade. This may have required very little or no manipulation to this point. Only knowledge. The trick is, getting Oswald to bring the rifle to work and maybe keeping him somewhere away from watching JFK.

What are the odds that JFKs motorcade goes by the building he is working in?  Are you saying that happened by chance or design in this tale?  Either way its farfetched that JFK would either drive by the building Oswald is working in by chance or that the conspirators could manipulate the motorcade to ensure it did so (and that would require a lot of manipulation at the highest levels).  This is all ad hoc reasoning after the fact to shoehorn a conspiracy narrative into the facts.  The motorcade route wasn't even decided upon until a few days before the assassination.  So the fantasy conspirators would have to pull all of this together with Oswald in the space of that limited time.  And he would have to be enough of a dunce to bring and hand his rifle over to someone on the day of the motorcade and then go into hiding.  Not very plausible. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 05, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What are the odds that JFKs motorcade goes by the building he is working in?  Are you saying that happened by chance or design in this tale?  Either way its farfetched that JFK would either drive by the building Oswald is working in by chance or that the conspirators could manipulate the motorcade to ensure it did so (and that would require a lot of manipulation at the highest levels).  This is all ad hoc reasoning after the fact to shoehorn a conspiracy narrative into the facts.  The motorcade route wasn't even decided upon until a few days before the assassination.  So the fantasy conspirators would have to pull all of this together with Oswald in the space of that limited time.  And he would have to be enough of a dunce to bring and hand his rifle over to someone on the day of the motorcade and then go into hiding.  Not very plausible. 


Richard, you hit the nail on the head.
This is all the evidence you need to prove that there was no conspiracy, Oswald applied for 4 jobs in Oct63 and was rejected from them all!
If Oswald was successful at any of these job applications, JFK would have lived through 22/11/63!
At 17:35 in the following video the locations of these jobs is revealed to be no where near the Presidential Parade!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAtHL0wr8U# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAtHL0wr8U#)


JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 05, 2012, 04:44:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with your first paragraph.  I think it's somewhat incredible to suggest Oswald was framed - as Bill suggests below, if Oswald was meant to be a patsy, there would have needed to be a lot more control of his movements to ensure he was where he needed to be.  And there is absolutely no evidence of this.  I also tend to agree that the most aggressive CTers tend to focus only on clearing Oswald (which is pretty tough to do) and have lost any focus on trying to find out what really happened on that day.

I have a bit more trouble with the second paragraph though.  I don't think there's any Lone Nut in Oswald whatsoever, and in spite of the heckling I've taken for my feelings about it, I think his midnight press conference is the most telling 45 seconds of the entire day.  The careful and calm way in which he "denies" his involvement - he actually only denies being charged.  It seems that the "Oswald is innocent" camp feels that this is proof he's just a patsy, but I think it proves exactly the opposite.  Those 30-40 seconds, to me, show an operative caught behind enemy lines, reciting a carefully planned denial that isn't far above name,rank, and serial number.

(Hypothetically) If Oswald read from the Communist literature he had and the socialist newspapers he received, he would have been fed notions like:


The Warren Commission couldn't promote too much of that interpretation because it was inconclusive and many Americans identified with some of what Oswald represented and some supported the ACLU (for example: Bob Dylan got into hot water with an Oswald comment in 1964).

In 1970, a writer named Albert H. Newman released his book "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why" that did explore the influence of the literature on Oswald. Newman added something else: that Oswald was listening to Radio Havana in Dallas (Newman found that Oswald's radio had a shortwave band and that the English-language broadcasts began at 9 and 11 evenings CST and reached Dallas; he suggested this was why Oswald liked to be alone in his boardinghouse room).

Newman:

"A personal listening check in the summer of 1966 with the cheapest shortwave transistor portable I could find (it was under $12) disclosed that in the Dallas area Radio Havana was consistently the strongest signal in the forty-nine-meter band (at 6.135 megacycles), registering two or three times the strength observable in New York."

It was suggested that Oswald would not have gone out without a plan and exit strategy on the scale of the Walker shooting. But, if we believe Marina, one interpretation of an April 1963 incident has Oswald taking his pistol and saying he's going after Nixon because of the headline in that morning's Dallas paper: "Nixon Calls for Decision to Force Reds Out of Cuba". There are other interpretations of the incident, but that one would suggest that Oswald was willing to throw caution to the wind, act impulsively and take his chances.

Seems his targets were escalating as he became emboldened with having avoided consequences: Gen. Walker, former-VP Nixon, and finally Kennedy.

If he was set-up, Marina revealing the hotheaded Nixon episode to, say, one of the deMohrenschildts would put him further onto the conspirators' radar. They now knew he capable of going after a national leader.[/list]
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul Zwertbroek on September 05, 2012, 05:07:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald applied for 4 jobs in Oct63 and was rejected from them all!
If Oswald was successful at any of these job applications, JFK would have lived through 22/11/63!....


JohnM


No there would have been another patsy ..
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Brian Walker on September 05, 2012, 06:00:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So just humor me for a bit. Let's say Oswald bought the rifle and pistol, shot at Walker, and somehow others found out about his little misadventure. Let's say via George De M. He is a person of interest now. He moves to NO. Hands out proCastro literature goes to Mexico and returns to Dallas. This may or may not be controlled by others at this time. He obtains a job at the TSBD. This does not require manipulation, he is just there. Now we have a left wing nut, already capable of attempted assassination, in place weeks before the motorcade. This may have required very little or no manipulation to this point. Only knowledge. The trick is, getting Oswald to bring the rifle to work and maybe keeping him somewhere away from watching JFK.

The chance of this is very very small..Now lets throw in the fact that Oswald was allowed to get away and give a press conference and meet with his family...The whole theory just becomes really silly..Like someone who is sowrroied about getting caught they go through all of this, but the let Oswald talk to the world..Not going to happen..

The simple facts that Oswald was allowed to talk and he and nobody else had their movements restricted that day in themsleves makes a conspiracy very very unlikely..



Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 05, 2012, 06:19:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you think it would take a lot of manipulation to bring the motorcade in front of the TSBD? Anyone with a map of Dallas could tell you this was the most direct route from Love Field through downtown Dallas to the Trade Mart. That simple part of the plan could have been figured out months beforehand.

From memory: the Main Street portion of the route that was taken was referred to as the traditional parade route through Dallas. However, the parades and such tended to go the other way. Still, the same route could be used going either way.

From the WCR: The Dallas SS office were first notified of the visit and given three potential luncheon sites to check out on Nov. 4. Kenneth O'Donnell decided on the luncheon site on Nov. 14, the day after SS advance-agent SA Lawson firsthand evaluated the security at the tentative site: the Trade Mart, and reported back. Lawson and SAIC-Dallas Sorrells then had to figure out the motorcade route. They established the route (timing it by driving over it and taking into account DPD changes) on Nov. 18.

Conspirators would have known for sure of the luncheon site and likely motorcade route by Nov. 14. Prior to that, most would have assumed there would be a Main Street (or downtown street) parade because of the need to get votes. However, they had no way of knowing until Nov. 14 if the motorcade was go through Dealey Plaza on Main (as one of the sites, I believe, would have meant), or go the Elm Street way. The Main Street straight-through-route would complicate things for placing a gunman in the Depository.

Then again, if the motorcade did go straight through DP on Main, the conspirators could simply have Oswald--assuming they wanted him as patsy that badly--detained and being set-up on the South Knoll. But then again, the South Knoll is pretty exposed and would have had more people there if the motorcade had gone through on Main. Well then, they shift the firing point to the building under construction.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 05, 2012, 06:21:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you think it would take a lot of manipulation to bring the motorcade in front of the TSBD? Anyone with a map of Dallas could tell you this was the most direct route from Love Field through downtown Dallas to the Trade Mart. That simple part of the plan could have been figured out months beforehand.

Months beforehand is impossible.  The decision to go to the Trade Mart was made only days before the assassination by the advance SS agent.  So no one even at the highest levels could know that fact until only a few days before the assassination.  To ensure the motorcade went past the TSBD would have required SS participation and the highest levels of government.  No small scale operation.  
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 05, 2012, 06:33:43 PM
Friday, 15 c. November 1963
 "A change in the route of Kennedy's Dallas motorcade is made by a person or persons unknown?

 
What was announced on this date was not a change in the motorcade route, but the site selected for the luncheon. There had been a feud
over which site to use, and selection of the Trade Mart was made by White House aide Ken O'Donnell, in consultation with Bill Moyers,
and was due to "unbearable" pressure from Connally to have the luncheon at the Trade Mart instead of the Women's Building.
Dallas SS agent in charge Forrest Sorrels then selected the Elm Street route as the "most direct" route to the Trade Mart, considering
the presence of a raised divider which would have to be driven over if Main Street were used to reach the expressway. Continuing down
Main to Industrial Boulevard was rejected, in consultation with Asst. Police Chief George Lumpkin, because of the undesirable neighborhood."

 
From HSCA v. 11:
 
(Advance man) Bruno's explanation of how the matter was finally resolved is found in his journal in the entries of November 14 and 15, 1963:
November 14-- The feud became so bitter that I went to the White House to ask Bill Moyers, then Deputy Director of the Peace Corps, and close
to both Connally and Johnson, if he would try to settle the dispute for the good of the President and his party. On this day, Kenney O'Donnell
decided that there was no other way but to go to the mart. November 15--The White House announced that the Trade Mart had been approved. I met
with O'Donnell and Moyers who said that Connally was unbearable and on the verge of cancelling the trip. They decided they had to let the
Governor have his way. (149) . . .
 
• As the Dallas SAIC, Forrest Sorrels told the Warren Commission, he selected the Main-Houston-Elm turn through Dealey Plaza because it was
the "most direct" route to the Trade Mart. (189) Sorrels' questioning by Warren Commission staff counsel Samuel M. Stern, however, prevented
a total picture of motorcade route logistics from emerging. Stern asked Sorrels why the expressway was proached from the Elm Street ramp
instead of from Main Street just beyond the triple overpass at the westen boundary of Dealey Plaza. Sorrels explained that the size and
cumbersomeness of the motorcade, along with the presence of a raised divider separating the Elm Street lane from the Elm Street lane at
the foot of the ramp up to the expressway, deterred him from trying to route the motorcade under and through the overpass on Main Street.
Such a route would have assigned the drivers in the motorcade the almost impossible task of making a reverse S-turn in order to cross over
the raised divider to get from the Main Street lane into the Elm Street lane. (190) However, this question-and-answer process failed to make
clear that the Trade Mart was accessible from beyond the triple overpass in such a way that it was not necessary to enter the Elm Street ramp
to the expressway. The motorcade could have progressed westward through Dealey Plaza on Main Street, passed under the overpass, and then
proceeded on Industrial Boulevard to the Trade Mart. (191)

• George L. Lumpkin, assistant police chief in Dallas in 1963, was consulted by the Secret Service about the motorcade aspect of security
planning. (192) Lumpkin explained that the alternate route, continuing straight on Main through and beyond Dealey Plaza and thereby reaching
the Trade Mart on Industrial Boulevard, was rejected because the neighborhood surrounding Industrial Boulevard was "filled with winos and
broken pavement." (193) Additionally, Lumpkin stated that Kennedy wanted exposure and that there would have been no crowds on Industrial Boulevard.
(194)

• Advance Agent Lawson informed committee investigators that he had nothing to do with the selection of the Main-Houston-Elm turn before November
14, since only Main Street, not Dealey Plaza, had been selected for the motorcade at that time. He did not specify the exact date on which the
turn was selected nor did he identify the person selecting the turn.(195) Sorrels stated that he and Lawson did drive the entire route together,
but did not specify when this occurred. (196)

• Sorrels' Warren Commission exhibit No. 4 suggested that both men drove the entire route on November 18. (197) It is not certain that both
men knew about the turn earlier than this date.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 05, 2012, 06:57:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Friday, 15 c. November 1963
 "A change in the route of Kennedy's Dallas motorcade is made by a person or persons unknown?

 
What was announced on this date was not a change in the motorcade route, but the site selected for the luncheon. There had been a feud
over which site to use, and selection of the Trade Mart was made by White House aide Ken O'Donnell, in consultation with Bill Moyers,
and was due to "unbearable" pressure from Connally to have the luncheon at the Trade Mart instead of the Women's Building.
Dallas SS agent in charge Forrest Sorrels then selected the Elm Street route as the "most direct" route to the Trade Mart, considering
the presence of a raised divider which would have to be driven over if Main Street were used to reach the expressway. Continuing down
Main to Industrial Boulevard was rejected, in consultation with Asst. Police Chief George Lumpkin, because of the undesirable neighborhood."

 
From HSCA v. 11:
 
(Advance man) Bruno's explanation of how the matter was finally resolved is found in his journal in the entries of November 14 and 15, 1963:
November 14-- The feud became so bitter that I went to the White House to ask Bill Moyers, then Deputy Director of the Peace Corps, and close
to both Connally and Johnson, if he would try to settle the dispute for the good of the President and his party. On this day, Kenney O'Donnell
decided that there was no other way but to go to the mart. November 15--The White House announced that the Trade Mart had been approved. I met
with O'Donnell and Moyers who said that Connally was unbearable and on the verge of cancelling the trip. They decided they had to let the
Governor have his way. (149) . . .
 
• As the Dallas SAIC, Forrest Sorrels told the Warren Commission, he selected the Main-Houston-Elm turn through Dealey Plaza because it was
the "most direct" route to the Trade Mart. (189) Sorrels' questioning by Warren Commission staff counsel Samuel M. Stern, however, prevented
a total picture of motorcade route logistics from emerging. Stern asked Sorrels why the expressway was proached from the Elm Street ramp
instead of from Main Street just beyond the triple overpass at the westen boundary of Dealey Plaza. Sorrels explained that the size and
cumbersomeness of the motorcade, along with the presence of a raised divider separating the Elm Street lane from the Elm Street lane at
the foot of the ramp up to the expressway, deterred him from trying to route the motorcade under and through the overpass on Main Street.
Such a route would have assigned the drivers in the motorcade the almost impossible task of making a reverse S-turn in order to cross over
the raised divider to get from the Main Street lane into the Elm Street lane. (190) However, this question-and-answer process failed to make
clear that the Trade Mart was accessible from beyond the triple overpass in such a way that it was not necessary to enter the Elm Street ramp
to the expressway. The motorcade could have progressed westward through Dealey Plaza on Main Street, passed under the overpass, and then
proceeded on Industrial Boulevard to the Trade Mart. (191)

• George L. Lumpkin, assistant police chief in Dallas in 1963, was consulted by the Secret Service about the motorcade aspect of security
planning. (192) Lumpkin explained that the alternate route, continuing straight on Main through and beyond Dealey Plaza and thereby reaching
the Trade Mart on Industrial Boulevard, was rejected because the neighborhood surrounding Industrial Boulevard was "filled with winos and
broken pavement." (193) Additionally, Lumpkin stated that Kennedy wanted exposure and that there would have been no crowds on Industrial Boulevard.
(194)

• Advance Agent Lawson informed committee investigators that he had nothing to do with the selection of the Main-Houston-Elm turn before November
14, since only Main Street, not Dealey Plaza, had been selected for the motorcade at that time. He did not specify the exact date on which the
turn was selected nor did he identify the person selecting the turn.(195) Sorrels stated that he and Lawson did drive the entire route together,
but did not specify when this occurred. (196)

• Sorrels' Warren Commission exhibit No. 4 suggested that both men drove the entire route on November 18. (197) It is not certain that both
men knew about the turn earlier than this date.


This proves my original point which was that if the motorcade route was altered to ensure that it went by the TSBD because Oswald worked there, then it is a high level job involving a large group of conspirators.  It's not a simple frame up to pull that off per Colin's scenario which is premised on a conspiracy not requiring a great deal of manipulation to frame Oswald.  It's complete bunk, though, that the motorcade route was altered for this purpose.  I'm just playing along.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 05, 2012, 07:15:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Richard, you hit the nail on the head.
This is all the evidence you need to prove that there was no conspiracy, Oswald applied for 4 jobs in Oct63 and was rejected from them all!
If Oswald was successful at any of these job applications, JFK would have lived through 22/11/63!
At 17:35 in the following video the locations of these jobs is revealed to be no where near the Presidential Parade!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAtHL0wr8U# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAtHL0wr8U#)


JohnM


Boy, you really are clueless. If you think Oswald was the assassin he could have shot from anywhere. Not just the TSBD. If he had gotten a job at the Dal-Tex you'd be saying the same thing
about the Dal-Tex instead of the TSBD. The fact is that the motorcade was designed to pass hundreds of office buildings. That's politics.
Now if you instead prefer all powerful conspirators then they would be able to change the route of the motorcade to take it past Oswald wherever he would be working.
What about the shooter on the grassy knoll. Do you require that he have a job which placed him in that spot? Maybe assistant groundskeeper or parking lot attendant?
Your logic is infantile.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bob Mady on September 05, 2012, 07:25:03 PM
From Wiki -
George de Mohrenschildt's wife and daughter said that it was George de Mohrenschildt who secured the job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall located in Dallas, for Oswald,
this was in 1962.

Following information came from John Judge - Guns and Butter program
A Crypto clearance (high level of security) was necessary to get a job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.
Approval by ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) was necessary to get a job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.
Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall - was a sub-contractor to the CIA developing reconnaissance photos, this is why a crypto clearance and approval was necessary.
Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall - Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for developing spy photos of Russian missiles in Cuba that were presented to JFK as evidence. Yes this is known to be true - per John Judge

(I would have thought that Lee Harvey Oswald's crypto clearance would have been revoked after his defection to USSR and him claiming to give the Russians U-2 secrets. Also Oswald worked as a photographic expert developing photographs for Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall so when Oswald said he could prove the backyard photos were fakes, he really had the expertise to do so.)

George de Mohrenschildt's
Kicked out of France for spying
Arrested in Corpus Cristi for spying
Kicked out of Mexico for spying

Following from JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters James Douglass
George de Mohrenschildt was called to testify before the HSCA - he was murdered before he could testify (officially a suicide, grand jury listened to a tape that included the gunshot, but jury commented hearing a house alarm sound just moments before the gunshot was heard, which signified the presence of an intruder in the house)


Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bob Mady on September 05, 2012, 07:45:25 PM
From John Judge - Guns and Butter program
End of WW2 von Braun & other rocket scientist give themselves up to the Americans, Clay Shaw was involved.
 Claw Shaw kicked out of Italy for spying - PERMADEX (Trade Mart)
   Clay Shaw worked for Trade Mart in New Orleans - CIA
    Oswald was arrested for protesting outside of Trade Mart in New Orleans
     JFK motorcade was on the way to the Dallas Trade Mart
      911 - World Trade Towers

Major-General Dr Walter Robert Dornberger (von Brauns's boss) was captured and set to to be judged for war crimes.
von Braun demanded Walter Robert Dornberger's release in exchange for rocket work.
Walter Robert Dornberger went to work for Bell Helicoptor
Michael Paine worked for Walter Robert Dornberger at Bell Helicoptor
Ruth Paine is from Forbe family
Ruth Paine is now known to have been a "witting" CIA asset
Ruth Paines sister did work for the CIA   
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 05, 2012, 09:38:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From John Judge - Guns and Butter program
End of WW2 von Braun & other rocket scientist give themselves up to the Americans, Clay Shaw was involved.
 Claw Shaw kicked out of Italy for spying - PERMADEX (Trade Mart)
   Clay Shaw worked for Trade Mart in New Orleans - CIA
    Oswald was arrested for protesting outside of Trade Mart in New Orleans
     JFK motorcade was on the way to the Dallas Trade Mart
      911 - World Trade Towers

Major-General Dr Walter Robert Dornberger (von Brauns's boss) was captured and set to to be judged for war crimes.
von Braun demanded Walter Robert Dornberger's release in exchange for rocket work.
Walter Robert Dornberger went to work for Bell Helicoptor
Michael Paine worked for Walter Robert Dornberger at Bell Helicoptor
Ruth Paine is from Forbe family
Ruth Paine is now known to have been a "witting" CIA asset
Ruth Paines sister did work for the CIA   
Lincoln had a secratary named Kennedy. Kennedy had asecratary named Lincoln etc.......................................
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 05, 2012, 10:20:32 PM
I'm somewhat confused about the LN view of Oswald. Some seem to suggest that the only reason JFK was shot by him is because the Pres just happened to drive by. Just bad luck for JFK that Oswald didn't get a job elsewhere.

This is the same Oswald that planned and travelled to the home of Walker to shoot at him? Surely he has proved to you to be a mobile assassin hasn't he?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 05, 2012, 10:43:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Following from JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters James Douglass
George de Mohrenschildt was called to testify before the HSCA - he was murdered before he could testify (officially a suicide, grand jury listened to a tape that included the gunshot, but jury commented hearing a house alarm sound just moments before the gunshot was heard, which signified the presence of an intruder in the house)

Holy Romney-Is-One-Dumb-Git!

James W. Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable" may be the most error-laden CT book since Carl Oglesby's 1991 gem "Who Killed JFK? (The Real Story Series)."

The "alarm system" beeped when a door or window opened. The "beep" before the shot was Miss Romanic, the cook, going out in the backyard for a break. The gunshot was 23 seconds later. Five minutes later, the "beep" goes again, this time Mrs. Viisola, in the kitchen, went out the back door to take out garbage. Mrs. Viisola was Mrs. de Mohrenschildt's maid, who had set up the audio tape to record a soap for her.

Neither Romanic, Viisola or Coley Wimbley, the gardener in the backyard, heard the shot. George de Mohrenschildt had an history of mental illness.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm somewhat confused about the LN view of Oswald. Some seem to suggest that the only reason JFK was shot by him is because the Pres just happened to drive by. Just bad luck for JFK that Oswald didn't get a job elsewhere.

That's the characterization from CTs as to how conspirators would have wanted Oswald's set-up to be interpreted.

The LN view is more complicated, involving more than happenstance and luck. For example, I see a progression in Oswald's boldness and self-importance by the increased statushood of his potential victims: Gen. Walker, then former VP Nixon and finally the President.

Also, Oswald lived in a city which liked guns and where newspapers were printing some nasty critical things about Kennedy.

This leads us to the Hunts being involved and one of them living outside the States for awhile after the assassination. In fact, one early line of suspicion of a conspiracy centered on it being well-placed oil barons from Dallas. A bit of this got into the movie "Executive Action".
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bob Mady on September 05, 2012, 11:37:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lincoln had a secratary named Kennedy. Kennedy had asecratary named Lincoln etc.......................................
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck  etc.......................................

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 05, 2012, 11:41:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To think Colin, that had Oswald planned to collect the shells and had planned to hide the rifle in a good hiding place beforehand where it would be difficult to discover, he may have bought himself a lot more time. I always wondered where he hid the rifle before he shot it? It must have been in a good hiding spot cause no one saw it. Why not put it back there? If he had taken his time to work out where best to hide it, he may have even gotten away with it.
The Walker shooting shows what he is capable of doing. Some LN's even suggest he may have buried the rifle somewhere. It that is the case why didn't he do the same thing when he planned to shoot JFK?
2 different assassins.
Well Paul, nobody was looking for a rifle before the assassination. I guess he couldn't bury the rifle behind a pergola without some pesky cop sayin"say boy! watchoo doin??"
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 05, 2012, 11:59:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to the WC the lifts were locked on 5. According to the WC there was someone on the floor between the lifts and the stairwell. According to the WC there was someone between the lifts and the stairwell on the second floor too. They were found there a minute or so after the shots. Not a bad way to control movement around the 6th floor is it?

You're forgetting, that according to the WC, Oswald did it alone too.  So if you're believing them on all of this, you must be an LN now, right? :) 

Just kidding, dude.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 06, 2012, 12:11:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    (Hypothetically) If Oswald read from the Communist literature he had and the socialist newspapers he received, he would have been fed notions like:

    • left-leaners are routinely "shot" while on the way to the police station
    • that all "authorities" are monolithically ultra-right and to be resisted
    • in America--one with a political motivation should seek out the ACLU
    • having a political motivation justifies the action and reduces the victim to a symbol
    • demand your "rights" (Oswald even mentioned his hygienic rights)
    • deny all involvement (why help the dreaded authorities and ruin the ACLU's case?)

    The Warren Commission couldn't promote too much of that interpretation because it was inconclusive and many Americans identified with some of what Oswald represented and some supported the ACLU (for example: Bob Dylan got into hot water with an Oswald comment in 1964).

    In 1970, a writer named Albert H. Newman released his book "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why" that did explore the influence of the literature on Oswald. Newman added something else: that Oswald was listening to Radio Havana in Dallas (Newman found that Oswald's radio had a shortwave band and that the English-language broadcasts began at 9 and 11 evenings CST and reached Dallas; he suggested this was why Oswald liked to be alone in his boardinghouse room).

    Newman:

"A personal listening check in the summer of 1966 with the cheapest shortwave transistor portable I could find (it was under $12) disclosed that in the Dallas area Radio Havana was consistently the strongest signal in the forty-nine-meter band (at 6.135 megacycles), registering two or three times the strength observable in New York."

It was suggested that Oswald would not have gone out without a plan and exit strategy on the scale of the Walker shooting. But, if we believe Marina, one interpretation of an April 1963 incident has Oswald taking his pistol and saying he's going after Nixon because of the headline in that morning's Dallas paper: "Nixon Calls for Decision to Force Reds Out of Cuba". There are other interpretations of the incident, but that one would suggest that Oswald was willing to throw caution to the wind, act impulsively and take his chances.

Seems his targets were escalating as he became emboldened with having avoided consequences: Gen. Walker, former-VP Nixon, and finally Kennedy.

If he was set-up, Marina revealing the hotheaded Nixon episode to, say, one of the deMohrenschildts would put him further onto the conspirators' radar. They now knew he capable of going after a national leader.[/list]

I appreciate what you say, but thinking of him as an impulsive type that escalated his way to this action - go and watch his press conference a couple of times.  If he's the hothead that this theory suggests, I really doubt he'd be playing the evasive game.  With all we've been led to believe over the years - most people here either lean towards innocent patsy or lone nut.  If he's a lone nut, he probably figures once he's caught, he's a dead man...so why deny a thing?  Why not say, sure, I killed the rotten bas*ard and I'd do it again if he walked in here right now.  And if he's innocent, why be so evasive?  Why not desperately plead innocence, like a truly innocent man with a young family would do?

The press conference to me, solidifies two things:  (1) He's got a very significant role in the assassination of the President and (2) He's hiding something fairly big.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 06, 2012, 12:15:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm somewhat confused about the LN view of Oswald. Some seem to suggest that the only reason JFK was shot by him is because the Pres just happened to drive by. Just bad luck for JFK that Oswald didn't get a job elsewhere.

This is the same Oswald that planned and travelled to the home of Walker to shoot at him? Surely he has proved to you to be a mobile assassin hasn't he?

Agree totally with this.  Pretty convenient, to me, that the motorcade went right by LHO's place of employment, though...I mean, the motorcade didn't HAVE to go along Elm - it could have jumped the Main St. curb to get on to the Stemmons.  And that would be a minor issue, because there would be a lot more security ease on Main St than Elm.  For now-obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 06, 2012, 12:19:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To think Colin, that had Oswald planned to collect the shells and had planned to hide the rifle in a good hiding place beforehand where it would be difficult to discover, he may have bought himself a lot more time. I always wondered where he hid the rifle before he shot it? It must have been in a good hiding spot cause no one saw it. Why not put it back there? If he had taken his time to work out where best to hide it, he may have even gotten away with it.
The Walker shooting shows what he is capable of doing. Some LN's even suggest he may have buried the rifle somewhere. It that is the case why didn't he do the same thing when he planned to shoot JFK?
2 different assassins.

Hee hee. How naive can you get?

(http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/img87/598/sheeptranquil.gif)

(Like one of his sheep)
__________

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean they didn't see a rifle? It must have been well hidden I guess. Why not pick up the shells put the rifle back in its bag and hide it somewhere that will confuse anyone looking for it? He had the time to plan it at least.
When I say bury Ron I don't mean it literally. I keep forgetting you're still at LN school.

HA HA HA!

It just gets better.

(http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/img573/2874/dancingpenguinani.gif)


Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 06, 2012, 12:20:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean no one saw a rifle? Not even Buell or anyone else? Well it must have been well hidden I guess.
Why not pick up the shells put the rifle back in its bag and hide it somewhere that will confuse anyone looking for it? He had the time to plan it at least.
When I say bury Ron I don't mean it literally. I keep forgetting you're still at LN school.

There is a point in all of this - is there no way that a rifle could have made its way into the TSBD prior to November 22?  I mean, if there was a conspiracy of any form, I doubt it started at 9 AM that Friday.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Brad Good on September 06, 2012, 12:43:11 AM
How about it started in November 1960 just after the election. Or maybe in December 1960 after the man failed to blow up President Elect John Kennedy coming out from mass. I believe the plot was well planned. But I won't get into who I think planned it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 06, 2012, 01:04:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean no one saw a rifle? Not even Buell or anyone else? Well it must have been well hidden I guess.
Why not pick up the shells put the rifle back in its bag and hide it somewhere that will confuse anyone looking for it? He had the time to plan it at least.
When I say bury Ron I don't mean it literally. I keep forgetting you're still at LN school.
Yes Paul, I'm so far behind in LN school, I still think he never really thought he would get out of the building.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 06, 2012, 01:23:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you really believed Oswald shot Kennedy you would be able to explain why Oswald failed to plan it better than he did. Why he was so sloppy as compared to the Walker shooting. But you'd rather laugh nervously about it cause lets face it Jerry silly emoticons is all you have nowadays. That and lip reading classes. Even your eyesight is deserting you going by the rubbish you post about Z225. Can you tie Oswald to the 6th floor shooter if you don't have his rifle? If you can't find the rifle you don't know the shooter is Oswald. Can you understand that at least Jerry? Its called covering ones tracks like he did at the Walker shooting.
You are one of these LN's who believe Oswald took his rifle to work that day in the off chance he bagged himself a president on his lunchtime break.

Holy Lyin'-Ryan! Emoticons are like attack-ads: they work!

I can live with being wrong about Z225. Just show me (with a life-picture) the supposed "look of horror" O-shaped mouth expression in Z225.

Now you ... you have to live with:

If he had taken his time to work out where best to hide it, he may have even gotten away with it.

Why not pick up the shells put the rifle back in its bag

That first one is Signature material.

Work on this one:

Oswald took his rifle to work that day in the off chance he bagged himself a president on his lunchtime break.

But LNers never claimed it (they have Os stewing over politics, becoming self-delusion, hating America/authorites for years, receiving a rifle/pistol months before the assassination and trying to kill Walker and Nixon in the lead-up to Dealey Plaza.)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is how it looks to you Ron cause you are still learning. He did get out of the building. Just stick with what you know and you won't fall so far behind. Guessing won't get you anywhere but where you are already at.

Paul Klein: Sage Tutor.

(http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img839/9559/flyingnut.gif)

If he's in the field of education, I now know why Rowney wants to union-bust teachers.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 06, 2012, 01:45:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Holy Lyin'-Ryan! Emoticons are like attack-ads: they work!

I can live with being wrong about Z225. Just show me (with a life-picture) the supposed "look of horror" O-shaped mouth expression in Z225.

Now you ... you have to live with:

If he had taken his time to work out where best to hide it, he may have even gotten away with it.

Why not pick up the shells put the rifle back in its bag

That first one is Signature material.

Work on this one:

Oswald took his rifle to work that day in the off chance he bagged himself a president on his lunchtime break.

But LNers never claimed it (they have Os stewing over politics, becoming self-delusion, hating America/authorites for years, receiving a rifle/pistol months before the assassination and trying to kill Walker and Nixon in the lead-up to Dealey Plaza.)

Paul Klein: Sage Tutor.

(http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img839/9559/flyingnut.gif)

If he's in the field of education, I now know why Rowney wants to union-bust teachers.

He's in a field all right, all by himself. Oswald knows his chances of getting out of the TSBD are slim at best. He may have even seen Baker get off his bike. He knows he has to haul azz before the cops are swarming the place. So.........why didn't he pause to pick up the hulls and re wrap his rifle, drop it off in the little room on the 7th floor and proceed to the stairs???? Well he was a lone nut, not a nut.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 06, 2012, 02:03:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He's in a field all right, all by himself. Oswald knows his chances of getting out of the TSBD are slim at best. He may have even seen Baker get off his bike. He knows he has to haul azz before the cops are swarming the place. So.........why didn't he pause to pick up the hulls and re wrap his rifle, drop it off in the little room on the 7th floor and proceed to the stairs???? Well he was a lone nut, not a nut.


If he had hidden the rifle and the shells in a more secure place, he would not have to "haul azz" at all ...... He worked in the building and thus was expected to be there, remember? Baker did not let him go for nothing....
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 06, 2012, 02:34:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If he had hidden the rifle and the shells in a more secure place, he would not have to "haul azz" at all ...... He worked in the building and thus was expected to be there, remember? Baker did not let him go for nothing....

But how did Oswald know someone outside wasn't about to enter the building with some police and identify him, if he hung around?

The hiding place he used was in a place where he had only to drop the rifle down into a gap between some rows of boxes. He could have decided on it earlier, or noticed it as he got to the NW corner. By then, he hadn't encountered anyone, had only one bullet, didn't feel like killing for awhile, and thought he just might get out the back steps, if he discards the rifle before anyone in the building sees him with it.

Hanging around the upper floors with no one to vouch for him wasn't a good idea. One of the reasons the Lunchroom Encounter worked out for him was because Baker and Truly figured he was at that floor level all along.

Remember, Baker was climbing the stairs with his revolver drawn. Oswald must have anticipated the thought of police going upstairs just after the assassination. He couldn't linger there. However, after the Lunchroom Encounter, he could have lingered around the workplace and blended in. Maybe take up chat with Mrs. Reid. Down that Coke and finish off that two-foot sub he brought to work. Belch a while. Then try to leave when all the exits were sealed.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 06, 2012, 03:00:29 AM
I don't understand this theorizing on why Oswald didn't plan his escape better and why it proves anything. He did escape and it was a very similar MO as the Walker shooting. Hide the rifle, walk away, grab a bus. It was a very good plan and didn't require a lot of thought -- thought that had to be concentrated on the assassination itself.

If he'd planned to actually beat a rap on the assassination and had planned well in advance, he would have made sure the rifle was untraceable to him (which he perhaps thought was true) and made sure he left no fingerprints. After that, it's just a question of slipping onto a lower floor. As it was, we've got people arguing it couldn't have been him because he got down there too fast.

It was a crime of opportunity -- and Oswald probably figured that was what was important, and that maybe he could slip away. But I don't think Oz thought that he was really going to get away from a crime that big and with that many people around.

I suppose in hindsight you could argue that he could have done some things differently. But his quick, low-tech, simple plan worked. He killed the president, got out of the building, and got home. If he'd known how to drive, he would have had a police car in Oak Cliff, which would have delayed catching him for some time. That's especially true if Oswald knew how a police officer sounds on a police radio -- he could've diverted people away from him and used that car to carjack another car -- possibly wouldn't have been picked up for a few days. Maybe he could've hijacked a plane to Cuba.

I think Oz was realistic that there was very little chance of his getting away regardless of circumstances.


Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 06, 2012, 05:39:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean no one saw a rifle? Not even Buell or anyone else? Well it must have been well hidden I guess.
Why not pick up the shells put the rifle back in its bag and hide it somewhere that will confuse anyone looking for it? He had the time to plan it at least.
When I say bury Ron I don't mean it literally. I keep forgetting you're still at LN school.

If it was me. I'd have spend time looking for a wall or ceiling cavity to stash easily by dropping. Maybe something that requires demolition to find. No way I'd leave shells behind. I would have brought the handgun to work "just in case". I don't think I'd bother disassembling the gun, probably make it bigger.....too much trouble for 3 inches. Full clip would be good if I had the bulllets.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 06, 2012, 05:42:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes Paul, I'm so far behind in LN school, I still think he never really thought he would get out of the building.

Then why bring $13 that morning. How much for a pair of shoes for Junie?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 06, 2012, 05:55:49 AM
The reality is the is no way Oswald could have known it would take more than half an hour to find the SN. Brennan reported within 3 mitutes to the cops what he saw. Euins in a similar timeframe. If he had taken the taxi first rather than the bus he had half an hour travel time. He needed to escape the country asap to have any chance. Then again.....always polite (lady have my cab)....and always a cheapskate...even when his own existance is at stake...bus transfer LOL.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 06, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LHO didn't just drop the rifle down between some boxes. Read the testimony of the officers who found it. It was buried beneath a stack of boxes. How did they know to look in the NW corner of the 6th floor?

 :cop:

There's a photo of the rifle in place.  It was not "buried beneath a stack of boxes".  Do you know anything at all about this case, Bob?

Also, you're not aware that the entire sixth floor was searched, when looking for the weapon?  I mean, really?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 06, 2012, 07:53:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:cop:

There's a photo of the rifle in place.  It was not "buried beneath a stack of boxes".  Do you know anything at all about this case, Bob?

Also, you're not aware that the entire sixth floor was searched, when looking for the weapon?  I mean, really?

Mr. BOONE - Well, I proceeded to the east end of the building, I guess, and started working our way across the building to the west wall, looking in, under, and around all the boxes and pallets, and what-have-you that were on the floor. Looking for the weapon. And as I got to the west wall, there were a row of windows there, and a slight space between some boxes and the wall. I squeezed through them.
When I did--I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it. And I hollered that the rifle was here.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 06, 2012, 08:55:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly, Colin. Thanks.

What do you say to that, Bill? Stuck between boxes and boxes pulled over top of them. Mommy never tell you not to tell lies, boy?

Speaking of lies:

(http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy291/kegeshook/Capture.png)

 ROFLMFAO
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 06, 2012, 02:55:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The reality is the is no way Oswald could have known it would take more than half an hour to find the SN. Brennan reported within 3 mitutes to the cops what he saw. Euins in a similar timeframe. If he had taken the taxi first rather than the bus he had half an hour travel time. He needed to escape the country asap to have any chance. Then again.....always polite (lady have my cab)....and always a cheapskate...even when his own existance is at stake...bus transfer LOL.

Why'd he leave his passport and birth certificate behind?

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/passport.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 06, 2012, 03:43:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A get away plan is all about time. If Oswald had hidden the rifle better and picked up the shells, it would have bought him time to get away. But in your LN world he is a self delusional pyscho killer with a political grudge that just couldn't wait to kill the president.
You can't even bring yourself to give him credit for the Walker shooting. Didn't he plan that well for a psycho killer Jerry? Or maybe he had some help. Who knows.


I don't exactly follow the logic of this.  It wasn't finding the rifle or bullets that raised initial suspicion about Oswald.  There was no way to connect him to those objects in the first hours.  What raised suspicion was the fact that he matched the description of the shooter and was missing.  He doesn't buy any time by hiding the shells.  In addition, the Walker attempt is different in every particular except for the use of the rifle.  Oswald has all the time in the world to plan that one.  In the JFK situation he only has a couple of days.  The Walker attempt takes place in seclusion at night with no law enforcement present.  Oswald has a realistic chance to escape.  With JFK, the attempt is made in the presence of hundreds of potential witnesses and police and secret service agents.  There is no possibility of Oswald pulling this off and escaping unnoticed.  It's a suicidal act with no plausible escape plan.   He realizes that is part of the deal which is demonstrated by his actions.  The fact that he doesn't simply give himself up is not inconsistent with this obvious conclusion.  He simply plays the hand out until they arrest him.  I'm not sure why that is so difficult for CTers to accept.  How many criminals give themselves up no matter how hopeless their situation?  Almost none.  They make a run for it. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 06, 2012, 04:07:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, let's say for the sake of argument that Oswald was on the first floor during the shooting and strolled up to the second floor to get a Coke when confronted by Baker. What else must be or is in all probability true?

1. Howard Brennan gave an Oswald-like description of the shooter who was nonetheless not Oswald. (They used an Oswald "double.")

This is FALSE on several levels.  First of all, show me who Brennan gave any description to.  I dare you.  Secondly, the description he allegedly gave did NOT include clothing and matched about two-thirds of the men in THE DALLAS AREA!  So why are you saying it was an "Oswald-like description" implying it matched him pretty well?

Quote
2. No one else saw this Oswald-like character leave the building. (Could have hidden and been ferried out later.)

Forgot about Roger Craig, huh?  How about Richard Carr?

Quote
3. This Oswald-looking character used Oswald's real rifle for the assassination, or alternatively, this rifle was later linked to Oswald by massive fabrication of evidence and the lying of witnesses.

There is NO LHO rifle per the WC'S OWN EVIDENCE so I suggest you learn it.  Secondly, we can't even say with authority the alleged murder weapon was fired as a distraction shot since NO one bothered to find out IF it had been fired recently! 

Quote
4. The conspirators needed to make sure Oswald remained out of sight during the motorcade. (I suppose you could have lured Oswald there under false pretenses.)

They could have simply told him to stand by near a phone for further instructions.  He was NEAR a phone, wasn't he?

Quote
After the assassination, and after going to get a Coke (for whatever reason), Oswald suddenly realizes that he's the patsy. He flees and the rest of the scenario happens basically as the Warren Report says.

He realized he was in trouble when he learned JFK was shot IF you believe the theories that put him in role of participating in a fake attempt.  IF you don't, then he simply realized like many others there would be NO more work that day and left.  He was NOT the ONLY one to do this.

Quote
OK, you just need to fabricate all the evidence connecting the rifle to Oswald.

DONE!  We see this in the WC's 26 volumes.

Quote
Well, the backyard photos are real.

Ah, NO they are NOT.  But, even IF real, and they are NOT, so what?  You can't link the alleged murder weapon to LHO and the weapon in the photos is NOT the same one they found in the TSBD.

Quote
And Oswald is NOT going to turn over his real rifle is an assassin and then wait on the first floor.

The evidence shows us he HAD NO REAL RIFLE TO TURN OVER.

Quote
I don't see how you can get Oswald's real rifle on the sixth floor and Oswald on the first floor.

You can't see anything when you willfully LIE and avoid the evidence.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 06, 2012, 04:09:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Re: "I don't see how you can get Oswald's real rifle on the sixth floor and Oswald on the first floor."

... And: do it without smudging Oswald's fresh fingerprints on the trigger-guard housing.

Why NOT quote the testimony that shows LHO's *FINGERPRINTS* were found on the alleged murder weapon?  I quadruple dare you!

This is another LIE all the LNers tell.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 06, 2012, 04:14:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm convinced it was Oswald and Oswald alone based on the totality of evidence.  However, one of the often unstated factors in discussing various alternative scenarios is specifying Oswald's exact role.  Is the premise that Oswald was entirely innocent, involved in a conspiracy only indirectly, or an active member perhaps even as the shooter?  CTers usually are not specific on Oswald himself in discussing the evidence.  They simply defend him against every piece of evidence as though it's all one and the same regardless of his role.  However, the strongest conspiracy scenario is to place Oswald in the 6th window as a shooter.  Maybe the only shooter but recruited and assisted by some unknown entity.  It would avoid the necessity of disputing a mountain of evidence that is consistent with his guilt.  The absurd lengths they go to dispute this evidence undermines any real credibility in a conspiracy that must involve Oswald doubles, Z-film alterations, SS participation, body thefts and other absurdities necessary to support these bizarre conspiracy scenarios. However, if you accept Oswald's participation as a shooter then you have a more plausible conspiracy case.  Although one I still believe is lacking in any credible evidence.  As is stands now, CTers are simply not credible in defending Oswald in a passive or non-participant role.  The evidence and circumstances do not support that interpretation of events.

I'm convinced it was Oswald and Oswald alone based on the totality of evidence.

Why NOT cite this evidence in "totality" for me?  Cue the running and hiding.

They simply defend him against every piece of evidence as though it's all one and the same regardless of his role.

The evidence shows he SHOT NO ONE on 11/22/63 and that is what he was CHARGED WITH.  The WC NEVER entertained the idea of him being involved with others in "some way" so why do you expect us to tell you what way this was?  IOWs, IT WAS NEVER INVESTIGATED so why do you expect us to do what our own government has NOT done?

However, the strongest conspiracy scenario is to place Oswald in the 6th window as a shooter.  Maybe the only shooter but recruited and assisted by some unknown entity.

Sadly for your faith, there is NO evidence that shows LHO was on the sixth floor shooting at anyone. Don't blame me for saying this, but rather blame the WC for NOT giving you any evidence to support your faith.  Then again, it would NOT be a faith then, right?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 06, 2012, 04:17:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's simply no way that conspirators could control the movements of the patsy-to-be.  If the patsy is seen anywhere besides the sixth floor by a single person, the conspiracy is exposed.  Conspirators could try to control the patsy's movements, but they could not be guaranteed that the patsy would be where they want him.  Therefore, because of the uncertainty, they would not even attempt this.  They would have went a different route.

As Vincent Salandria say many years ago -- the conspirators wanted us to know it was a conspiracy and they had the power to prevent us from doing anything about it!

You don't go to all this trouble to keep it quiet. Please.  They are telling you they did everywhere IF you know what to look for.

It is obvious from the WC's juvenile attempt (if they tried at all) to cover this up that they wanted us to know eventually.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 06, 2012, 04:33:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a point in all of this - is there no way that a rifle could have made its way into the TSBD prior to November 22?  I mean, if there was a conspiracy of any form, I doubt it started at 9 AM that Friday.

Warren Caster brought TWO rifles into the TSBD on 11/20/63.  Who knows IF others did too with much less fanfare.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 06, 2012, 04:53:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sooooo, why oh why did he hide the rifle?

Hmmmmm??

For one thing he is holding it in his hands and is on the move unlike the shells which he would have to gather up in the shooting location in front of a window from which he has just shot the President.  He has one bullet left and doesn't know if anyone else is on the floor.  Maybe he anticipates having to shoot someone to reach the stairs.  So he carries it with him until he is near the stairs and it is a simple matter to slide it between some boxes.  However, the point is not why he hid the rifle or didn't hide the shells, it is that the discovery of these items were not the reason he was initially suspected.  Finding them did not result in his arrest.  He was suspected and arrested because of his actions.  The rifle and shells were traced to him later.  The original claim was that he would buy time for himself by picking up the shells.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 06, 2012, 07:31:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:cop: He didn't just "slide it between some boxes". He took the time to make a slot for it out of boxes and then stacked other boxes atop of that.

And what "actions" led to him being suspected and arrested for the murder of JFK? Drinking a Coke in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

How do you know this?  Couldn't some of that been done beforehand?  Regardless, it takes him only a few seconds.  I guess fleeing the scene, matching the description of the assassin, getting a gun on the way to the movies and shooting a police officer is not suspicious to you.  Isn't that why he was arrested per my original point?  Do you disagree and believe he was arrested because he didn't hide the shells?  That was the claim that I was addressing.  
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 06, 2012, 07:39:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly, Colin. Thanks.

What do you say to that, Bill? Stuck between boxes and boxes pulled over top of them. Mommy never tell you not to tell lies, boy?

Boone's testimony does not describe the rifle as being "buried beneath a stack of boxes".  Try again.

Also, why are you misquoting Boone?  He did not say that the rifle was "stuck between boxes and boxes pulled over top of them".  When you have to lie, it only shows that you've lost.  Why do you constantly lie?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 06, 2012, 07:44:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:cop: He didn't just "slide it between some boxes". He took the time to make a slot for it out of boxes and then stacked other boxes atop of that.

And what "actions" led to him being suspected and arrested for the murder of JFK? Drinking a Coke in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

More lies.  Oswald did not stack "boxes" atop of that and it certainly was not "buried", as you would have us believe.  This stuff is JFK Assassination 101 and you don't have a clue about it at all.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 06, 2012, 07:47:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is no possibility of Oswald pulling this off and escaping unnoticed.
Does the fact that Oswald did manage to escape unnoticed all the way to the Texas Theater after walking out from TSBD mean he didn't do it? Is that what you are suggesting Richard?

No.  A person matching his description was identified as the shooter.  His absence was noted to the police by Truly.  He was very fortunate to get out of the building as he was approached by a police officer holding a gun on him and is arrested in short order.  However, your original point was that he was a meticulous planner in the case of Walker and appears less so with JFK.  Citing an example of his failure to hide the shells.  Implying that this is sinister.  However, as I pointed out, those were very different situations.  There was no good escape plan under the circumstances presented in the JFK assassination.  And finding the shells had nothing to do with identifying Oswald as a suspect since there was no immediate way to connect him to those shells.  As a result, it wouldn't have bought him any additional time to hide the shells.  
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 06, 2012, 08:00:02 PM
Ssh...I have a new student in my class!  Good Old Walt Cakebread needs some "educatin'" on the rifle too!  This is from 2008.

********************************************

> Boone didn't say CE 139 was NOT that same rifle that he'd found...He
> said it looked like the same rifle. -- Walt

I said:

But he COULDN'T POSITIVELY ID it could he? I guess Walt will play the
same game of "well it could be" despite him saying he "couldn't
positively say it was."
  Why did Ball NOT ask him if it was the same
rifle?  Why the lame question of "does it look the same?"  Why?
Because in law school you are taught NEVER to ask a question you don't
either know the answer to, or the answer is detrimental to your case.

(New note: Who else plays this game?  Good old Bill Brown is who!)

> When Boone was shown a photo (CE 514) of the rifle insitu.....he said
> he couldn't be sure...-- Walt

I said:

Right, and it seems if he was shown the same rifle it would have said
"yes it is."  Walt doesn't get this is called "reasonable doubt" which
means when you CANNOT prove your claims you have planted doubt in the
jury's mind.

> Boone said the rifle in the photo that he was being shown (The rifle
> down among the boxes AFTER many other boxes had been removed) " looked
> to be", "appeared to be", "seemed to be", the same the same rifle he
> had found BURIED BENEATH boxes of books.  He could not BE 100%
> absolutely sure that it was because he could only see a small portion
> of it in the photo. -- Walt

(New note: The ONLY other person who has said the rifle was "buried beneath boxes" is good old Walt Cakebread!
While it is true it was COVERED by boxes, the term "buried" is inappropriate.  The point is still the same though, the
time it took to hide the rifle in the way it was found would take LONGER than the time alloted for LHO to hide it.)


I said:

Well Walt exaggerates again.  Here is what Boone testified to.

Mr. BALL - I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you
tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor
that day?

Mr. BOONE - It looks like the same rifle. **I have no way of being
positive.**


Mr. BALL - You never handled it?

Mr. BOONE - I did not touch the weapon at all.

Where does he say "seems to be" or "appears to be"?

Now according to the WC this is because he did not touch the rifle,
thus, giving the impression he did not really look at it. But then he
goes on to answer two questions based on viewing the rifle.


Senator COOPER - Did you notice whether the rifle that you discovered
had a telescopic sight?

Mr. BOONE - Yes, it did.

Senator COOPER - Did it have a sling?

Mr. BOONE - Yes, it did. Because Captain Fritz picked it up by the
sling when he removed it from its resting place.

Wow, this is pretty good for someone who really wasn't very
interested. The other thing they ignore (LNers like Walt) is that the
WC claimed Weitzman called it a Mauser first, but here we see Boone
says it was Capt. Fritz.


Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
rifle as a Mauser that day?


Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
thought it was 7.65 Mauser.

Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?

Mr. BOONE - **I believe Captain Fritz.** He had knelt down there to
look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said
that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his
name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a
7.65 Mauser.

>  What about the WC ignoring and burying Weitzman's affidavit Dave?

>  What about Weitzman swearing is an affidavit when he only got a
>  "glimpse" of the rifle Dave? -- Two questions by me for DVP

Walt said:

> Dear SB... An affidavit does NOT necessarily state the true and
> accurate facts....It is merely a written account of a witness
> recording what he BELIEVES to be true.

(New note: SB was shorthand for STUPID Barsteward -- something Walt called anyone who
disagreed with his insane logic -- which was most of us!)


I said:

Boy this guy shoots himself in the foot constantly in an effort to
keep all his lies going at once.  How many times as Walt argued in
defense of Brennan that his early statements were the most accurate?
Prove Weitzman's affidavit is NOT accurate.  While you are at it, and
since you are helping DVP
, explain why the WC made no reference to, or
included the affidavit in their report.

>  What about Weitzman describing the rifle and scope in great detail
> despite only "glancing" at the rifle Dave? -- Me to DVP

Walt said:

> When did Weitzman give a detailed description that included the
> statement that he'd seen 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.  Obviously
> Day statrted examining the rifle as soon as he removed it from where
> it had been HIDDEN by BURYING it BENEATH boxes of books.  Weitzman
> could easily have seen Day dusting the rifle for prints ( He found the
> smudge (palm print) at that time) and remember that it had a heavt
> leather sling and other details.

I said:

You are a conniver and a liar.  I will include Weitzman's description
again so you CAN'T IGNORE it this time. This is what I wrote to Dave
yesterday.

(Quote on)

In addition to the telescopic sight he described the rifle in pretty
good detail for only getting a "glimpse" of it.

He said it "...was gun-metal color...blue metal...the rear portion of
the bolt was VISIBLY WORN...dark brown oak...rough wood."
(VII, p.
109) (Emphasis mine)

Not bad for a "glimpse", huh?

(Quote off)

Now Walt, how would he see the bolt was visibly worn if he did NOT
really look at but for a glimpse?

> There ya go Dave....Happy ta help you out -- Walt being proud of HELPING
fellow LNer DVP -- but keep in mind -- Walt CLAIMED to be a CTER!


I said:

All you did was help with the lies.  Walt is really pathetic now as
his only comrades are his fellow LNers.

> Ha.ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO. -- Walt

I said:

Spreading lies causes glee in the Cakebread house.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 06, 2012, 08:29:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, let's say for the sake of argument that Oswald was on the first floor during the shooting and strolled up to the second floor to get a Coke when confronted by Baker. What else must be or is in all probability true?

1. Howard Brennan gave an Oswald-like description of the shooter who was nonetheless not Oswald. (They used an Oswald "double.")
2. No one else saw this Oswald-like character leave the building. (Could have hidden and been ferried out later.)
3. This Oswald-looking character used Oswald's real rifle for the assassination, or alternatively, this rifle was later linked to Oswald by massive fabrication of evidence and the lying of witnesses.
4. The conspirators needed to make sure Oswald remained out of sight during the motorcade. (I suppose you could have lured Oswald there under false pretenses.)

After the assassination, and after going to get a Coke (for whatever reason), Oswald suddenly realizes that he's the patsy. He flees and the rest of the scenario happens basically as the Warren Report says.

OK, you just need to fabricate all the evidence connecting the rifle to Oswald. Well, the backyard photos are real. And Oswald is NOT going to turn over his real rifle is an assassin and then wait on the first floor.

I don't see how you can get Oswald's real rifle on the sixth floor and Oswald on the first floor.


Re: Framing a patsy

A more important question; Who turned off Oswald's "Flash Card"?

"JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE
Why He Died And Why It Matters"

By James W. Douglas
p.177

-snip-

"On October 9, 1963, one week before Lee Harvey Oswald began his job at a site overlooking the president's future parade route,
an FBI official in Washington, D.C., disconnected Oswald from a federal alarm system that was about to identify him as a threat to
national security. The FBI man's name was Marvin Gheesling. He was a supervisor in the Soviet espionage section at FBI headquarters.
His timing was remarkable. As author John Newman remarked in an analysis of this phenomenon, Gheesling "turned off the alarm switch
on Oswald literally an instant before it would have gone off."


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oct_63-08.jpg)

Canceling LHO's Flash Card allowed him to go unnoticed at the TSBD,

directly on JFK's parade route, despite reports like the 2 below coming from Mexico City.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oswald20in20mexico.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oswald20in20mexico202.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 06, 2012, 11:03:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:cop: He didn't just "slide it between some boxes". He took the time to make a slot for it out of boxes and then stacked other boxes atop of that.

And what "actions" led to him being suspected and arrested for the murder of JFK? Drinking a Coke in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

You don't know that for a fact. And there was room enough to simply slip it between the boxes. You are making a big deal out the difference between 2 seconds and 5 seconds.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 07, 2012, 12:13:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It doesn't matter what you think Oswald thought fortunate or not Richard. The fact remains that he got out of the building when you guys thought he wouldn't. What does that tell you other than you think he got lucky? Could it also mean he didn't shoot JFK and that is why he got away. You LN's need to sit down and admit that no one saw him come down those stairs and that Brennan is delusional if he claims to know Oswald's height when he never saw him standing. Brennan is your 15 minutes of fame witness and he has got a book to prove it. The shells automatically alerted the DPD to maybe look for a rifle on the 6th. Had there been no witnesses how else are you going to know where the shots came from?

No one saw anyone come down the stairs.  Oswald or otherwise.  Does that prove no one assassinated JFK and he is still alive?  That's a very silly line of logic.  The gun and bullets are there.  Witnesses place a shooter on the 6th floor.  So we know someone was there and got out of the building.  Oswald is the missing guy.   
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 07, 2012, 12:45:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"When I did--I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it. And I hollered that the rifle was here."

What part of this are you having trouble comprehending?

You think Oswald "took the time to make a slot for it out of boxes"? Hilarious. You've been putting too much bark in your soup.

(http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)

The "slot" extended for about 20 feet and was noticeable to anyone walking W along the N wall. The very bottom of the slot wasn't evident, which may explain why it eluded notice for while (rifle position's slot arrowed above). Cartons were roughly stacked there temporarily so as to get access to a floor section at a time that they were covering with new plywood.

Eugene Boone, then 75, said in an interview last year: "It looked like someone had moved some of the boxes over slightly, to make a sort of hiding spot. It is my belief that Oswald created this pre-made spot so he could just toss the rifle on his way to the stairwell."

Seems he's unaware of the floor-laying crew having to shift boxes.

Like Marsh said, plenty of room to slip it between the boxes.

(http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_wcd496_0045.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 07, 2012, 01:03:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You think Oswald "took the time to make a slot for it out of boxes"? Hilarious. You've been putting too much bark in your soup.

(http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)

The "slot" extended for about 20 feet and was noticeable to anyone walking W along the N wall. The very bottom of the slot wasn't evident, which may explain why it eluded notice for while (rifle position's slot arrowed above). Cartons were roughly stacked there temporarily so as to get access to a floor section at a time that they were covering with new plywood.

Eugene Boone, then 75, said in an interview last year: "It looked like someone had moved some of the boxes over slightly, to make a sort of hiding spot. It is my belief that Oswald created this pre-made spot so he could just toss the rifle on his way to the stairwell."

Seems he's unaware of the floor-laying crew having to shift boxes.

Like Marsh said, plenty of room to slip it between the boxes.

(http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_wcd496_0045.jpg)


Mr. BOONE - Well, I proceeded to the east end of the building, I guess, and started working our way across the building to the west wall, looking in, under, and around all the boxes and pallets, and what-have-you that were on the floor. Looking for the weapon. And as I got to the west wall, there were a row of windows there, and a slight space between some boxes and the wall. I squeezed through them.
When I did--I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it. And I hollered that the rifle was here.



It seems that the hiding of the rifle was not merely a simple positioning between the boxes as seen in the SS reenactment. Some slight rearranging was done to partially cover the rifle from above. It looks like this involved shifting 2 boxes. As Anthony said it likely added a few seconds to do this.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 07, 2012, 02:41:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"When I did--I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it. And I hollered that the rifle was here."

What part of this are you having trouble comprehending?

You said:

"buried beneath a stack of boxes"    :cuckoo:

Why don't you take a moment to show any portion of Boone's testimony where he says that the rifle was "buried beneath a stack of boxes".  Until you do this, the comprehension problem is very obviously yours.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bob Mady on September 07, 2012, 02:42:58 AM
I don't understand why the sniper would attempt to hide the rifle.
The sniper had just fired a number of times with the gun barrel projecting out a window on the sixth floor of the building in view of 200-600 witnesses that he would have to assume would have looked up when the shots were fired in order to locate the source of the sound? Why not drop the gun and walk away?
It's just me, but it seems that I would assume that the TSBD would have been stormed by every cop in the city within minutes.
The hulls were left on the floor, why take the time to wipe the rifle down and then hide it?
Oswald had to be smart enough to realize he would be the number 1 suspect with his history, even if he didn't do it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 07, 2012, 02:59:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand why the sniper would attempt to hide the rifle.
The sniper had just fired a number of times with the gun barrel projecting out a window on the sixth floor of the building in view of 200-600 witnesses that he would have to assume would have looked up when the shots were fired in order to locate the source of the sound? Why not drop the gun and walk away?
It's just me, but it seems that I would assume that the TSBD would have been stormed by every cop in the city within minutes.
The hulls were left on the floor, why take the time to wipe the rifle down and then hide it?
Oswald had to be smart enough to realize he would be the number 1 suspect with his history, even if he didn't do it.
He had a round in the MC and no way of knowing if he would need to use it right there and then.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 07, 2012, 03:03:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. BOONE - Well, I proceeded to the east end of the building, I guess, and started working our way across the building to the west wall, looking in, under, and around all the boxes and pallets, and what-have-you that were on the floor. Looking for the weapon. And as I got to the west wall, there were a row of windows there, and a slight space between some boxes and the wall. I squeezed through them.
When I did--I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it. And I hollered that the rifle was here.

It seems that the hiding of the rifle was not merely a simple positioning between the boxes as seen in the SS reenactment. Some slight rearranging was done to partially cover the rifle from above. It looks like this involved shifting 2 boxes. As Anthony said it likely added a few seconds to do this.

(http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_wcd496_0045.jpg)

The photo was taken by the DPD within minutes of Boone's discovery, with the rifle and boxes undisturbed. Two boxes (top of photo) overlay the rifle position but are elevated from touching the rifle by boxes. Boone assumes they were pulled over the rifle position to help conceal it.

But it's like OJ's stocking cap (it wouldn't much hide his well-known face): what good did it do for Oswald to stop and pull the boxes over intentionally? The concealment was in the slot, with or without boxes having to be moved.

Possibility: Oswald leaned forward over the boxes (at top of photo), placed or let his rifle down into the slot, and then, to regain his vertical balance, put his arms onto the boxes. The two boxes then slid a bit as he pushed off. He may have been in a hurry.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 07, 2012, 03:08:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand why the sniper would attempt to hide the rifle.
The sniper had just fired a number of times with the gun barrel projecting out a window on the sixth floor of the building in view of 200-600 witnesses that he would have to assume would have looked up when the shots were fired in order to locate the source of the sound? Why not drop the gun and walk away?
It's just me, but it seems that I would assume that the TSBD would have been stormed by every cop in the city within minutes.
The hulls were left on the floor, why take the time to wipe the rifle down and then hide it?
Oswald had to be smart enough to realize he would be the number 1 suspect with his history, even if he didn't do it.

False premises. The barrel was not sticking out of the window. The acoustical tests indicate the rifle was pulled back from the window by almost 2 feet.
The rifle was not well hidden, but well enough that it took time to find it.
A lot of criminals wipe down a weapon so the police have no fingerprints to identify.
Forget the hulls. The police couldn't even figure out where the ammo was purchases let along who bought it. Hell, they couldn't even figure out what type of bullet was shot at General Walker.
You are smart enough to realize that Oswald would be the number 1 patsy given his history.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 07, 2012, 03:15:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_wcd496_0045.jpg)

The photo was taken by the DPD within minutes of Boone's discovery, with the rifle and boxes undisturbed. Two boxes (top of photo) overlay the rifle position but are elevated from touching the rifle by boxes. Boone assumes they were pulled over the rifle position to help conceal it.

But it's like OJ's stocking cap (it wouldn't much hide his well-known face): what good did it do for Oswald to stop and pull the boxes over intentionally? The concealment was in the slot, with or without boxes having to be moved.

Possibility: Oswald leaned forward over the boxes (at top of photo), placed or let his rifle down into the slot, and then, to regain his vertical balance, put his arms onto the boxes. The two boxes then slid a bit as he pushed off. He may have been in a hurry.
They always demand IN SITU photos in kookland. When you show 'em one..................... :rofl:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 07, 2012, 03:31:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hey, Bill, how's it going? Have I told you to go pound sand up your a$$ lately? If not, have at 'er.

Boone definitely says there were boxes pulled over the slot. How many boxes it takes to make a stack, I don't know. Why don't you show us what a weenie you are and spend the next six or seven posts getting all worked up about it?

The point is, LHO allegedly did not just drop the rifle between two stacks of boxes. He took the time to carefully hide it and, if his leisurely lingering in the SN is any indication, he was in no hurry hiding it.

No.  MY point is that you exaggerated when you said that the rifle was "buried beneath a stack of boxes".  Why exaggerate?  We can all see Boone's testimony for ourselves.  We can all see the photo for ourselves.  Well, all of us except you.  You were unaware that it existed.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 07, 2012, 03:39:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_wcd496_0045.jpg)

The photo was taken by the DPD within minutes of Boone's discovery, with the rifle and boxes undisturbed. Two boxes (top of photo) overlay the rifle position but are elevated from touching the rifle by boxes. Boone assumes they were pulled over the rifle position to help conceal it.

But it's like OJ's stocking cap (it wouldn't much hide his well-known face): what good did it do for Oswald to stop and pull the boxes over intentionally? The concealment was in the slot, with or without boxes having to be moved.

Possibility: Oswald leaned forward over the boxes (at top of photo), placed or let his rifle down into the slot, and then, to regain his vertical balance, put his arms onto the boxes. The two boxes then slid a bit as he pushed off. He may have been in a hurry.

Seems reasonable to me Jerry. The 2 boxes at the top of the photo may well have shifted as the gunman stood back up after leaning over. Either way it seems only a few seconds to place the gun.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bob Mady on September 07, 2012, 04:18:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
False premises. The barrel was not sticking out of the window. The acoustical tests indicate the rifle was pulled back from the window by almost 2 feet.

So the witnesses that claimed to see the gun barrel protruding out the window were mistaken?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 07, 2012, 04:33:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So the witnesses that claimed to see the gun barrel protruding out the window were mistaken?

You're correct, Bob.  The rifle barrel was indeed protruding out the window at least a little bit, as multiple witnesses described.  Anthony Marsh places too much emphasis on the faulty acoustic "evidence".
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bob Mady on September 07, 2012, 04:41:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
False premises. The barrel was not sticking out of the window. The acoustical tests indicate the rifle was pulled back from the window by almost 2 feet.

Brennan - statement "I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. "

Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window  as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.

Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what direction the gun was pointing.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.


Mr. SPECTER. How many shots did you hear altogether?
Mr. EUINS. I believe there was four, to be exact.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, where were you looking at the time of the third shot, if you remember?
Mr. EUINS. After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity.

Mr. EUINS. It was sticking out about that much.
Mr. SPECTER. About 14 or 15 inches?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.  

Euins and Brennan were key witnesses, were their recollections correct when it came to seeing sniper but they lied about seeing the carbine?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 07, 2012, 02:51:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald is the missing guy. Do you reckon he went missing cause he knew he was the Patsy or can you definitely prove he was the shooter? If you can then go ahead Richard. Lets forget its his rifle for the moment and place him on the 6th making those shots. If you can't do that then at least prove he came directly down the stairs from the 6th after the shots. If you can't do that you can't call him the shooter. You just have a guy who claims he didn't shoot anybody.
Oswald to me is still a suspect but to you guys he is a convicted killer even though you can't prove a thing. The very reasons that you guys have to suspect it must be Oswald are the very reasons why he should remain a suspect and this case far from closed.
If you LN's are secretly hoping one of us kooks are going to break this case open you're more kookier than us CT's will ever be. Showing how biased and deceitfully inept the WC investigation really was is as good as it gets.

I don't understand this logic.  Do you agree that there was a shooter on the 6th floor?  If there was, then we know that person got out of the building without being apprehended.  Whether it was Oswald or someone else.  So getting down the stairs and out of the building is entirely consistent with what happened.  It doesn't prove that Oswald was not the shooter simply because no one saw him on the stairs.  The only way that logic works is if there was no shooter in the building and the entire sniper's nest was a plant.  That would explain why no one was seen on the stairs, but that is tin foil hat material.  Is that what you are saying?  Maybe if you clarify whether you believe there was a shooter on the 6th floor or not it would help.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 07, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one saw anyone come down the stairs.  Oswald or otherwise.  Does that prove no one assassinated JFK and he is still alive?  That's a very silly line of logic.  The gun and bullets are there.  Witnesses place a shooter on the 6th floor.  So we know someone was there and got out of the building.  Oswald is the missing guy.   

Nice try Dick/Uncle Ronnie, but the topic is the *claim* that LHO did this and you can't show he did.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 07, 2012, 05:25:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've got no idea what really happened Richard. No point asking me any questions. My logic is that you can't simply just say it MUST have been Oswald cause it was his rifle. If I left the keys in my car and someone steals it and runs someone over with it while on a joy ride and then flees the accident on foot and leaves the car behind, does that mean I am guilty because it is my car?
Oswald was apparently seen and can be vouched for on the 2nd floor by a police officer and his supervisor about 90 seconds after the shots. No one saw him come down those stairs or the lift when someone in all probability (and you agree with this) should have seen him.
My guess has always been that this was planned. How else would you get away with it?

Paul, I'm curious.

In your opinion, were shots fired from the sixth floor of the Depository building?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 07, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
Let's go back to Harold Weisberg for his take on the hiding of the rifle.  In Case Open he reviews Gerald Posner's Case Closed and shows us how wrong Posner got it.

Quote on

In admitting what certainly cast some doubt on Oswald's expectation of getting away with what is attributed to him firing all of the shots from that sixth-floor window, Posner says he "could NOT be certain of finding a deserted floor or area from which to shoot."  Posner ends this consideration without going further, but the fact is that Oswald, most of all whose work was on the floor, knew very well that it was the floor of the warehouse LEAST LIKELY to be "deserted" because a new floor was being laid on it.  That put people there all time other than at lunchtime and with the low wages paid, there was no certainty at all that one or more of the men paid so little would not brown-bag.  Or, as Posner does NOT spell out, the floor with the LEAST probability of being "deserted" was the VERY ONE Oswald supposedly selected.

As part of his NO-source MIND READING Posner says that "it was NOT a suicide mission.  Oswald wanted to escape."  That no doubt accounts for his leaving all but fifteen dollars of what he had for Marina, keeping an insignificant sum for any escape.

Without any other word about the crime, with which he does later toy around, disconnected from the vital evidence he here plays his special kinds of games with, Posner begins the second page of this chapter (page 264)"

"After firing the final shot, he slipped through the narrow gap he had created between the carton of books. He hurried diagonally across the sixth floor, toward the rear staircase.  Next to the stairs, Oswald dropped the rifle into an opening between several large boxes. It hid the gun from view unless someone stood almost directly over the boxes and peered down."

This is quite a jumble and it jerks the reader's mind quite a bit, not an unwise trick considering what Posner is up to.   

It reveals his skilled practice of OMISSION OF THE BEST EVIDENCE. He need NOT have left his account of how Oswald supposedly disposed of the rifle so vague when the Commission, as he certainly knew from that devoted reading of its evidence, as well as indexing it, too, had photographs of that rifle as found. They were taken by police identification unit photographer, Lieutenant Carl Day and his assistant, Robert Lee Studebaker. Studebaker's testimony is included in what Posner read in his diligent research of all those Commission volumes. It is in Volume 7, beginning on page 137. But then Posner is PREJUDICED AGAINST Studebaker, or may be against crime-scene pictures, because with more than 600 pages he makes NO mention of Studebaker's name.  NOT one time.

Of course in his own book Posner is entitled to decide for himself what pictures he wants and does not want. Posner has sixteen pages of pictures most appearing more than one picture to a page, yet for a book supposedly THE MOST DEFINITIVE on the crime itself he has NOT a single crime-scene picture, not one having any evidentiary value. He decided that BABY PICTURES OF OSWALD and others already widely published of Oswald in Minsk were more important. PICTURES OF EVIDENCE WERE LESS TO HIS LIKING. It is his book; he has his rights, and so do others, to question and to interpret.

While Studebaker is a nonperson to Posner, his boss, Lieutenant Carl Day, appears on six pages of this chapter without Posner mentioning him in connection with the FINDING OF THAT RIFLE. He also took pictures of it as did Studebaker. And testified to its finding.

All the evidence is that Posner wrote WHAT HE KNEW WAS UNTRUE on Oswald's alleged getting rid of that rifle. Posner's words, are that "Oswald dropped the rifle into an opening between several large boxes."

Posner's KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATION of this is essential in his PHONY time reconstruction of Oswald's alleged flight, bit it has another, considerable importance. IT IS ACTUALLY PROOF that Oswald DID NOT and COULD NOT have put the rifle where it was found and, if in flight, he could NOT have possibly put it there AS IT WAS FOUND. It is the reason Posner does NOT mention those pictures.

Later, when Posner gets to the finding of the rifle, about which he had already conditioned his reader's mind, HE LETS SLIP THE FACT IT WAS "HIDDEN." This in the part of a single paragraph (on page 271) that he devotes, knowingly inadequately and incompletely, to the finding of the rifle.

He knows that Oswald could NOT have just "dropped" the rifle (on page 264) while allegedly rushing to escape and by "dropping" it also have "hidden" it as he lets slip out seven pages later.

Like all his DISHONESTIES, this is NOT without purpose. It is ESSENTIAL to his knowingly FALSE TIME reconstruction that in turn is indispensable to the possibility of his having the book he ended up with.

Harold Weisberg, Case Open, Carroll & Graf, 1995, pages 111-112 (emphasis mine)

Quote off

How enlightening is this? Did you see the comment about "mind reading?"  Or about his "games?"  Or his OMISSION of the best evidence?

Posner is the blueprint for all the LNers on here and other boards as they all use the same tricks!  They have to as the evidence the WC gave us simply does NOT support a single claim they make in regards to the assassination and the shooting of JDT.






 

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 07, 2012, 05:48:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They always demand IN SITU photos in kookland. When you show 'em one..................... :rofl:

How's it going Posner?  He TOO was terrified of crime-scene photos!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 07, 2012, 06:09:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes shots were fired from the 6th IMHO but I don't know how many. It is difficult to argue against that Bill. The boys down on the 5th floor seemed pretty sure ALL the shots came from above but then you have someone like Dougherty who says he was on the 5th as well and only heard one shot which he thought was backfire.
My suspicion is that there was more than one shooter and I also suspect they may not have been in the same place when doing the shooting.
The reason I subscribe to more than one shooter is the shot sequence as was heard my most ear-witnesses. The timing of the last 2 shots was a real concern for the WC.
Let me ask you in return Bill whether you think its possible for the 6th floor shooter to escape via the lifts unseen?

Thanks, Paul.  So how do you believe the gunman got down from the sixth floor?


Quote
Let me ask you in return Bill whether you think its possible for the 6th floor shooter to escape via the lifts unseen?

I doubt it.  At least not the west elevator.  Dougherty took it down from the fifth floor after hearing what he described as a "loud noise".
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 07, 2012, 06:35:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am pretty sure no one saw the shooter come down those stairs when they should have, so I am guessing the lifts. With or without Dougherty.

I think you're wrong.

No one saw the shooter come down the stairs because no one was on the stairs at the time.  Since Vickie Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady upon reaching the first floor, it is obvious that she and Styles descended the stairs much later than Oswald going down, as well as Baker and Truly coming up.  Shelley and Lovelady were both outside at the time of the shots and went to the lot behind the fence for a bit before eventually entering the Depository building, to be seen by Adams.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jon Davies on September 08, 2012, 07:16:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's simply no way that conspirators could control the movements of the patsy-to-be.  If the patsy is seen anywhere besides the sixth floor by a single person, the conspiracy is exposed.  Conspirators could try to control the patsy's movements, but they could not be guaranteed that the patsy would be where they want him.  Therefore, because of the uncertainty, they would not even attempt this.  They would have went a different route.

You know it. :thumbs1xx:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 08, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one saw a
Shooter so it must be Oswald cos no strangers in the TSBD
Old man with kidney probs
2suits at foot of elevator
Doughertys FBI MAN
Truly and Bakers tan jacket man

That's 4 and still can't get Oswald even near the shooting
Tell us some more fiction Bill
You will ignore the obvious to slide through the maze.
It's too tortuous Bill every crazy explanation but the obvious
He was not there.nobody saw him up or down
So iT loOks like truly or and Baker lied

Ugh.  Need a TUMS.  The claim was that Oswald could not have been the shooter because no one saw him come down the stairs.  Do you see the inconsistency in acknowledging that shots were fired from the 6th floor but that it could not have been Oswald because no one saw him coming down?  Whoever it was got down and out of the building.  Whether that was Oswald or someone else.  Therefore, the only conclusion is that it's not only possible but exactly what happened and not evidence that proves Oswald is innocent.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 08, 2012, 04:00:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think you're wrong.

No one saw the shooter come down the stairs because no one was on the stairs at the time.  Since Vickie Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady upon reaching the first floor, it is obvious that she and Styles descended the stairs much later than Oswald going down, as well as Baker and Truly coming up.  Shelley and Lovelady were both outside at the time of the shots and went to the lot behind the fence for a bit before eventually entering the Depository building, to be seen by Adams.


What makes you so sure that Vickie Adams did indeed see Shelley and Lovelady when she reached the first floor.... I know it is in her testimony, but it is also common knowledge that she has denied since that she ever said that in her testimony. Also Shelley and Lovelady did not corroborate this encounter.

In fact, despite Ball's leading questions, Shelley was clueless and thought he might have seen her on the fourth floor, and thus not the first floor

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Vickie Adams?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw her that day but I don't remember where I saw her.
Mr. BALL - You don't remember whether you saw her when you came back?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was after we entered the building.
Mr. BALL - You think you did see her after you entered the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; I thought it was on the fourth floor awhile after that.

Lovelady also couldn't be sure;

Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.  Comment: isn't this a strange remark, since nobody had mentioned a Vickie before
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.

Mr. BALL - Where was the girl?
Mr. LOVELADY - I don't remember what place she was but I remember seeing a girl as she was talking to Bill or saw Bill or something, then I went over and asked one of the guys what time it was and to see if we should continue working or what.

Lovelady seems to have been coached prior to his testimony. Hence the remark "but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie." which indicates she must have been discussed earlier. In any case, all Lovelady could say was that he saw a girl when he entered the building and he couldn't be sure that it was Vickie Adams.

I believe Sandra Styles also denied having seen Shelley and Lovelady, but as she has not testified I'll put that aside.

So what we've got is Adams who denies having said anything about seeing Shelley and Lovelady and we have both men who clearly can not corroborate the alleged encounter. Now let's be kind to the Warren Commission for a moment and assume Adams did in fact make the comment after all, The LNrs are always going on about how witnesses are confused and mistaken. In this case however you seem to instantly dismiss any possibility of a mistake or confusion on Adams part. You also disbelieve her later denials that she ever said it and you ignore that Shelley and Lovelady did not confirm seeing her at all.

So, why are you so sure that Adams was not mistaken or confused in her testimony, if she said it at all?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 08, 2012, 04:07:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ugh.  Need a TUMS.  The claim was that Oswald could not have been the shooter because no one saw him come down the stairs.  Do you see the inconsistency in acknowledging that shots were fired from the 6th floor but that it could not have been Oswald because no one saw him coming down?  Whoever it was got down and out of the building.  Whether that was Oswald or someone else.  Therefore, the only conclusion is that it's not only possible but exactly what happened and not evidence that proves Oswald is innocent.

Considering Oswald was absent from the row call common sense should prevail......but rarely does.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 08, 2012, 04:13:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Considering Oswald was absent from the row call common sense should prevail......but rarely does.


"Common sense" = assumption and speculation......

Once investigated things very often turn out to be different that at first assumed.

If you have been involved in over 200 murder investigations (as you say you have) you really should know better than to resort to speculation and assumptions.

The fact that Oswald was absent from a row call proves...... absolutely nothing!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 08, 2012, 04:17:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Common sense" = assumption and speculation......

Once investigated things very often turn out to be different that at first assumed.

If you have been involved in over 200 murder investigations (as you say you have) you really should know better than to resort to speculation and assumptions.

The fact that Oswald was absent from a row call proves...... absolutely nothing!

Wrong again.  Consciousness of guilt.  Huge in a circumstantial evidence case.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 08, 2012, 04:32:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Wrong again.  Consciousness of guilt.  Huge in a circumstantial evidence case.


If you can prove that is what it was..... A guy leaving a building is hardly proof of consciousness of guilt. Others left the building also......

When he left the building through the front door he took the time to show a reporter (which he believed to be a law enforcement officer) a phone in the building. Later he offers his cab to a lady asking for one....

If there was consciousness of guilt would he really have left the building through the front door, where all the police was, when he could have gone out the backdoor as well?

I doubt it very much.....so it is your "common sense" that concludes there is "consciousness of guilt"..... however "common sense" is nothing more than assumption.

The thing with speculation and assumption is that if you have enough of it you can find anybody guilty of any crime!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 08, 2012, 09:54:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What makes you so sure that Vickie Adams did indeed see Shelley and Lovelady when she reached the first floor.... I know it is in her testimony, but it is also common knowledge that she has denied since that she ever said that in her testimony. Also Shelley and Lovelady did not corroborate this encounter.

In fact, despite Ball's leading questions, Shelley was clueless and thought he might have seen her on the fourth floor, and thus not the first floor

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Vickie Adams?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw her that day but I don't remember where I saw her.
Mr. BALL - You don't remember whether you saw her when you came back?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was after we entered the building.
Mr. BALL - You think you did see her after you entered the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; I thought it was on the fourth floor awhile after that.

Lovelady also couldn't be sure;

Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.  Comment: isn't this a strange remark, since nobody had mentioned a Vickie before
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.

Mr. BALL - Where was the girl?
Mr. LOVELADY - I don't remember what place she was but I remember seeing a girl as she was talking to Bill or saw Bill or something, then I went over and asked one of the guys what time it was and to see if we should continue working or what.

Lovelady seems to have been coached prior to his testimony. Hence the remark "but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie." which indicates she must have been discussed earlier. In any case, all Lovelady could say was that he saw a girl when he entered the building and he couldn't be sure that it was Vickie Adams.

I believe Sandra Styles also denied having seen Shelley and Lovelady, but as she has not testified I'll put that aside.

So what we've got is Adams who denies having said anything about seeing Shelley and Lovelady and we have both men who clearly can not corroborate the alleged encounter. Now let's be kind to the Warren Commission for a moment and assume Adams did in fact make the comment after all, The LNrs are always going on about how witnesses are confused and mistaken. In this case however you seem to instantly dismiss any possibility of a mistake or confusion on Adams part. You also disbelieve her later denials that she ever said it and you ignore that Shelley and Lovelady did not confirm seeing her at all.

So, why are you so sure that Adams was not mistaken or confused in her testimony, if she said it at all?


"What makes you so sure that Vickie Adams did indeed see Shelley and Lovelady when she reached the first floor.... I know it is in her testimony..."
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 08, 2012, 10:24:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What makes you so sure that Vickie Adams did indeed see Shelley and Lovelady when she reached the first floor.... I know it is in her testimony, but it is also common knowledge that she has denied since that she ever said that in her testimony. Also Shelley and Lovelady did not corroborate this encounter.

In fact, despite Ball's leading questions, Shelley was clueless and thought he might have seen her on the fourth floor, and thus not the first floor

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Vickie Adams?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw her that day but I don't remember where I saw her.
Mr. BALL - You don't remember whether you saw her when you came back?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was after we entered the building.
Mr. BALL - You think you did see her after you entered the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; I thought it was on the fourth floor awhile after that.

Lovelady also couldn't be sure;

Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.  Comment: isn't this a strange remark, since nobody had mentioned a Vickie before
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.

Mr. BALL - Where was the girl?
Mr. LOVELADY - I don't remember what place she was but I remember seeing a girl as she was talking to Bill or saw Bill or something, then I went over and asked one of the guys what time it was and to see if we should continue working or what.

Lovelady seems to have been coached prior to his testimony. Hence the remark "but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie." which indicates she must have been discussed earlier. In any case, all Lovelady could say was that he saw a girl when he entered the building and he couldn't be sure that it was Vickie Adams.

I believe Sandra Styles also denied having seen Shelley and Lovelady, but as she has not testified I'll put that aside.

So what we've got is Adams who denies having said anything about seeing Shelley and Lovelady and we have both men who clearly can not corroborate the alleged encounter. Now let's be kind to the Warren Commission for a moment and assume Adams did in fact make the comment after all, The LNrs are always going on about how witnesses are confused and mistaken. In this case however you seem to instantly dismiss any possibility of a mistake or confusion on Adams part. You also disbelieve her later denials that she ever said it and you ignore that Shelley and Lovelady did not confirm seeing her at all.

So, why are you so sure that Adams was not mistaken or confused in her testimony, if she said it at all?

I've got a problem with witnesses who later deny what they said under oath.

Belin wouldn't have interviewed her alone.  He had a court stenographer.  She also was given the opportunity to review her testimony, which she declined to do.

So our suggestion, then, is that both the court stenographer and Belin both mistook what she said, or both conspired to lie about it.  And, then gave her the opportunity to sign what they conspired to lie about.

IMHO, she said what was in the WCR.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 08, 2012, 11:06:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'll bet you believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's, too.

(A) Saddam wasn't under oath.
(B) He didn't change his story.  He lied consistently.
(C) Saddam didn't need 15 minutes of fame as bad as a certain girl on the stairs.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 08, 2012, 11:43:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, let's see what you are saying. Somehow Victoria Adams is seeking a claim to fame because she feels she has been misrepresented by the Warren Commission? That's pretty farfetched, John.

BTW, do you believe Saddam Hussein had WMD's?

Nope....never said that.  And there's really precious little proof she was misrepresented by the WCR.  None, actually.  She gave testimony to Belin, with a court stenographer present, and was given the opportunity to review and sign her statement.  Where is the misrepresentation?

And I think your BTW is a waste of time, so I'll let you wonder about that one.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 09, 2012, 02:20:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(A) Saddam wasn't under oath.
(B) He didn't change his story.  He lied consistently.
(C) Saddam didn't need 15 minutes of fame as bad as a certain girl on the stairs.

But we know why Saddam lied and why. He admitted it to his CIA interrogator. He was bluffing to scare off Iran.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 09, 2012, 02:27:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But we know why Saddam lied and why. He admitted it to his CIA interrogator. He was bluffing to scare off Iran.


Saddam Hussein holds no relevance to this discussion.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 09, 2012, 02:30:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Saddam Hussein holds no relevance to this discussion.

I am not the one who brought him up.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 09, 2012, 02:41:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not the one who brought him up.


If you glance through the thread, you'll see Mr. Prudhomme is the one who brought him up, not me.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 09, 2012, 03:23:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The main point here is she was given the opportunity to sign her statement and waived it. What kind of opportunities do you think that presented to Mr. Specter & Co. ?

So Mr. Specter and co. had the perfect person agree to waive her rights.  And then dealt with either bribing or threatening the court stenographer who transposed the evidence.  Not to mention it was Belin who conducted the interview in Dallas, so this means a minimum of three people broke the law and changed Ms. Adams testimony.  Even though Ms. Adams might have come along at any stage and asked through her attorney to examine her testimony.

All of that had to happen.  That your contention?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 09, 2012, 03:37:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The main point here is she was given the opportunity to sign her statement and waived it. What kind of opportunities do you think that presented to Mr. Specter & Co. ?

She expressed a willingness to waive signing it. In the end though she signed it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 09, 2012, 04:02:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"What makes you so sure that Vickie Adams did indeed see Shelley and Lovelady when she reached the first floor.... I know it is in her testimony..."


Bill does not answer my question but simply quotes part of my opening remark..... very classy, Bill and also totally unconvincing.

When Vickie Adams found out what was in the WCR she denied having ever made the Shelley/Lovelady remark......... but it is in her testimony and so you believe her testimony, right?

Frazier and Randle said in their testimony that the bag shown to them was not the bag they saw LHO carry..... you don't believe them....why? It was in their testimony, wasn't it?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I've got a problem with witnesses who later deny what they said under oath.

Belin wouldn't have interviewed her alone.  He had a court stenographer.  She also was given the opportunity to review her testimony, which she declined to do.

So our suggestion, then, is that both the court stenographer and Belin both mistook what she said, or both conspired to lie about it.  And, then gave her the opportunity to sign what they conspired to lie about.

IMHO, she said what was in the WCR.


John, please show us the signed copy of her testimony with the Shelley/Lovelady remark in it?

It should be in the National Archives but it isn't.... all that's there is an unsigned version which also does not contain the corrections made in the signed copy as mentioned in the Stroud letter.

Strange, don't you think?...... or maybe not, if you accept the possibility that her testimony was indeed altered like she later claimed.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(A) Saddam wasn't under oath.
(B) He didn't change his story.  He lied consistently.
(C) Saddam didn't need 15 minutes of fame as bad as a certain girl on the stairs.


Pardon? Victoria Adams was looking for 15 minutes of fame?

After the assassination she left Dallas and did not speak to anybody about what she had witnessed. It took Barry Ernest over thirty years to track her down. She told him her story but refused to make any public appearances. In fact, after telling her story to Barry she went back to the same anonymity she had lived in for the biggest part of her life.....

You have a very strange definition of somebody needing 15 minutes of fame......
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 09, 2012, 10:43:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're making things overly complicated, John.

For starters, once the steno transposed the statement, she was finished with it. She might likely never see it again. And if she did, and complained, she would simply join the long list of what you LN'rs call the "15 minutes of fame" crowd.

Office girls in 1963 did not have attorneys, so I don't think it's very realistic to think she would have demanded to see her statement again.

Besides, how many people have actually read the WCR? A handful, I assure you. I would imagine Victoria Adams was completely unaware of the changes to her statement until some CT questioned her about it.

Quite the opposite, I think.  The bottom line, Bob, is that the best that can be assumed is it's a "He said, She said" kind of thing, if the interviewers were that casual about it.   Besides, being that the Vickie Adams story is now more public than it once was, don't you think some stenographer somewhere might come forward and say....you know, that isn't what I wrote.  Is there a stenographer anywhere who's come forward?  Any family member of a stenographer that said "my Mom/Dad was troubled by this for years"?  Maybe there is, but I'm unaware of it if so.

Why bother even offer to let her review and sign her statement in the first place then?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 09, 2012, 05:57:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quite the opposite, I think.  The bottom line, Bob, is that the best that can be assumed is it's a "He said, She said" kind of thing, if the interviewers were that casual about it.   Besides, being that the Vickie Adams story is now more public than it once was, don't you think some stenographer somewhere might come forward and say....you know, that isn't what I wrote.  Is there a stenographer anywhere who's come forward?  Any family member of a stenographer that said "my Mom/Dad was troubled by this for years"?  Maybe there is, but I'm unaware of it if so.

Why bother even offer to let her review and sign her statement in the first place then?


You are making the wrong assumptions.... First of all you assume that this stenographer would remember every word every witness ever spoke in his/her presence. Don't forget a stenographer hears people giving testimony day after day for many years. If fact, perhaps you ask one of them if he or she remembers what a witness said yesterday. It doesn't work that way.... the stenographer hears what is being said, writes it down and forgets about it. The information simply does not get processed by the stenographer at all.

The second wrong assumption is that this particular stenograher would still be alive today and if he/she is that he/she would remember having taken Victoria Adams statement. Another wrong assumption is that everybody in America is equally informed about this case and more specifically the release of a book about Vickie Adams..... Well, they are not.... When Barry Ernest found Victoria Adams she herself wasn't aware of all the speculation about her testimony..... Retired S.A. Odum also wasn't aware about his alleged role in the CE 399 chain of custody farce.....

And your final wrong assumption is that all people would be equally willing to come forward with this kind of information and be branded a liar or seeker of 15 minutes of fame as a reward. Most people simply do not care for any of that and don't want to get involved. So, your reasoning is flawed from the beginning.

As I understand it Victoria Adams initially said she would waive signing her deposition. For some unkown reason somebody from the US Attorney office in Dallas later visited her at work and asked her to look over her statement and sign it. She noticed some writing errors and asked for them to be corrected and then signed the document, which Stroud subsequently send by registered mail to Rankin. So, in the Warren Commission files at the National Archives there should be the original deposition of Vickie Adams with her signature under it and including the Shelley/Lovelady remark, right?

Wrong... in the WC files at the National Archives there is only an unsigned version of Adams' testimony without the corrections...... and you don't think this is strange?

The entire "girls on the stairs" issue could have been easily eliminated at any time by presenting to the public the signed version of Vickie Adams' testimony with the Shelley/Lovelady remark in it. So where is it? As it was send by registered mail it is fair to assume that Rankin must have received it, right? This is the question you should be asking.... Where is the signed original?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 09, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
javascript:void(0);

Wrong... in the WC files at the National Archives there is only an unsigned version of Adams' testimony without the corrections...... and you don't think this is strange?


I'm curious as to how you would know that.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 10, 2012, 12:52:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm curious as to how you would know that.

What I'm curious about is how so much of the "evidence" I'm hearing about is from odd sources.  She waived her signing of the deposition, and then "someone from the US Attorney Office in Dallas" contacts her.  Why?  What other witness was this done with?  After all, numerous witnesses waived the signing of their deposition.  Did this ever even happen?

So no, I don't think it's at all strange that an unsigned deposition which concludes with her stating that she waived her signing is what the WCR had, or that this is all that is in the National Archives.

But before we get too twisty about this, here's a quote from Barry Ernest himself:

BARRY ERNEST SAID:


The referenced letter was neither a Commission Document nor a
Commission Exhibit. It was therefore not a part of the public record.
It is not in the Mary Ferrell database either, that I am aware of. A
copy of it exists in the Harold Weisberg collection, which is actually
a copy that I gave him shortly after discovering it in the National
Archives.

It was contained within a box of correspondence and other
miscellaneous paperwork sent from the DOJ office in Dallas to the WC.
It is a June 2, 1964, air mail, registered letter sent by Stroud to
Rankin in which she lists several changes Miss Adams requested be made
to her testimony, none of which were actually done by the way. The
final paragraph, and I will quote this verbatim including the spelling
errors, reads:

      "Mr. Bellin was questioning Miss Adams about whether or not she
saw anyone as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss
Adams' supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went
downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come
up."

As I read it, it seems Mr. Ernest found this in the National Archives himself, and seemingly removed it.  And by description, this didn't seem to exist until Mr. Ernest found it.  Now, I won't question Mr. Ernest's integrity in this matter - I'll go so far as to say that I'd be confident that he found it there.  But now, I have to ask you...don't YOU think this is strange too?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 10, 2012, 01:36:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I'm curious about is how so much of the "evidence" I'm hearing about is from odd sources.  She waived her signing of the deposition, and then "someone from the US Attorney Office in Dallas" contacts her.  Why?  What other witness was this done with?  After all, numerous witnesses waived the signing of their deposition.  Did this ever even happen?

So no, I don't think it's at all strange that an unsigned deposition which concludes with her stating that she waived her signing is what the WCR had, or that this is all that is in the National Archives.

But before we get too twisty about this, here's a quote from Barry Ernest himself:

BARRY ERNEST SAID:


The referenced letter was neither a Commission Document nor a
Commission Exhibit. It was therefore not a part of the public record.
It is not in the Mary Ferrell database either, that I am aware of. A
copy of it exists in the Harold Weisberg collection, which is actually
a copy that I gave him shortly after discovering it in the National
Archives.

It was contained within a box of correspondence and other
miscellaneous paperwork sent from the DOJ office in Dallas to the WC.
It is a June 2, 1964, air mail, registered letter sent by Stroud to
Rankin in which she lists several changes Miss Adams requested be made
to her testimony, none of which were actually done by the way. The
final paragraph, and I will quote this verbatim including the spelling
errors, reads:

      "Mr. Bellin was questioning Miss Adams about whether or not she
saw anyone as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss
Adams' supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went
downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come
up."

As I read it, it seems Mr. Ernest found this in the National Archives himself, and seemingly removed it.  And by description, this didn't seem to exist until Mr. Ernest found it.  Now, I won't question Mr. Ernest's integrity in this matter - I'll go so far as to say that I'd be confident that he found it there.  But now, I have to ask you...don't YOU think this is strange too?

I've said here before that the very existence (authenticity) of the Stroud document is in doubt.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 10, 2012, 04:04:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I've said here before that the very existence (authenticity) of the Stroud document is in doubt.


Tim, you've lost all credibility on this matter.

First you made a big thing about the fact that Victoria Adams had signed her deposition after all, which you said was conclusive proof that she had made the Shelley/Lovelady remark... because she signed it, right?

But then you learned that the corrections mentioned in the Stroud letter were not in the WC version of her testimony. Oops!

So you suddenly turned it around and said that the corrections not being in the WC version were somehow proof that the Stroud letter was incorrect. Now you go even one step further and claim that the "very existence (authenticity)" of the Stroud letter is somehow in doubt.

For crying out loud, Tim.... just how desparate can you get?......

The original of the Stroud letter is still in the National Archives, where Ernest found it in the WC files..... If you don't believe that or think it is a fake, why don't you just go down to the Archives and ask them to show you the letter... I know for a fact that they will show you the letter............. and while you are there why not also ask to see the original version of Victoria Adams' testimony with the corrections and her signature.... oh yeah... that one isn't there....

You are really taking this too far without taking any time to investigate this thing for yourself, as I have done. This is really getting too weird.... a letter by a US Attorney send to the WC General Counsel Rankin by registered mail. the original of which is currently held by the National Archives, suddenly isn't authentic...... really, you are so full of crap, it is beyond believe!


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What I'm curious about is how so much of the "evidence" I'm hearing about is from odd sources.  She waived her signing of the deposition, and then "someone from the US Attorney Office in Dallas" contacts her.  Why?  What other witness was this done with?  After all, numerous witnesses waived the signing of their deposition.  Did this ever even happen?

So no, I don't think it's at all strange that an unsigned deposition which concludes with her stating that she waived her signing is what the WCR had, or that this is all that is in the National Archives.

But before we get too twisty about this, here's a quote from Barry Ernest himself:

= snip -

As I read it, it seems Mr. Ernest found this in the National Archives himself, and seemingly removed it.  And by description, this didn't seem to exist until Mr. Ernest found it.  Now, I won't question Mr.
Ernest's integrity in this matter - I'll go so far as to say that I'd be confident that he found it there.  But now, I have to ask you...don't YOU think this is strange too?



Boy, if you are not an LNr you really should become one very quickly.... All you have just proven is that you can't read or understand what is being written.

Just how stupid or silly can you get?.... Do you really believe that anybody can walk into the National Archives and add or remove an original document? Who am I talking to here? Are you sane?

It didn't exist until Ernest found it?..... LOL  :rofl: The original is still in the National Archives... you can go down there and see it for yourself.

What isn't in the Archives is the signed copy of the Adams' testimony with the corrections which was attached to the Stroud letter.... but that's normal, right?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 10, 2012, 04:18:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, you've lost all credibility on this matter.

First you made a big thing about the fact that Victoria Adams had signed her deposition after all, which you said was conclusive proof that she had made the Shelley/Lovelady remark... because she signed it, right?

But then you learned that the corrections mentioned in the Stroud letter were not in the WC version of her testimony. Oops!

So you suddenly turned it around and said that the corrections not being in the WC version were somehow proof that the Stroud letter was incorrect. Now you go even one step further and claim that the "very existence (authenticity)" of the Stroud letter is somehow in doubt.

For crying out loud, Tim.... just how desparate can you get?......

The original of the Stroud letter is still in the National Archives, where Ernest found it in the WC files..... If you don't believe that or think it is a fake, why don't you just go down to the Archives and ask them to show you the letter... I know for a fact that they will show you the letter............. and while you are there why not also ask to see the original version of Victoria Adams' testimony with the corrections and her signature.... oh yeah... that one isn't there....

You are really taking this too far without taking any time to investigate this thing for yourself, as I have done. This is really getting too weird.... a letter by a US Attorney send to the WC General Counsel Rankin by registered mail. the original of which is currently held by the National Archives, suddenly isn't authentic...... really, you are so full of crap, it is beyond believe!

 

Boy, if you are not an LNr you really should become one very quickly.... All you have just proven is that you can't read or understand what is being written.

Just how stupid or silly can you get?.... Do you really believe that anybody can walk into the National Archives and add or remove an original document? Who am I talking to here? Are you sane?

It didn't exist until Ernest found it?..... LOL  :rofl: The original is still in the National Archives... you can go down there and see it for yourself.

What isn't in the Archives is the signed copy of the Adams' testimony with the corrections which was attached to the Stroud letter.... but that's normal, right?

I'm getting pretty tired of you half-reading what i say, and cherry-picking.

My reference was to the Stroud letter, and had you read everything I wrote, you'd realize that.

I trust you can show me a copy of the Stroud letter as well, which is pretty much the crux of all you're talking about with Vickie Adams.  If you can't, then you really have nothing at all here.  You say, and I quote "What isn't in the Archives is the signed copy of the Adams' testimony with the corrections which was attached to the Stroud letter."

And to re-quote Barry Ernest: "The referenced letter was neither a Commission Document nor a Commission Exhibit. It was therefore not a part of the public record.  It is not in the Mary Ferrell database either, that I am aware of. A copy of it exists in the Harold Weisberg collection, which is actually a copy that I gave him shortly after discovering it in the National Archives."

So you're telling me it's not there, and Barry Ernest says he found it there.

Okay, then, who removed it from the National Archives, being that " Do you really believe that anybody can walk into the National Archives and add or remove an original document?" Either you're wrong, or Barry Ernest is.  Please let me know which one.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 10, 2012, 04:39:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm getting pretty tired of you half-reading what i say, and cherry-picking.

My reference was to the Stroud letter, and had you read everything I wrote, you'd realize that.

I trust you can show me a copy of the Stroud letter as well, which is pretty much the crux of all you're talking about with Vickie Adams.  If you can't, then you really have nothing at all here.  You say, and I quote "What isn't in the Archives is the signed copy of the Adams' testimony with the corrections which was attached to the Stroud letter."

And to re-quote Barry Ernest: "The referenced letter was neither a Commission Document nor a Commission Exhibit. It was therefore not a part of the public record.  It is not in the Mary Ferrell database either, that I am aware of. A copy of it exists in the Harold Weisberg collection, which is actually a copy that I gave him shortly after discovering it in the National Archives."

So you're telling me it's not there, and Barry Ernest says he found it there.

Okay, then, who removed it from the National Archives, being that " Do you really believe that anybody can walk into the National Archives and add or remove an original document?" Either you're wrong, or Barry Ernest is.  Please let me know which one.


Boy are you confused.....

A copy of the Stroud letter has been on line in this thread http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4427.0.html (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4427.0.html) since April 2011.....

But just in case you still can't find it..... here it is;

(http://www10.pic-upload.de/10.09.12/5x5vtuotz6rj.jpg) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-15971766/2011yi.jpg.html)


Do you know anything about this case?

Barry Ernest found the letter in a correspondence file of the Warren Commission which did not form part of the public record. What is in the WC report is the public record..... not everything in the WC files was published when the report was released..... what of this don't you understand?

Put your glasses on or learn to read.... I never said the original Stroud letter wasn't in the Archives.... I said it was and still is... I actually saw it with my own eyes the last time I was at the Archives!

The Stroud letter is in the Archives but the attached signed testimony of Victoria Adams (mentioned in the Stroud letter) isn't there...... get it now?

Nobody removed anything from the Archives.... all you can get and take with you are copies..... the originals always stay at the Archives.... you really don't know much, do you now?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 10, 2012, 05:24:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, you've lost all credibility on this matter.

First you made a big thing about the fact that Victoria Adams had signed her deposition after all, which you said was conclusive proof that she had made the Shelley/Lovelady remark... because she signed it, right?

But then you learned that the corrections mentioned in the Stroud letter were not in the WC version of her testimony. Oops!

I don't get it. What's with the oops? Did she sign it or not? The fact that her requested corrections were not made isn't relevant to that question. You seem to be saying that she signed it but the signed copy no longer exists. How do you know that she signed it and how do you know that the signed copy of it is not at the National Archives?

Quote
So you suddenly turned it around and said that the corrections not being in the WC version were somehow proof that the Stroud letter was incorrect. Now you go even one step further and claim that the "very existence (authenticity)" of the Stroud letter is somehow in doubt.

For crying out loud, Tim.... just how desparate can you get?......

The original of the Stroud letter is still in the National Archives, where Ernest found it in the WC files..... If you don't believe that or think it is a fake, why don't you just go down to the Archives and ask them to show you the letter... I know for a fact that they will show you the letter............. and while you are there why not also ask to see the original version of Victoria Adams' testimony with the corrections and her signature.... oh yeah... that one isn't there....

You are really taking this too far without taking any time to investigate this thing for yourself, as I have done. This is really getting too weird.... a letter by a US Attorney send to the WC General Counsel Rankin by registered mail. the original of which is currently held by the National Archives, suddenly isn't authentic...... really, you are so full of crap, it is beyond believe!

Boy, if you are not an LNr you really should become one very quickly.... All you have just proven is that you can't read or understand what is being written.

Just how stupid or silly can you get?.... Do you really believe that anybody can walk into the National Archives and add or remove an original document? Who am I talking to here? Are you sane?

It didn't exist until Ernest found it?..... LOL  :rofl: The original is still in the National Archives... you can go down there and see it for yourself.


The location in the National Archives of the transcript of Victoria Adams' deposition is given at the link below:

http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/7564/jfkcnew.txt (http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/7564/jfkcnew.txt)

            AGENCY : HSCA
      RECORD NUMBER : 180-10095-10363
     RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES
 AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 001763

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

         ORIGINATOR : WC
               FROM : [No From]
                 TO : [No To]
              TITLE : [No Title]
               DATE : 00/00/0000
              PAGES : 4
      DOCUMENT TYPE : TRANSCRIPT
           SUBJECTS : TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY; WITNESS, ADAMS, VICTORIA
     CLASSIFICATION : TOP SECRET
       RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED
     CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 05/05/1993
           COMMENTS : Includes plan of Texas School Book Depository.  Box
                      34.


Where exactly in the National Archives is the Stroud document located? How you seen it yourself? Do you know of any other researchers who have seen it?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Jon Davies on September 10, 2012, 05:59:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Considering Oswald was absent from the row call common sense should prevail......but rarely does.

Another strike against Oswald....how do the CTs keep going ? It's like they have been peppered with a machine gun and the keep stumbling around refusing to go down... Plus the mental illness they suffer...
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 10, 2012, 12:38:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I don't get it. What's with the oops? Did she sign it or not? The fact that her requested corrections were not made isn't relevant to that question. You seem to be saying that she signed it but the signed copy no longer exists. How do you know that she signed it and how do you know that the signed copy of it is not at the National Archives?

The location in the National Archives of the transcript of Victoria Adams' deposition is given at the link below:

http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/7564/jfkcnew.txt (http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/7564/jfkcnew.txt)

            AGENCY : HSCA
      RECORD NUMBER : 180-10095-10363
     RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES
 AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 001763

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

         ORIGINATOR : WC
               FROM : [No From]
                 TO : [No To]
              TITLE : [No Title]
               DATE : 00/00/0000
              PAGES : 4
      DOCUMENT TYPE : TRANSCRIPT
           SUBJECTS : TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY; WITNESS, ADAMS, VICTORIA
     CLASSIFICATION : TOP SECRET
       RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED
     CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 05/05/1993
           COMMENTS : Includes plan of Texas School Book Depository.  Box
                      34.


Where exactly in the National Archives is the Stroud document located? How you seen it yourself? Do you know of any other researchers who have seen it?


Tim,

I've said it before... you are not an honest debater and this posting proves it yet again.....

A while ago you yourself insisted that Victoria Adams had signed her desposition after all. Back then you claimed the fact that she had signed the deposition proved she knew about and had endorsed the Shelley/Lovelady remark which she (Adams) later claimed she had not made.

Now, when it suits your purpose, you suddenly doubt that she signed it. I'm sick and tired of your games. If you want to find out for yourself just down to the National Archives like I did and make enquiries..... I'm not going to do the work for you as you will never accept what I tell you anyway.




Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 10, 2012, 01:38:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't get it. What's with the oops? Did she sign it or not? The fact that her requested corrections were not made isn't relevant to that question. You seem to be saying that she signed it but the signed copy no longer exists. How do you know that she signed it and how do you know that the signed copy of it is not at the National Archives?

The location in the National Archives of the transcript of Victoria Adams' deposition is given at the link below:

http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/7564/jfkcnew.txt (http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/7564/jfkcnew.txt)

            AGENCY : HSCA
      RECORD NUMBER : 180-10095-10363
     RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES
 AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 001763

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

         ORIGINATOR : WC
               FROM : [No From]
                 TO : [No To]
              TITLE : [No Title]
               DATE : 00/00/0000
              PAGES : 4
      DOCUMENT TYPE : TRANSCRIPT
           SUBJECTS : TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY; WITNESS, ADAMS, VICTORIA
     CLASSIFICATION : TOP SECRET
       RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED
     CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 05/05/1993
           COMMENTS : Includes plan of Texas School Book Depository.  Box
                      34.


Where exactly in the National Archives is the Stroud document located? How you seen it yourself? Do you know of any other researchers who have seen it?

These are legitimate questions, Tim.  I'd like to see the answers to them.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 10, 2012, 04:18:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Common sense" = assumption and speculation......

Once investigated things very often turn out to be different that at first assumed.

If you have been involved in over 200 murder investigations (as you say you have) you really should know better than to resort to speculation and assumptions.

The fact that Oswald was absent from a row call proves...... absolutely nothing!

Flight is often used in criminal trials as evidence of guilt.  If that were the only evidence, it would not alone be sufficient.  But it isn't the only evidence.  It's just a another brick in the wall and a fairly compelling one.  Oswald's explanation of his actions is implausible at best and asinine in reality.  His sudden urge to flee the building within about three minutes after the assassination and see a movie (taking no notice of the chaos unfolding outside his workplace) is laughable.  A small child wouldn't believe it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 10, 2012, 05:07:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Considering Oswald was absent from the row call common sense should prevail......but rarely does.

What "row call" was this "May?"  Can you show us, via the evidence, a "row call" was performed to determine LHO was the ONLY person missing?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 10, 2012, 05:34:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

These are legitimate questions, Tim.  I'd like to see the answers to them.


Well Bill, you may call them legitimate questions.... I call them disingenuous BS and I have had enough of it.

A while back your buddy Tim insisted that Adams had signed her deposition and now he wants to know why I am so sure she signed it..... :sheeshxx:

A registered letter by an Assistant U.S. Attorney to the WC General Counsel is found in the WC files at the National Archives.
The document is subsquently published in a book and distributed on the internet for several years without any complaint by the Archives or anybody else.

A while back Colin asked Tim if he felt the Stroud letter existed and was authentic and Tim said "Yes"..... what has changed since?....

Despite the fact that the original of the Stround letter can still be seen at the National Archives, Tim now suddenly doubts the very existence or the authenticity of the document. Do you share those "doubts", Bill? Do you really expect me to take something so stupid seriously?

But if you indeed share Tim's doubts, Bill, there is nothing I can say that will change your mind... so I won't waste any more time on this except to say that you will find the answer(s) at the National Archives....

So why don't you just join up with Tim and go there? I'm done with this.

 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 10, 2012, 08:16:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What "row call" was this "May?"  Can you show us, via the evidence, a "row call" was performed to determine LHO was the ONLY person missing?



Are you claiming Oswald did not flee the building immediately after the assassination?  Otherwise it's difficult to see any point here.  Everyone was eventually accounted for except Oswald.  No one was "missing" except for him.  To the extent that Givens wasn't present was because the police did not let him back into the building.  He tried to get in.  He was doing what an innocent person would do which is return - not flee - from the crime scene.  Just the opposite of Oswald.  Truly had also noticed him outside around the time the shots were fired confirming that he was not the assassin even if he couldn't be immediately located.  However, Truly knew Oswald was inside the building per his lunchroom encounter and long gone.  Only a dimwit would attempt to compare the circumstances involving Givens and Oswald.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 10, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=37 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=37)
Mary Ferrell Chronologies - November 22, 1963, Book 1
Current Section: Texas School Book Depository at 12:30 p.m.


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall5.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall6.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall7.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/notatrollcall8.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 10, 2012, 10:55:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Richard do you think Oswald would have fled had he realised he was being set up as a patsy or does he does he think to himself "I am going to stick around and tell the cops I am a patsy". You can see how well that worked for him when he did admit to being a patsy. You see once he realises he has been double crossed, there is no way out. Who is going to believe his story? Better to get a lawyer son. Better get a real good one.

How are you using the term patsy?  Many CTers have used that term to mean that Oswald was innocent.  Fleeing is clearly not consistent with that interpretation.  In addition, it is inconsistent with Oswald's own use of the term to explain that the authorities had rushed to judgment in arresting him because of his having lived in the Soviet Union.  He did not say that he was being framed as part of a conspiracy.   We know Oswald's use of the term is incorrect since there is no evidence those who arrested him even knew he had lived in the USSR.   However, I assume you mean "patsy" in the sense that Oswald had some insight as to what was going on and realized somehow after the fact (within three minutes after the shots) but not apparently before that he was being set up.  He got smart real fast.  The biggest problem with this is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it.  It is simply an ad hoc theory to shoehorn a possible conspiracy narrative into the facts.  We could come up with all sorts of ad hoc explanations without evidence to support his leaving the building.  Maybe he erroneously thought there was a fire drill etc. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 10, 2012, 11:09:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well Bill, you may call them legitimate questions.... I call them disingenuous BS and I have had enough of it.

A while back your buddy Tim insisted that Adams had signed her deposition and now he wants to know why I am so sure she signed it..... :sheeshxx:

A registered letter by an Assistant U.S. Attorney to the WC General Counsel is found in the WC files at the National Archives.
The document is subsquently published in a book and distributed on the internet for several years without any complaint by the Archives or anybody else.

A while back Colin asked Tim if he felt the Stroud letter existed and was authentic and Tim said "Yes"..... what has changed since?....

Despite the fact that the original of the Stround letter can still be seen at the National Archives, Tim now suddenly doubts the very existence or the authenticity of the document. Do you share those "doubts", Bill? Do you really expect me to take something so stupid seriously?

But if you indeed share Tim's doubts, Bill, there is nothing I can say that will change your mind... so I won't waste any more time on this except to say that you will find the answer(s) at the National Archives....

So why don't you just join up with Tim and go there? I'm done with this.

 

Now this is a genuine question.  I could be wrong, but I don't think I had seen the letter before - and if I had, I wasn't looking at it in quite the same way as I did today.

I'm wondering not about its validity, but its value.

It doesn't appear to me that it changes much about what Adams says.  It only appears that she changes a few words, and while we don't see the actual changes to the deposition, the changes indicated in the body of the letter don't seem at all significant.

The Garner statement is the bigger deal.  But it's a bit troubling, too.  If Barefoot Sanders, a US Attorney, was concerned about the fact that Mrs. Garner had made an important statement, would he not have taken an affidavit from her?  I realize it wasn't his direct responsibility; but was there any follow-up that we're aware of?  It seems like a pretty important statement to just let slide...just saying.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 02:17:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, you've lost all credibility on this matter.

First you made a big thing about the fact that Victoria Adams had signed her deposition after all, which you said was conclusive proof that she had made the Shelley/Lovelady remark... because she signed it, right?

But then you learned that the corrections mentioned in the Stroud letter were not in the WC version of her testimony. Oops!

So you suddenly turned it around and said that the corrections not being in the WC version were somehow proof that the Stroud letter was incorrect. Now you go even one step further and claim that the "very existence (authenticity)" of the Stroud letter is somehow in doubt.

For crying out loud, Tim.... just how desparate can you get?......

The original of the Stroud letter is still in the National Archives, where Ernest found it in the WC files..... If you don't believe that or think it is a fake, why don't you just go down to the Archives and ask them to show you the letter... I know for a fact that they will show you the letter............. and while you are there why not also ask to see the original version of Victoria Adams' testimony with the corrections and her signature.... oh yeah... that one isn't there....

You are really taking this too far without taking any time to investigate this thing for yourself, as I have done. This is really getting too weird.... a letter by a US Attorney send to the WC General Counsel Rankin by registered mail. the original of which is currently held by the National Archives, suddenly isn't authentic...... really, you are so full of crap, it is beyond believe!

Roger, since you're so sure that the Stroud document is genuine and that it is still in the National Archives, then why not tell us where in the National Archives that it is? Surely, that's not too much to ask? You can huff and puff and feign indignation all you want, but that won't make the request go away. It's a reasonable request and you know it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 02:33:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A while back Colin asked Tim if he felt the Stroud letter existed and was authentic and Tim said "Yes"..... what has changed since?....

Despite the fact that the original of the Stround letter can still be seen at the National Archives, Tim now suddenly doubts the very existence or the authenticity of the document. Do you share those "doubts", Bill? Do you really expect me to take something so stupid seriously?

I'll tell you what has changed since then. First of all, you yourself wavered on the question of whether Barry Ernest could be trusted. You talked out of both sides of your mouth on it; out of one side saying that you trusted him while out of the other side demanding that I provide proof that what he was saying is true. Seeing you waver caused my former doubt about him to resurface. You may recall that I expressed my willingness to accept the authenticity of the Stroud document based on the fact that it is contained within the Weisberg collection. What I did not know at the time was that that copy of the document was given to Weisberg by Barry Ernest. Weisberg never actually viewed an original of the letter in the National Archives.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 02:46:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Roger, since you're so sure that the Stroud document is genuine and that it is still in the National Archives, then why not tell us where in the National Archives that it is? Surely, that's not too much to ask? You can huff and puff and feign indignation all you want, but that won't make the request go away. It's a reasonable request and you know it.


No it is not reasonable... its you playing stupid games.... Do the work yourself.... go to the National Archives and make enquiries, like I did, instead of making up stuff on this forum.

I'm not feigning indignation.. I'm expressing utter contempt for your behaviour and sick insinuations.

A while back Colin asked you if you believed the Stroud existed and was genuine and you answered "yes". Now you seem to deny this as well as the validity of the document itself.

So before we go any further - like Bill recently said so eloquently - let's cut the bullsh*t, shall we and tell us exactly where you stand.  

1. Do you deny the Stroud document is in the WC files at the National Archives?
2. Are you saying the Stroud document is a falsification?
3. If you consider it a falsification, is it your contention that Barry Ernest in whatever way was responsible for or involved in said alleged falsification?

No long stories please.......... a simple "yes" or "no" will do for each question, Tim!  

My answers to the same questions are;

1. No
2. No
3. No

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 03:01:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'll tell you what has changed since then. First of all, you yourself wavered on the question of whether Barry Ernest could be trusted. You talked out of both sides of your mouth on it; out of one side saying that you trusted him while out of the other side demanding that I provide proof that what he was saying is true. Seeing you waver caused my former doubt about him to resurface.


You, Tim Nickerson are a lying creep!

I don't even remember being asked if Barry Ernest could be trusted and if I ever was or am asked the question I would have stated and will state that I have no reason whatsoever to distrust him.... I know for a fact that what he is saying (re the Stroud letter) is true and I never had any reason to ask you to provide proof that what he was saying is true. You are the one who is constantly insinuating that the Stroud letter is a falsification. You are making this crap up to justify your so-called "doubt" about him.

There's only one person between the three of us I have serious doubts about and that is you.   

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You may recall that I expressed my willingness to accept the authenticity of the Stroud document based on the fact that it is contained within the Weisberg collection. What I did not know at the time was that that copy of the document was given to Weisberg by Barry Ernest. Weisberg never actually viewed an original of the letter in the National Archives.


How do you know Weisberg never saw the original?

Do you think Weisberg was so gullible that he would just have accepted such a document at face value without any further investigation?

If you believe that the Stroud letter is a fake and that Barry Ernest forged it, just say so in no uncertain terms or shut the f*ck up, you little weasel!

I'll look forward to you saying it (if you dare) so that I can forward your words to Barry Ernest with the offer that I will gladly pay his legal fees if he wants to sue you for slander, libel and defamation.

Prepared to risk that, are you?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 03:27:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You, Tim Nickerson are a lying creep!

I don't even remember being asked if Barry Ernest could be trusted and if I ever was or am asked the question I would have stated and will state that I have no reason whatsoever to distrust him.... I know for a fact that what he is saying (re the Stroud letter) is true and I never had any reason to ask you to provide proof that what he was saying is true. You are the one who is constantly insinuating that the Stroud letter is a falsification. You are making this crap up to justify your so-called "doubt" about him.

There's only one person between the three of us I have serious doubts about and that is you.   

How do you know Weisberg never saw the original?

Do you think Weisberg was so gullible that he would just have accepted such a document at face value without any further investigation?

If you believe that the Stroud letter is a fake and that Barry Ernest forged it, just say so in no uncertain terms or shut the f*ck up, you little weasel!

I'll look forward to you saying it (if you dare) so that I can forward your words to Barry Ernest with the offer that I will gladly pay his legal fees if he wants to sue you for slander, libel and defamation.

Prepared to risk that, are you?

Sheesh Roger, it was a mere two weeks ago. And you don't remember? I won't stoop to your level and call you a liar. Go back and take a look for yourself.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6851.108.html (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6851.108.html)

Just a sampling of it:

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on August 26, 2012, 03:31:25 PMBarry Ernest said that Adams signed the transcript and that the corrections that she requested were not made. Are you calling him a liar

Quote from: Roger Collins on August 26, 2012, 07:44:43 PMNo I am not calling him a liar....
We both agree that Victoria Adams signed her deposition, right? So where is the original with her signature on it, Tim?
Settle this once and for all.... apply for a copy of that signed deposition from the WC files at the National Archives and were done......right? So why do you hesitate? Here's your possibility to prove that the Stroud letter is indeed not accurate.....

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on August 26, 2012, 09:29:45 PMRoger, if we both agree that Adams signed her deposition then why do I need to provide it? Either we believe Ernest when he says that she signed it or we don't. If you are so bent are proving that the Stroud letter is accurate (it's not) then try tracking down the signed statement of Dorothy Garner. Then you'll have something.




Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 03:30:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know for a fact that what he is saying (re the Stroud letter) is true and I never had any reason to ask you to provide proof that what he was saying is true.

Ok, then why not let the rest of us in on how you know for a fact that what he is saying (re the Stroud letter) is true?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 03:35:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Now this is a genuine question.  I could be wrong, but I don't think I had seen the letter before - and if I had, I wasn't looking at it in quite the same way as I did today.

I'm wondering not about its validity, but its value.

It doesn't appear to me that it changes much about what Adams says.  It only appears that she changes a few words, and while we don't see the actual changes to the deposition, the changes indicated in the body of the letter don't seem at all significant.


You don't see the value of the Stroud letter? What a surprise.....

The Stroud letter shows that Vickie Adams signed her testimony after all and that some minor corrections were made to it before she signed it. The Stroud letter also shows us that the signed deposition (with the corrections) was send by registered mail to the Warren Commission General Counsel Rankin. The original Stroud letter is in the WC (non public) correspondence files at the National Archives.

What should all of this tell you (and probably won't) is that the Warren Commission had Vickie Adams' signed deposition (with the corrections) but they published the earlier unsigned version (without the corrections). The text changes in the testimony are by themselves indeed of little importance, but the contention is that the signed version of the deposition did not contain the Shelley/Lovelady remark (like Victoria Adams has said since she found out what was published in the WCR) but instead the earlier unsigned version was used and altered to include the Shelley/Lovelady remark which was later used to discredit Adams.

This is also why they never called Sandra Styles or Dorothy Garner to testify... they just could not have more witnesses saying things which would make it impossible for LHO to have been on the stairs at a time when the WC said he was.

Now all of this has been the subject of debate for many years but it could be cleared up very easily. Just ask the National Archives for a copy of Vickie Adams' signed deposition and look if the Shelley/Lovelady remark is there.... well guess what, when I was last at the Archives I asked for such a copy and was told they could not oblige me. I took that as meaning that the signed deposition wasn't in the Archives, but when Tim showed me the online data on its location in the National Archives it occured to me I could have misunderstood.

It said the document was still classified as Top Secret. with restrictions referred (whatever that means) and a current status of "postponed in full".

In other words, they still are hiding the thing..... now let me ask you this, John; Adams' testimony was published in full in the Warren Report, right? As the content is public knowledge since 1964 can you think of any plausible and logical reason why the original version of this testimony is still classified as Top Secret after nearly 50 years and likely for more years to come? What makes the original so important that it is still hidden from the public?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The Garner statement is the bigger deal.  But it's a bit troubling, too.  If Barefoot Sanders, a US Attorney, was concerned about the fact that Mrs. Garner had made an important statement, would he not have taken an affidavit from her?  I realize it wasn't his direct responsibility; but was there any follow-up that we're aware of?  It seems like a pretty important statement to just let slide...just saying.


I agree... the Garner statement is a big deal. She confirmed what Vickie Adams said, which made it impossible for Oswald to have been on the stairs when the WC said he was.

Now as to your question..... the office of US Attorney Sanders was used by the Warren Commission for the hearing of witnesses in Dallas. It was the FBI and the Warren Commission that were conducting the "investigation". Sanders or Stroud played no active part in it and - as you say - had no direct responsibility for it. Stroud, acting on behalf of Sanders, nevertheless found it important enough to advise Rankin about what Garner had said. Having done that she would have left the decision about what to do with the information where it belonged... with Rankin!

The US Attorney had no authority to become actively involved in an investigation by the FBI which is what he would have become had he taken an affidavit from Garner.

I realize it wasn't his direct responsibility; but was there any follow-up that we're aware of?  It seems like a pretty important statement to just let slide...just saying.

For once we agree... it is a pretty important statement..... and what did the WC with it?..... Absolutely nothing! No follow up, no FBI agent asking questions, no taking of testimony.... nothing, nada!

They simply buried the Stroud letter and it's attached signed testimony of Vickie Adams...... strange, ain't it?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 03:44:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sheesh Roger, it was a mere two weeks ago. And you don't remember? I won't stoop to your level and call you a liar. Go back and take a look for yourself.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6851.108.html (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6851.108.html)

Just a sampling of it:

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on August 26, 2012, 03:31:25 PMBarry Ernest said that Adams signed the transcript and that the corrections that she requested were not made. Are you calling him a liar

Quote from: Roger Collins on August 26, 2012, 07:44:43 PMNo I am not calling him a liar....
We both agree that Victoria Adams signed her deposition, right? So where is the original with her signature on it, Tim?
Settle this once and for all.... apply for a copy of that signed deposition from the WC files at the National Archives and were done......right? So why do you hesitate? Here's your possibility to prove that the Stroud letter is indeed not accurate.....

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on August 26, 2012, 09:29:45 PMRoger, if we both agree that Adams signed her deposition then why do I need to provide it? Either we believe Ernest when he says that she signed it or we don't. If you are so bent are proving that the Stroud letter is accurate (it's not) then try tracking down the signed statement of Dorothy Garner. Then you'll have something.


You are a liar... all you have been doing is trying to confuse the conversation by mixing comments about the signed Adams' testimony and the Stroud letter.

I never said that I did not trust Barry Ernest nor did I ever ask you to provide any evidence for it.... you have been doing a song and dance on this matter long enough. Cut the crap, Tim and just answer my three simple questions or shut the f*ck up. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 03:47:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ok, then why not let the rest of us in on how you know for a fact that what he is saying (re the Stroud letter) is true?


Why are you asking me questions yet refuse to answer mine? Besides, I have already told you......

You make me sick... be a man and stand up for what you believe!

Say the Stroud letter is a fake and Barry Ernest forged it, so that he can sue your pants of or stop playing your stupid games.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 03:55:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why are you asking me questions yet refuse to answer mine? Besides, I have already told you......

You make me sick... be a man and stand up for what you believe!

Say the Stroud letter is a fake and Barry Ernest forged it, so that he can sue your pants of or stop playing your stupid games.

Roger,

You are asking for a yes or no to each of your three questions. I don't like to label people as liars or frauds, so I'll refrain from answering your questions for the time being. I'll give you some time to find out exactly where in the National Archives the Stroud document can be found. Since you know for a fact that it exists there, I'm sure that it won't take you long.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 04:15:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Roger,

You are asking for a yes or no to each of your three questions. I don't like to label people as liars or frauds, so I'll refrain from answering your questions for the time being. I'll give you some time to find out exactly where in the National Archives the Stroud document can be found. Since you know for a fact that it exists there, I'm sure that it won't take you long.


Ah... you don't want to label somebody (as in Barry Ernest) as a liar or a fraud but you are quite happy to insinuate he is, right? What a lowlife......

So you simply don't have the guts to call the man a liar or a fraud because you know full well that he isn't.....

You don't have to give me any time, Tim, because I couldn't care less what a spineless creep like you wants and I most certainly am not going to do any work for you.

You want something, you go and get it. Do some real research for once instead of just falsely accusing Ernest of wrong doing by cowardly insinuation....

I know the letter exists, is real and the original can be found at the National Archives.... if you think it is a fake or forgery then say so and prove it!

Stop insinuating and just answer my three questions.....

Its time to put up or shut up...... I've had more than enough of your rubbish
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 11, 2012, 04:32:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don't see the value of the Stroud letter? What a surprise.....

The Stroud letter shows that Vickie Adams signed her testimony after all and that some minor corrections were made to if before she signed it. The Stroud letter also shows us that the signed deposition (with the corrections) was send by registered mail to the Warren Commission General Counsel Rankin. The original Stroud letter is in the WC (non public) correspondence files at the National Archives.

What should all of this tell you (and probably won't) is that the Warren Commission had Vickie Adams' signed deposition (with the corrections) but they published the earlier unsigned version (without the corrections). The text changes in the testimony are by themselves indeed of little importance, but the contention is that the signed version of the deposition did not contain the Shelley/Lovelady remark (like Victoria Adams has said since she found out what was published in the WCR) but instead the earlier unsigned version was used and altered to include the Shelley/Lovelady remark which was later used to discredit Adams.

This is also why they never called Sandra Styles or Dorothy Garner to testify... they just could not have more witnesses saying things which would make it impossible for LHO to have been on the stairs at a time when the WC said he was.

Now all of this has been the subject of debate for many years but it could be cleared up very easily. Just ask the National Archives for a copy of Vickie Adams' signed deposition and look if the Shelley/Lovelady remark is there.... well guess what, when I was last at the Archives I asked for such a copy and was told they could not oblige me. I took that as meaning that the signed deposition wasn't in the Archives, but when Tim showed me the online data on its location in the National Archives it occured to me I could have misunderstood.

It said the document was still classified as Top Secret. with restrictions referred (whatever that means) and a current status of "postponed in full".

In other words, they still are hiding the thing..... now let me ask you this, John; Adams' testimony was published in full in the Warren Report, right? As the content is public knowledge since 1964 can you think of any plausible and logical reason why the original version of this testimony is still classified as Top Secret after nearly 50 years and likely for more years to come? What makes the original so important that it is still hidden from the public?


I agree... the Garner statement is a big deal. She confirmed what Vickie Adams said, which made it impossible for Oswald to have been on the stairs when the WC said he was.

Now as to your question..... the office of US Attorney Sanders was used by the Warren Commission for the hearing of witnesses in Dallas. It was the FBI and the Warren Commission that were conducting the "investigation". Sanders or Stroud played no active part in it and - as you say - had no direct responsibility for it. Stroud, acting on behalf of Sanders, nevertheless found it important enough to advise Rankin about what Garner had said. Having done that she would have left the decision about what to do with the information where it belonged... with Rankin!

The US Attorney had no authority to become actively involved in an investigation by the FBI which is what he would have become had he taken an affidavit from Garner.

I realize it wasn't his direct responsibility; but was there any follow-up that we're aware of?  It seems like a pretty important statement to just let slide...just saying.

For once we agree... it is a pretty important statement..... and what did the WC with it?..... Absolutely nothing! No follow up, no FBI agent asking questions, no taking of testimony.... nothing, nada!

They simply buried the Stroud letter and it's attached signed testimony of Vickie Adams...... strange, ain't it?

I certainly can see your concerns Roger, and I would have to agree that the handling of this was strange.

A couple of things though.  If the contention is that the Shelley/Lovelady remark was inserted later - there is a problem with that.  I've seen it said that the WC might have coached or led Shelley and Lovelady on somewhat, trying to shoot holes in Adams' story.  (I can't remember if you or someone else suggested this, so I'm not quoting)  Adams testified about 2 hours before Shelley and Lovelady.  Are we suggesting that Belin conceived the scheme to discredit Adams in 2 hours, all while he was interviewing other witnesses?  He almost would have had to, because of the questions he asks Shelley and the way Lovelady quickly offers her name; is there any evidence that Belin knew of the problem prior to that day?  Did he know what all three of Adams, Lovelady and Shelley were going to say in advance?  I mean, it's explainable to some degree that Belin was trying to confirm who was where by using the stories of other witnesses.  He certainly shouldn't have, but it is what it is.

Point #2 - I believe the contention is that after testimony, Belin, or someone, added to the testimony.  Isn't that extremely risky, with the potential of a witness signing a statement after the fact that doesn't match?  Isn't he putting his entire career on the line doing such a thing?  I mean, if it were Boggs, or Ford, or Warren, nobody would question it.  But Belin?  He was just assistant counsel.   I'd have to respectfully submit - it does seem a bit far-fetched to me.  Certainly not impossible, but unlikely.

Sandy Styles is another issue again.  Hasn't she said at various stages that Vickie Adams was given to embellishment?  Would that not make her an excellent witness for the WC?  

And my only real problem with Garner is the lack of a statement.  The Stroud letter is kind of odd, to me, in how it's worded.  Why would such a statement be made?  Why would a US Attorney pass on second-hand evidence so specifically, and say nothing else?  If it said something like "After hearing from Miss Garner, it's my humble opinion that you should interview her as soon as possible, as she many have some significant information relating to this case."  But to offer a very specific piece of testimony and then offer nothing else - that is strange.

I can see your point about the letter, and the missing deposition.  I'll stop short of saying I believe in it, but I will say that its significant enough to warrant further investigation.  The misfortune is that not many of the key parties are now around to clarify all that happened.  Unless something else turns up somewhere - much of what we need to know here is lost to history.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 05:11:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I certainly can see your concerns Roger, and I would have to agree that the handling of this was strange.

A couple of things though.  If the contention is that the Shelley/Lovelady remark was inserted later - there is a problem with that.  I've seen it said that the WC might have coached or led Shelley and Lovelady on somewhat, trying to shoot holes in Adams' story.  (I can't remember if you or someone else suggested this, so I'm not quoting)  Adams testified about 2 hours before Shelley and Lovelady.  Are we suggesting that Belin conceived the scheme to discredit Adams in 2 hours, all while he was interviewing other witnesses?  He almost would have had to, because of the questions he asks Shelley and the way Lovelady quickly offers her name; is there any evidence that Belin knew of the problem prior to that day?  Did he know what all three of Adams, Lovelady and Shelley were going to say in advance?  I mean, it's explainable to some degree that Belin was trying to confirm who was where by using the stories of other witnesses.  He certainly shouldn't have, but it is what it is.

Point #2 - I believe the contention is that after testimony, Belin, or someone, added to the testimony.  Isn't that extremely risky, with the potential of a witness signing a statement after the fact that doesn't match?  Isn't he putting his entire career on the line doing such a thing?  I mean, if it were Boggs, or Ford, or Warren, nobody would question it.  But Belin?  He was just assistant counsel.   I'd have to respectfully submit - it does seem a bit far-fetched to me.  Certainly not impossible, but unlikely.

Sandy Styles is another issue again.  Hasn't she said at various stages that Vickie Adams was given to embellishment?  Would that not make her an excellent witness for the WC?  

And my only real problem with Garner is the lack of a statement.  The Stroud letter is kind of odd, to me, in how it's worded.  Why would such a statement be made?  Why would a US Attorney pass on second-hand evidence so specifically, and say nothing else?  If it said something like "After hearing from Miss Garner, it's my humble opinion that you should interview her as soon as possible, as she many have some significant information relating to this case."  But to offer a very specific piece of testimony and then offer nothing else - that is strange.

I can see your point about the letter, and the missing deposition.  I'll stop short of saying I believe in it, but I will say that its significant enough to warrant further investigation.  The misfortune is that not many of the key parties are now around to clarify all that happened.  Unless something else turns up somewhere - much of what we need to know here is lost to history.



Hi John,

Regarding the encounter with Lovelady and Shelley, her deposition was not the first time that Vickie Adams mentioned it.

STATEMENT OF VICKIE ADAMS
I talked with Vickie Adams at 8:10 pm this date, February 17, 1964
The following statement is what she said happened November 22, 1963.

My name is Vickie Adams, 3909 Cole, Apt. D., no phone. My job is
office service representative. I reported to work that day about 8:30 am,
and I worked in that capacity until noon.
A friend of mine, Elsie Harmon, who lives in Oak Cliff and works in the
office, wanted to take some moving pictures of the motorcade. I opened a
third floor window about the third one from the front of the building. She
took pictures of the motorcade. When the President got in front of us I
heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first
shot. I thought it was a firecracker. Then the second shot I saw the
Secret Service man run to the back of the President's car. After the
third shot, I went out the back door. I said, "I think someone has
been shot." The elevator was not running and there was no one on the stairs.
I went down to the first floor. I saw Mr. Shelly and another employee named
Bill.
The freight elevator had not moved, and I still did not see anyone
on the stairs.
I ran out the back door of the depository and around to the front. I
started down toward the railroad tracks when an officer storped me and turned
me back. I asked the officer if the President was shot, and he said he did
not know. As I turned back I saw another employee Molena standing by the
front of the building facing Elm Street. I stopped and talked with Avery
Davis another employee. I saw two men in street clothes, one was gesturing
with his hands and asking questions. I asked Mr. Davis who he was. I
later saw Jack Ruby on TV and thought it was the same man. No one had
surrounded the building at that time. I went back into the building and
the passenger elevator, but the power was off. I went to the back to the
freight elevator. There were two plainclothes men on it. However, the
power on it also was turned off. I went up the stairs to the fourth
floor to my office. We were later told to leave.
This concludes Miss. Adams' statement to me.

J. R. Leavelle


http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-001.gif (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-001.gif)
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-002.gif (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-002.gif)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 05:28:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I certainly can see your concerns Roger, and I would have to agree that the handling of this was strange.

A couple of things though.  If the contention is that the Shelley/Lovelady remark was inserted later - there is a problem with that.  I've seen it said that the WC might have coached or led Shelley and Lovelady on somewhat, trying to shoot holes in Adams' story.  (I can't remember if you or someone else suggested this, so I'm not quoting)  Adams testified about 2 hours before Shelley and Lovelady.  Are we suggesting that Belin conceived the scheme to discredit Adams in 2 hours, all while he was interviewing other witnesses?  He almost would have had to, because of the questions he asks Shelley and the way Lovelady quickly offers her name; is there any evidence that Belin knew of the problem prior to that day?  Did he know what all three of Adams, Lovelady and Shelley were going to say in advance?  I mean, it's explainable to some degree that Belin was trying to confirm who was where by using the stories of other witnesses.  He certainly shouldn't have, but it is what it is.


Good question.

No... I am no suggesting anything ..... I am saying that the Adams' testimony about being on the stairs so quickly after the shooting seems to have been one of those rare occassions where a lawyer (in this case Belin) did not get the answer he expected and/or was looking for..... Don't underestimate lawyers when they run into trouble... Belin wasn't interviewing all the witnesses.... there were other lawyers there as well, like Ball who took the testimony of Lovelady and (I believe) Shelley. Besides, those interviews were not conducted non stop... It seems likely to me that there was a break between each of them, as there usually is.

I don't know what information Belin and Ball already had when they were taking testimony, but I can garantuee you that most if not all witnesses had been questioned before they gave their official testimony. How else could Belin and Ball have prepared themselves for the interviews and how would they have known what questions to ask. The spontaneous and unsolicited remark by Lovelady;

Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.  

clearly indicates that he was asked about this before, don't you think so?. Now, when Adams surprised Belin with her testimony he probably instantly fell back on the earlier discussions with Lovelady and Shelley. I'm not sure if Belin and Ball conceived the entire scheme to discredit Adams right there and then. They may well have tried some damage control first and when that (Lovelady & Shelley's testimony) didn't work they may have tried something else, like sending a representative of the US Attorney's office in Dallas to Vickie Adams work place to get her to amend her testimony... who knows?    

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Point #2 - I believe the contention is that after testimony, Belin, or someone, added to the testimony.  Isn't that extremely risky, with the potential of a witness signing a statement after the fact that doesn't match?  Isn't he putting his entire career on the line doing such a thing?  I mean, if it were Boggs, or Ford, or Warren, nobody would question it.  But Belin?  He was just assistant counsel.   I'd have to respectfully submit - it does seem a bit far-fetched to me.  Certainly not impossible, but unlikely.


First of all, I am not naming names simply because I don't know who did it, but yes the contention (by Victoria Adams herself) is that the Shelley/Lovelady was added later. Why would it be risky? Look at what happened and even the current situation. When the WC published their report it had no index and hardly anybody could read it. Most of the witnesses had a life to live and most likely never saw their own testimony in print. I believe Adams never saw hers until Ernest showed it to her. The WC was disbanded after the publication of the report and all the files were classified and locked away for many years to come. Where could a witness complain? Not much risk there.....

I have to say that I don't really understand why they went through the trouble to obtain Adams' signature after she waived signing before, but I'm sure they had a reason....

What makes you think that Belin would act by himself and on his own initiative on something like this. Who knows what went on behind the scenes.... But just look at Watergate.... do you think Nixon himself really got his hands dirty? How do you think the WC functioned?.... Do you believe the Commission members were actively involved, or did the lower ranking lawyers do the work and then presented it to the Commission which only was together and complete on rare occasions ?..... Specter was the one who came up with the SBT... was he on the Commission?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sandy Styles is another issue again.  Hasn't she said at various stages that Vickie Adams was given to embellishment?  Would that not make her an excellent witness for the WC?  


Well... you need to talk to Sean Murphy (also on this forum) about Styles..... the simple fact is that there are not many official documents on her. She made a statement to the FBI (CE 1381) in March 1964 (when they only wanted to know if anybody saw LHO at 12:30 pm) in which she said something (I don't recall the exact words) which could be considered a kinda confirmation of what Adams later said in her testimony. All the so-called statements everybody is constantly on about where made many years later and in private conversations.

The basic fact is that the WC never called Styles to testify, which I feel is strange if they really wanted to get the truth about what happened on the stairs and when!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And my only real problem with Garner is the lack of a statement.  The Stroud letter is kind of odd, to me, in how it's worded.  Why would such a statement be made?  Why would a US Attorney pass on second-hand evidence so specifically, and say nothing else?  If it said something like "After hearing from Miss Garner, it's my humble opinion that you should interview her as soon as possible, as she many have some significant information relating to this case."  But to offer a very specific piece of testimony and then offer nothing else - that is strange.


The lack of statement is also my biggest problem.... why was Garner ignored after a US Attorney considered her statement important enough to pass on to the WC.
It wasn't the US Attorney's investigation, so wouldn't it have been improper for him/her to tell the investigating body (i.e. the WC) how to conduct their investigation?

Again, just like with Styles.... no follow up interview was conducted with Garner.... she never made any formal statement about what she had seen nor was she asked to do.
The WC simply ignored a potentially crucial witness....... any idea why they would have done that?  


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I can see your point about the letter, and the missing deposition.  I'll stop short of saying I believe in it, but I will say that its significant enough to warrant further investigation.  The misfortune is that not many of the key parties are now around to clarify all that happened.  Unless something else turns up somewhere - much of what we need to know here is lost to history.


This is the problem with much of this case.....
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 05:33:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi John,

Regarding the encounter with Lovelady and Shelley, her deposition was not the first time that Vickie Adams mentioned it.

STATEMENT OF VICKIE ADAMS
I talked with Vickie Adams at 8:10 pm this date, February 17, 1964
The following statement is what she said happened November 22, 1963.

My name is Vickie Adams, 3909 Cole, Apt. D., no phone. My job is
office service representative. I reported to work that day about 8:30 am,
and I worked in that capacity until noon.
A friend of mine, Elsie Harmon, who lives in Oak Cliff and works in the
office, wanted to take some moving pictures of the motorcade. I opened a
third floor window about the third one from the front of the building. She
took pictures of the motorcade. When the President got in front of us I
heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first
shot. I thought it was a firecracker. Then the second shot I saw the
Secret Service man run to the back of the President's car. After the
third shot, I went out the back door. I said, "I think someone has
been shot." The elevator was not running and there was no one on the stairs.
I went down to the first floor. I saw Mr. Shelly and another employee named
Bill.
The freight elevator had not moved, and I still did not see anyone
on the stairs.
I ran out the back door of the depository and around to the front. I
started down toward the railroad tracks when an officer storped me and turned
me back. I asked the officer if the President was shot, and he said he did
not know. As I turned back I saw another employee Molena standing by the
front of the building facing Elm Street. I stopped and talked with Avery
Davis another employee. I saw two men in street clothes, one was gesturing
with his hands and asking questions. I asked Mr. Davis who he was. I
later saw Jack Ruby on TV and thought it was the same man. No one had
surrounded the building at that time. I went back into the building and
the passenger elevator, but the power was off. I went to the back to the
freight elevator. There were two plainclothes men on it. However, the
power on it also was turned off. I went up the stairs to the fourth
floor to my office. We were later told to leave.
This concludes Miss. Adams' statement to me.

J. R. Leavelle


http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-001.gif (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-001.gif)
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-002.gif (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3376-002.gif)

Right.... John, this is what I had forgotten about....

This is where Belin and Ball probably got their idea from...... a report written by a DPD officer about a conversation with Vickie Adams three months after the events.....on 02/17/64

Did you notice that Vickie is reported as saying that she was on the third floor..... huh? Do you think it likely that Vickie did not know what floor her office was on?

Did Vickie Adams read and sign this, Tim?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 05:36:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right.... John, this is what I had forgotten about....

This is where Belin and Ball probably got their idea from...... a report written by a DPD officer about a conversation with Vickie Adams three months after the events.....on 02/17/64

Did Vickie Adams read and sign this, Tim?

Was Leavelle lying when he typed it?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 05:46:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Was Leavelle lying when he typed it?


Do you believe that Vickie Adams did not know that her office was on the 4th floor and not on the third as Leavelle wrote in his report....

Did Adams see and sign this document, Tim?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2012, 06:34:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you believe that Vickie Adams did not know that her office was on the 4th floor and not on the third as Leavelle wrote in his report....


I opened a third floor window about the third one from the front of the building.

I think you know that she was really referring to the third window from the end of the building. The "floor" was a mistatement on her part.

You haven't answered my question. Was Leavelle lying when he typed her statement?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 11, 2012, 08:39:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I opened a third floor window about the third one from the front of the building.

I think you know that she was really referring to the third window from the end of the building. The "floor" was a mistatement on her part.

You haven't answered my question. Was Leavelle lying when he typed her statement?


I think you know this was not her statement but a report by a police officer about a conversation he had with her.

She never read it, she never signed it.

Can you exclude the possibility that Leavelle simply misquoted her or that the Shelley/Lovelady remark was added later?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 11, 2012, 12:55:54 PM
 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know what information Belin and Ball already had when they were taking testimony, but I can garantuee you that most if not all witnesses had been questioned before they gave their official testimony. How else could Belin and Ball have prepared themselves for the interviews and how would they have known what questions to ask. The spontaneous and unsolicited remark by Lovelady;

Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.  

clearly indicates that he was asked about this before, don't you think so?. Now, when Adams surprised Belin with her testimony he probably instantly fell back on the earlier discussions with Lovelady and Shelley. I'm not sure if Belin and Ball conceived the entire scheme to discredit Adams right there and then. They may well have tried some damage control first and when that (Lovelady & Shelley's testimony) didn't work they may have tried something else, like sending a representative of the US Attorney's office in Dallas to Vickie Adams work place to get her to amend her testimony... who knows?    

I do have an opinion on this.  It appears that Lovelady and Shelley's testimony is back-to-back with the WC - Lovelady was done at 3:50 PM on April 7, Shelley at 4:10 PM.  Is it possible they travelled together, and were discussing what they saw on the way there?  Could have it been troubling them, about Vickie Adams?  And is it at all possible Vickie Adams came to them, knowing they were all testifying that day, and said something like, remember I saw you there when I came downstairs?  i don't know - I wouldn't see a big purpose to it, but it's possible.  Ball did question Shelley directly, but as Lovelady had brought her up himself a matter of minutes before, I can certainly see why Ball would have done that.  Not suggesting that Adams had any sinister agenda at all!  But it's pretty easy to imagine all of these people talking about what they saw several months after the fact on lunch hours, breaks, etc - and having a certain level of nervousness leading up to the day of testimony. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have to say that I don't really understand why they went through the trouble to obtain Adams' signature after she waived signing before, but I'm sure they had a reason....


Why, on earth though, the WC would insist on her signing her deposition - that I can't understand.  We'll never know until it turns up!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What makes you think that Belin would act by himself and on his own initiative on something like this. Who knows what went on behind the scenes.... But just look at Watergate.... do you think Nixon himself really got his hands dirty? How do you think the WC functioned?.... Do you believe the Commission members were actively involved, or did the lower ranking lawyers do the work and then presented it to the Commission which only was together and complete on rare occasions ?..... Specter was the one who came up with the SBT... was he on the Commission?

You're right - we'll just never know.  Do we have any other evidence of Belin tampering with testimony?  I still do think it's a pretty risky venture to do that...


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The lack of statement is also my biggest problem.... why was Garner ignored after a US Attorney considered her statement important enough to pass on to the WC.
It wasn't the US Attorney's investigation, so wouldn't it have been improper for him/her to tell the investigating body (i.e. the WC) how to conduct their investigation?

Again, just like with Styles.... no follow up interview was conducted with Garner.... she never made any formal statement about what she had seen nor was she asked to do.
The WC simply ignored a potentially crucial witness....... any idea why they would have done that?  

I just think Stroud's statement about Garner is very odd.  I agree that the US Attorney's office would be facing a jurisdictional issue and wouldn't want to step too heavily.  But putting a specific piece of testimony in a letter like that is just - weird.   One of the many very strange things that just keep popping up.

And sorry for the Rob Caprio comments.  I guess we all lose our cool a bit.  I really am searching for answers too, you know.  I'm certainly not going to waste my time here just trying to shoot down everyone else's theory...and I would hope none of us are.  Hopefully, we're all here trying to sift through what really matters in this case and try to find as much truth as we can.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 11, 2012, 01:51:03 PM
There is no doubt the councel pre briefed witnesses. They had various preports complied from their statements gathered from the SS and FBI. These were not silly men. Highly ambitious too it would seem.

As for Belin......

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/Givens63.txt (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/Givens63.txt)

You might read....up to you.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 11, 2012, 04:17:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald probably had no idea who set him up. In fact I am pretty sure he didn't have a clue who it was. He has the smarts to work out he was going to be the patsy because he lived in the Soviet Union amongst other things. This is no different to your ad hoc theory that it was Oswald who is guilty alone cause we have his rifle up on the 6th floor. I can't prove he was framed any more than you can prove he was up on the 6th making those shots with his rifle.
Now IMHO Oswald was at the TSBD on business. No one with his background is in the same building where the POTUS has been shot by accident. I can;t prove that but I am sure Oswald might have had he not been shot dead in police custody.

I think you are using what is possible to explain away what is likely.  The fact that Oswald's gun and prints are found on the 6th floor is compelling evidence not to be dismissed simply because it is possible that someone planted them (without any real evidence that this is what occurred).  Almost anything is possible.  But that is not the way most people go about making decisions about factual matters.  Like I said it's possible that Oswald became confused by all the activity and thought there was a fire drill.  So he leaves the building.  It's absurd to believe this and there is no evidence to support this theory but it remains a possibility.  There's no way to completely disprove it.  But it's not a reason to dismiss tangible evidence of his guilt as the shooter.   His actions can't simply be explained away as panicking because he lived in the Soviet Union.  He has a fake ID on his person in the same name as the rifle order.  How does that happen if he doesn't have a clue what is going on?  How do the conspirators get his rifle and prints?  Why does he leave his wedding ring at home that morning, get a ride during a weekday to Irving, carry a large package to work, not being in the presence of anyone during the assassination.  It just doesn't add up with Oswald not having a clue as you suggest and a plan on behalf of some unnamed entity to frame him when they didn't have control over him.  
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Christer Jacobsson on September 11, 2012, 09:52:20 PM
A small reflection..

There seems to be so much focus on what happend in the TSBD and at Dealey Plaza when it comes to the question of Oswalds participiation or non participation and this creates endless discussions concerning staircases and counting seconds, and the LN:s must love to keep and control the discussions here and also let it stay down to this.

When studying facts from very many other angles it´s much more easy to figure out what´s Oswalds role and others was.. So many documents has been released and so many has started to talk silently.. Interesting work, but also severely time consuming and sometimes painstakingly dull. When "crossexamining" your own findings it often leads to new angles.. Just an example, sit down a couple of days and compare all known and new facts concerning the death of Dorothy Kilgallen and the death of Marylin Monroe and you will see ugly things show up that earlier almost were impossible to detect or understand..

And beyond all this interesting and hard work, it is also the ideal way of getting a divorce... *s*

Best R.
Christer
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 12, 2012, 02:01:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So he is guilty of something Richard. I probably agree with you on that. You want to guess he is guilty of killing JFK all by himself then that is fine. My guess is also backed up by facts. No one saw him come down those stairs when he should have been at least spotted. Its not like he is invisible. He denied killing JFK so unless you can prove he was lying which you really can't cause he was shot dead under police custody, you have to prove him guilty and you are just guessing at that.
You'll believe anything the WC tell you once they convince you it was Oswald. You'll even call it evidence.

If simply denying guilt raises doubt, then the prisons should be emptied.  Again, if you believe that shots were fired from the 6th floor (whether by Oswald or someone else) the shooter got out of the building without being spotted.  We know that is what happened no matter how improbable you might believe it.  And Oswald could do that as easily as anyone else.  Therefore, it is not evidence of his innocence.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 12, 2012, 02:19:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If simply denying guilt raises doubt, then the prisons should be emptied.  Again, if you believe that shots were fired from the 6th floor (whether by Oswald or someone else) the shooter got out of the building without being spotted.  We know that is what happened no matter how improbable you might believe it.  And Oswald could do that as easily as anyone else.  Therefore, it is not evidence of his innocence.


It is also no proof of his guilt
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 12, 2012, 02:31:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is also no proof of his guilt

The claim was that if Oswald was not seen on the stairs coming down from the 6th floor then he couldn't be the shooter.  The point I'm making is that if shots were fired from the 6th floor the person firing those shots (whether you believe it was Oswald or not) got out of the building unnoticed.  So we know that's not only possible but what actually happened (i.e. the shooter got out unnoticed).  So the original claim is not logical as a means to demonstrate Oswald's innocence. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Miles Scull on September 12, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
FAULTY EVIDENCE: PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD

Michael T. Griffith
1996
@All Rights Reserved
Revised on 12/30/97

In 1964 the Warren Commission (WC) concluded that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, and that there was no conspiracy involved in the killing. The Commission asserted that Oswald shot JFK from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building in Dallas, Texas, with an Italian-made 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at 12:30 P.M. on November 22, 1963.

WC defenders maintain that the case against Oswald is airtight, and that were he to stand trial today he would be found guilty of the assassination.

Critics of the WC, on the other hand, assert that Oswald was framed, that the case against him is flawed at almost every point, and that an impartial jury would acquit him in a trial where the normal legal standards of evidence were applied. In their view, not only is there far more than a reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt, but the available evidence shows he did not shoot the President. Most WC critics also believe that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the problems with the case against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald and the Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle

One of the first steps in building a case against Oswald would be to link him to the alleged murder weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. But this is just one of the many areas where a prosecutor would encounter difficulties. Although at first glance there appears to be a strong connection between Oswald and the Italian-made rifle, the link becomes questionable upon further examination.

WC defenders note that the order form, money order, and envelope used to purchase the Mannlicher-Carcano were filled out in handwriting identified as Oswald's (see, for example, Moore 48). Furthermore, they point to Oswald's alleged use of the alias "Alek Hidell." The rifle was sent to Oswald's post office box, but it was ordered in the name of, and addressed to, "A. Hidell." According to the Dallas police, Oswald was carrying an "Alek J. Hidell" ID card when he was arrested. Here's where things get interesting.

To begin with, Oswald was at work when he is said to have purchased the money order (Summers 213). So who bought the money order? If Oswald didn't buy it, why does the handwriting on it seem to be his? There are forgers who can copy a person's handwriting so well that it is difficult if not impossible to detect their fakery, especially if only a small quantity of writing is required. Also, the original order form and envelope were destroyed, so the FBI had to rely on microfilm copies of this evidence.

Another problem with the connection between Oswald and the Carcano is that nobody at Oswald's post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped (Summers 59; Meagher 50). In fact, none of those postal workers reported ever giving Oswald ANY kind of a package. Oddly, the FBI apparently made no effort to establish that Oswald picked up the rifle from the post office, or that he had ever received a package of any kind there. Furthermore, postal regulations required that only those persons named on the post office box's registration form could receive items of mail from the box, yet there is no evidence that Oswald listed the name of Hidell on the form (Smith 290-291). In fact, in a report dated 3 June 1964, the FBI stated, "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question" (Meagher 49, emphasis added).

There is a discrepancy in size between the weapon ordered by "A. Hidell" and the rifle that Oswald allegedly left behind on the sixth floor of the TSBD. "A. Hidell" ordered item C20-T750 from an advertisement placed by Klein's Sporting Goods in the February 1963 issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. The rifle that was listed as item C20-T750 is 36 inches long. However, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly abandoned on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building is 40.2 inches long (Lifton 20).

Most conspiracy theorists see the mail-order murder weapon and the "Hidell" ID card as evidence of a frame-up. They note the sheer stupidity of it all. In the Texas of 1963 Oswald could have bought a rifle across the counter with few if any questions asked. He could have done so and risked only a future debatable identification by some gun shop worker. Instead, we are told, Oswald ordered the murder weapon by using the alias "A. Hidell," gave his own post office box number, committed his handwriting to paper, and then went out to assassinate the President of the United States with this same "Hidell"-purchased rifle and while carrying a "Hidell" ID card in his wallet!

Many WC critics doubt that Oswald was carrying the "Hidell" ID card at the time of his arrest. They point to the fact that the Dallas police said nothing about the fake ID card until the FBI later announced that the alleged murder weapon had been ordered by an "A. Hidell." Critics also note that neither the phony identification nor the use of an alias is mentioned in the transcripts of the radio traffic between the arresting officers and the police station (Groden and Livingstone 183-184; Lane 133-136). One of the officers who brought Oswald to the police station, Paul Bentley, said he established Oswald's identify by going through his belongings, and there was no suggestion that Bentley had to decide whether his suspect was named Oswald or Hidell. Said Bentley, "On the way to City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name" (Groden and Livingstone 184). Additionally, not one of the arresting officers mentioned finding or seeing the Hidell ID card in their reports to the police chief two weeks after the assassination (Meagher 186). (A further twist comes from the fact that former FBI agent James Hosty, who worked out of the Dallas FBI office at the time of the assassination, claims in a recent book that Oswald's wallet was actually found at the J. D. Tippit murder scene!)

If Oswald did order the rifle and maintain possession of it for a while, he could have been instructed to do so by those who were framing him to be the patsy for the assassination. If nothing else, the plotters could have arranged for Oswald to handle the rifle before the shooting, in order to get some of his prints on the weapon. The Dallas police found some partial fingerprints on the Carcano's magazine housing (a part of the trigger guard). The FBI studied these prints the day after the assassination and determined that they were worthless for identification purposes. However, in recent years two independent fingerprint experts examined photographs of the prints and concluded they were Oswald's. What is odd about these prints is that they were located on a part of the rifle that would NOT have been handled while it was being fired. Some researchers are understandably skeptical of the recent identification of the partial prints as Oswald's. But, if the prints are his, then I would suggest they were made as a result of Oswald being manipulated into handling the rifle shortly before the shooting.

Are the partial prints Oswald's? Fingerprint experts Jerry Powdrill and Vincent J. Scalice examined photos of the prints in 1993 and concluded they were Oswald's. Many conspiracy theorists are skeptical of this identification and point out that the prints were studied carefully in 1963 by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, a highly skilled and experienced fingerprint expert, and found to be worthless. WC defenders reply that Latona didn't have access to the same photos of the prints that Powdrill and Scalice were able to use. However, not only was Latona able to study the original prints themselves, but he had additional pictures taken of them for examination purposes. Latona's WC testimony leads many researchers to doubt the validity of Powdrill's and Scalice's identification. Here is what Latona said about his analysis of the prints:

Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value. Now, I did not stop there.
Mr. EISENBERG. Before we leave those prints, Mr. Latona, had those been developed by the powder method?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; they had.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a gray powder?
Mr. LATONA. I assumed that they used gray powder in order to give them what little contrast could be seen. And it took some highlighting and sidelighting with the use of a spotlight to actually make those things discernible at all.
Representative FORD. As far as you are concerned.
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. DULLES. Is it likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr. LATONA. No, sir; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just like they were. There had, in addition to this rifle and that paper bag, which I received on the 23d--there had also been submitted to me some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas Police Department, at least alleged to have been taken by them, of these prints on this trigger guard which they developed. I examined the photographs very closely and I still could not determine any latent value in the photograph.
So then I took the rifle personally over to our photo laboratory. In the meantime, I had made arrangements to bring a photographer in especially for the purpose of photographing these latent prints for me, an experienced photographer--I called him in. I received this material in the Justice Building office of operations is in the Identification Division Building, which is at 2d and D Streets SW. So I made arrangements to immediately have a photographer come in and see if he could improve on the photographs that were taken by the Dallas Police Department.
Well, we spent, between the two of us, setting up the camera, looking at prints, highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could conceivably think of, checking back and forth in the darkroom--we could not improve the condition of these latent prints.
So, accordingly, the final conclusion was simply that the latent print on this gun was of no value, the fragments that were there.
After that had been determined, I then proceeded to completely process the entire rifle, to see if there were any other prints of any significance or value any prints of value--I would not know what the significance would be, but to see if there were any other prints. (4 H 21)
Lone-gunman theorists assert that the Dallas police found Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon. However, the palm print had no chain of evidence, and the Dallas police did not tell the FBI about the print until AFTER Oswald was dead (he was shot by Jack Ruby on November 24). Until late in the evening of the 24th, journalists assigned to the Dallas police station were reporting that, according to their police sources, Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the rifle (Lifton 356 n). Dallas police officials said the same thing during public interviews, i.e., that Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the weapon. When the FBI's Latona examined the Carcano on November 23, he did not find Oswald's prints on the weapon. Moreover, Latona said the rifle's barrel did NOT look as though it had even been processed for prints. There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356 n; cf. Meagher 120-127). So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf. Lane 153-158).

The WC claimed that a paper bag and a blanket from Ruth Paine's garage also linked Oswald to the alleged murder weapon. According to the Commission, Oswald used the bag to carry the weapon into the TSBD on the day of the murder, and the bag was allegedly found in the sniper's nest. As for the blanket, the Commission said Oswald used the blanket to store the rifle in the preceding months. Yet, a prosecutor would encounter serious difficulties in trying to use this evidence to tie Oswald to the Carcano. Sylvia Meagher discusses some of the problems with these items:

The Commission . . . offered no firm physical evidence of a link between the paper bag and the rifle. The [Warren] Report does not mention the negative examination made by FBI expert James Cadigan. Cadigan said explicitly that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle. Those negative findings assume greater significance in the light of an FBI report (CE 2974) which states that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was in a well- oiled condition. It is difficult to understand why a well-oiled rifle carried in separate parts [as the WC claimed] would not have left distinct traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye. The expert testimony includes no mention of oil traces, a fact which in itself is cogent evidence against the Commission's conclusions.
Equally significant, there were no oil stains or traces on the blanket in which a well-oiled rifle ostensibly had been stored--not for hours but for months. This serves further to weaken, if not destroy, the Commission's arbitrary finding that the Carcano rifle had been wrapped in that blanket until the night before the assassination. (Meagher 62)
In fact, although the paper bag was allegedly found in the sniper's nest, incredibly, the Dallas police "failed" to take a crime-scene photograph of the bag lying in the nest! The bag does not appear in any of the pictures that were taken of the sniper's nest that afternoon. Some WC apologists have suggested that Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker, the two policemen who took snapshots of the nest, didn't photograph the bag because they didn't notice it. This is surely a farfetched explanation. The bag, which the Commission said measured 38" x 8" and was allegedly shaped "like a gun case," would have been in plain view and could not possibly have been "missed" or "overlooked." Since Day and Studebaker "noticed" the three spent shells lying on the floor, it strains the imagination to think they would not have noticed the 38" x 8" bag lying in the same small area. (Rusty Livingston, a former Dallas Police Crime Lab detective, says the bag was about 42 inches long. In a photo of the bag, which was taken long after it was "discovered," the bag is seen to measure 38 inches in length, although there appears to be a four-inch flap folded over on the left edge of the bag.) The bag, say some WC supporters, was folded and thus was not easy to spot. But three of the policemen who saw a bag in the nest gave no indication that it was folded; they said it was a small bag and that a partially eaten chicken leg was lying beside it. One police officer specifically described the bag he saw as a small manufactured bag, such as the kind found in a grocery store's produce department. Another policeman described it as an ordinary lunch bag.

The other explanation offered by WC apologists to explain the "failure" to photograph the bag is that the bag was "accidentally" removed from the nest before it could be photographed. However, the police officer who supposedly removed the bag prematurely indicated that no evidence was removed until AFTER Day and Studebaker "took pictures and everything" (7 H 97). As one studies the WC testimony about the bag, one is struck by the utter confusion and contradiction in the accounts. The accounts differ markedly about where the bag was located, who found it, what it looked like, whether or not it was folded, whether or not it was even a "bag" at all, when it was removed from the sniper's nest, and who handled it. It should be mentioned that for some reason the bag did not leave the TSBD until three hours after it was supposedly discovered. The small paper bag seen in the sniper's nest probably had nothing to do with the long bag that was later presented as evidence by the Dallas police. Many researchers believe that the police and/or federal agents made the long bag partly with paper that Oswald had previously handled in an effort to strengthen the case against him. This would explain why only two of Oswald's prints were found on the bag (more should have been found), why the bag was devoid of gun oil even though the Carcano was well oiled when discovered, and why the bag did not leave the Depository for three hours.

And then there are the shirt fibers that were found on the Carcano. The fibers were reportedly found in the crevice between the rifle's butt plate and its wooden stock. The Commission noted that these fibers were found to match the shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested at the Texas Theater. However, it appears that Oswald was NOT wearing that shirt at the Book Depository. Many researchers believe that the Dallas police rubbed the butt of the Carcano against the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater. Apparently, the police did not realize that he had changed his clothing at his apartment after the shooting. Not a single fiber from the shirt that Oswald wore to work was found on the Italian rifle, nor were any fibers from his T-shirt found in the rifle.

The Commission claimed that Oswald did not change shirts after the shooting. However, the evidence indicates that he did in fact change his clothing at the boarding house following the assassination. Oswald stated during his interrogation that he wore a long-sleeved shirt and gray pants to work, and that he changed clothes after he arrived home. The interviewing agent said Oswald described the shirt as "reddish." A brown, long-sleeved shirt and gray pants were found in Oswald's apartment by the Dallas police after the shooting. What's more, four of the five witnesses who saw a man in the sixth-floor window said the man was wearing a "light-colored" regular shirt or jacket; the remaining witness said it was either a T-shirt or a regular shirt. One of the Commission's own star witnesses, Howard Brennan, who eventually claimed that he saw Oswald firing from the sixth-floor window, stated that the clothes Oswald was wearing in the police lineup were NOT the same ones he was wearing during the shooting (3 H 161). Similarly, Patrolman Marrion Baker, who encountered Oswald on the Depository's second floor less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired, testified that the shirt Oswald was wearing in the police lineup (which was the one he was wearing when he was arrested) was NOT the same shirt that Baker saw him wearing on the second floor (Brown 311-312).

What About the Famous Backyard Rifle Photographs?

"Surely," a good prosecutor would say, "Oswald is linked to the murder weapon by the three famous backyard photographs which show him holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in one hand and radical newspapers in the other?" Furthermore, lone-assassin theorists point out that the backyard pictures were authenticated by the panel of photographic experts retained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA, 1976-1979). Again, the evidence looks impressive at first glance, but let's take a closer look.

The Dallas police said they found two backyard photographs. These are labeled CE 133-A and B. Each shows the Oswald figure in a different pose. Although the Dallas police said they found two negatives, one for A and one for B, only the B negative is known to exist. A new, and different, backyard photo of Oswald turned up in the possession of the widow of a former Dallas policeman in 1976. This is 133-C. Then, in 1977, a much clearer version of 133-A was found among the possessions of George DeMohrenschildt, a wealthy member of the Dallas Russian community who had intelligence connections and who was a friend of Oswald's. The DeMohrenschildt family has stated they believe the photo was planted in their father's belongings to further incriminate Oswald in the public mind.

According to the WC and the HSCA, all of the backyard snapshots were taken with a cheap, hand-held camera, known as the Imperial Reflex camera.

When the backyard photos were examined by Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, he declared them to be fakes. Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, analyzed the pictures and came to the same conclusion. (When the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that the backyard photos were authentic, Thompson deferred to the panel on most of the issues concerning the genuineness of the pictures. However, Thompson said he remained troubled by the chin on Oswald in the photos, which is different from his chin in other pictures.)

There are indications of fraud in the backyard photos that are obvious even to the layman. For example, the shadow of Oswald's nose falls in one direction while the shadow of his body falls in another direction. And, the shadow under Oswald's nose remains the same in all three photos even when his head is tilted. The HSCA's photographic panel could offer only an unrealistic reenactment based on highly improbable assumptions to explain the problematic nose shadow. In the end, the panel ended up appealing to a vanishing point analysis to explain all of the variant shadows in the backyard photos. I discussed this matter with a number of professional photographers, and none of them took the position that a vanishing point analysis would explain the kinds of conflicting shadows seen in the backyard pictures.

Another indication of fakery in the photos is the fact that the HSCA's photographic panel could find only minute ("very small") differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds. This virtual sameness of backgrounds is a virtual impossibility given the manner in which the pictures were supposedly taken. In order to achieve this effect, Marina would have had to hold the camera in almost the exact same position, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, for each of the three photos, an extremely unlikely scenario, particularly in light of the fact that Oswald allegedly took the camera from her in between pictures to advance the film.

Furthermore, graphics expert Jack White has shown that the backgrounds in the photos are actually identical, and that the small differences in distance were artificially produced by a technique known as keystoning. I would encourage those interested in more information on this subject to obtain Mr. White's video FAKE: THE FORGED PHOTO THAT FRAMED OSWALD.

White has also noted, as have other researchers, that in 133-B the Oswald figure is wearing a ring on a finger of his left hand, but in 133-A the ring is not visible. This is "a curious difference," says Anthony Summers, "if, as Marina testified, she took one picture after another in the space of a few moments" (552 n 65).

The shirt and watch worn by the Oswald figure in the photos were not found among Oswald's possessions. And the shirt, a pullover shirt, was not the style that Oswald usually wore.

The 133-A-DEM photo is much clearer than the snapshots that were allegedly removed from the Paine's garage. It is so clear and of such high quality that the newsprint is readable on the paper that the figure is holding. Researchers question whether the cheap, plastic, mass-produced Imperial Reflex camera could have captured such fine detail from the distance shown in the photographs. And, again, 133-A-DEM is much clearer and contains more detail than 133-A and 133-B.

Further doubt is cast on the backyard pictures by the ominous fact that a Dallas commercial photographer who examined and processed assassination-related photographs for the Dallas police and the FBI said he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard pictures on November 22, which was the day BEFORE the police said they FOUND the photographs. The photographer further stated that one of the backyard photos he processed SHOWED NO FIGURE IN THE PICTURE (Marrs 451-452). His account was corroborated by his wife, who also helped process film on November 22.

Oswald's wife, Marina Oswald, is the one who supposedly took the backyard pictures. However, in a recently recorded interview, she said of the backyard photos, "THESE AREN'T THE PICTURES I TOOK" (Livingstone 454, emphasis added).

An important development in this matter occurred in 1992 when Dallas authorities released previously suppressed files on the JFK assassination. Among these files were several photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, two of which are backyard pictures that show clear signs of tampering. On February 9, 1992, the HOUSTON POST reported, "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" (Lane xxii). The POST further stated that the manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture (Lane xxii). The POST provided a description of the print:

In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (Lane xxii)
The silhouettes in the pictures appear to be right around Oswald's height, and they are in poses into which it appears the Oswald figure would fit.

The big question is, When were the manipulated prints made? If they were made after the assassination, then they might represent attempts by the Dallas police to see if the backyard photos could have been faked. But, if they were made prior to the shooting, they would constitute undeniable evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.

The POST article went on to report that Hershal Womack, a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, has noted "a variety of alleged inconsistencies with the backyard pictures."

In addition to the technical discrepancies in the photos, there were suspicious "irregularities" concerning the "finding" of the pictures. For starters, although the Dallas police said TWO negatives were found, only one negative is (or ever has been) in evidence. Also, the photos were supposedly found at the home of Michael and Ruth Paine, where Marina Oswald had been staying. But the snapshots weren't "found" until the day after the assassination, even though the Paine's home was searched "by various waves" of policemen and FBI agents on the afternoon and evening of the shooting.

There are also puzzling irregularities about the "finding" of the Imperial Reflex camera (see, for example, Meagher 202-205).

Oswald's Alleged Marksmanship

The WC said Oswald fired at Kennedy three times, hitting him twice. But could any lone assassin have shot JFK in the manner described by the WC? Could Oswald have done so? The evidence strongly suggests that the answer to both of these questions is no.

Oswald was at best only an average marksman. President Kennedy was a moving target as his limousine traveled on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza. From the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, Oswald would have been firing at the President from sixty feet up and from over two hundred feet away on average. Based on the Zapruder film and on eyewitness testimony, the WC believed that all three shots were fired in less than six seconds. There are doubts about the capabilities of the alleged murder weapon itself. In reenactments of the assassination, the expert marksmen hired by the WC were unable to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance.

Nevertheless, a noted lone-gunman theorist, Professor Jacob Cohen of Brandeis University, maintains that Oswald's alleged marksmanship was entirely possible. However, Cohen finds it necessary to attempt to stretch the assassin's firing time from six seconds to over eight seconds:

. . . nothing in [the] Zapruder [film] indicates that a possible third shot, which missed, had to have come BETWEEN the two hits. The Warren Commission concluded only that there were probably three shots and that THE TWO HITS, not the three shots, came within 5.6 seconds of each other. The miss could have come first, or last, though it probably came first. That means the gunman had more than eight seconds to shoot, and more than five seconds--ample time--between the two hits. Even if the miss had come between the two hits, there would still have been 2.8 seconds for fire and refire--enough time even for an amateur used to handling guns, like Oswald. (Cohen 32-33, emphasis in original)
There are a number of problems with Cohen's scenario. To begin with, it is based on an acceptance of the magic- or single-bullet theory. Essentially, this theory says that a bullet struck Kennedy in the back of the neck, exited his throat, entered Governor John Connally (who was seated in front of the President) and caused all of the Governor's extensive wounds. This hypothesis has long been seriously questioned. In fact, even two members of the WC rejected the theory outright, and a third member was highly skeptical of it (Groden and Livingstone 67-68). So, from the outset, Cohen's scenario is based on strongly disputed speculation. However, for the sake of argument, I will assume the correctness of the magic-bullet hypothesis.

Cohen's suggestion that the miss could have come last was ruled out by the WC itself. The Zapruder film indicates that the fatal head wound was the final hit. Furthermore, as the Commission pointed out, it is just not possible to ignore the substantial eyewitness testimony that the head shot was "the concluding event in the assassination sequence" (Moore 195).

It is true that the WC did not provide a final, definite opinion on which two of the three shots were hits. However, Jim Moore, a vocal advocate of the lone-gunman theory, acknowledges that the Commission's report "clearly indicated a leaning by its authors toward a second-shot miss" (195).

What about Cohen's claim that the lone assassin actually had more than eight seconds to fire? The majority of the assassination witnesses agreed that all the shots (whether three, four, or more in number) were fired within a time span of not more than five to six seconds (although some witnesses said the shooting took slightly longer). The WC agreed with this testimony and believed that in the Zapruder film the time span between the first hit on Kennedy and the fatal shot to his head was between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds.

This is not to say that there is no evidence that the shooting lasted more than six seconds. The Commission, it is clear, believed that its lone gunman did not fire prior to frame 207 of the Zapruder film, which would limit the firing time to slightly less than six seconds. However, if a shot was fired before this time, then the shooting took more than six seconds. There is, in fact, good evidence that TWO shots were fired prior to frame 207, one at around frames 145-150 and the other at around frame 190. The point is that it is extremely unlikely that the gunman in the sixth-floor window would have fired either shot.

Nearly everyone agrees that the Z145-150 shot missed. Yet, if the alleged lone gunman fired it, how did he manage to completely miss, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine, from 60 feet up and from less than 140 feet away? As for the shot at around Z190, if the sixth-floor gunman fired it, then he either fired at a time when his view of the limousine was obscured by the oak tree or he fired during split-second break in the foliage of the intervening oak tree, at frame 186. However, he would have had only 1/18th of a second to aim and fire, whereas the human eye requires 1/6th of a second to register and react to data.

A gunman firing from a building closer to Main St., such as the Dal-Tex Building, would have had a good shot at the limousine prior to Z-frame 207, but this would not have been the case for someone shooting from the TSBD's sixth-floor window. The sixth-floor shooter's view of the limousine would have been obscured from frames 167 to 206, except for the split-second foliage break at frame 186. Some lone-gunman theorists now suggest that the supposed sole assassin fired before the President's limousine disappeared behind the intervening oak tree (from around frames 155-162) and/or during the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage (frame 186). Yet, as discussed above, it is extremely unlikely that the sixth-floor gunman fired at either time.

Any sensible assassin in the sixth-floor window would have waited until frame 207 before firing. It is particularly hard to imagine that he would have wasted a shot during the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage. Even the WC expressed great doubt that its sixth-floor shooter would have fired, much less hit the target, during the foliage break. The Commission's lone gunman had already passed up a perfect shot at the President as the limousine drove on Houston Street. Are we also supposed to believe that he compounded his error by taking a high-risk shot that had virtually no chance of hitting the target? No, if the sixth-floor shooter was half the marksman that WC defenders say he was, he would have known enough to hold his fire until frame 207. And, had he fired at around frame 160, he certainly would not have missed, not only JFK, but the entire limousine. (But even if the sixth-floor gunman had waited until frame 207 to fire, he would not have had an easy shot. Virtually all WC defenders maintain that the gunman's first hit came between frames 210 and 224, and most now say the hit occurred at Z223. However, the Commission determined that for this shot the gunman had less than eight-tenths of a second to aim and fire because until then the sixth-floor window's view of the limousine was obscured by the oak tree. Moreover, the limousine was going faster for the first hit than it was for the third hit. And, in that eight-tenths of a second the limousine, which was then slightly less than two hundred feet away, had just cleared the oak tree. This would have made it somewhat harder for the assassin's eye to zero in on the target.)

If one believes that there were only three shots, and that the gunman in the sixth-floor window fired all of them, then the only plausible position is to assume that he didn't fire until the limousine came out from beneath the oak tree, at frames 207-210 (the limousine would have reemerged into view at Z207 and Kennedy at Z210). Therefore, we are left with the lone gunman scoring hits on his first and third shots, having less than six seconds to get off three rounds, with a maximum of only 2.8 seconds to fire and refire. The FBI established that the Carcano's rifle bolt and trigger could not be operated in less than 2.3 seconds. WC supporters claim that other, later timing tests prove that the Carcano could have been fired in well under two seconds per shot. However, not one of those subsequent timing tests used the alleged murder weapon itself. They used different Carcano rifles, not the one Oswald allegedly fired. When the FBI tested the supposed murder weapon itself, using expert marksmen, it established that that weapon could not be fired faster than 2.3 seconds per shot.

The lone gunman would have faced other problems as well. The sharpshooters in the WC's rifle tests reported that as newcomers to the Italian rifle they found the bolt so difficult to operate that it skewed their aim (Summers 46). The weapon was also found to have an odd trigger pull.

Other facts about the Mannlicher-Carcano make it extremely doubtful that anyone, least of all Oswald, could have used it to shoot Kennedy. The rifle needed metal shims placed under the telescopic sight before the Army testing laboratory could determine the weapon's accuracy. The metal shims had to be used because the telescopic sight was so unrelated to the rifle's line of fire, and so inexpertly attached, that it could not even be adjusted. Lone-gunman theorists reply that the scope might have been damaged when the rifle was allegedly thrown down in haste after the shooting, thus creating a need for the use of shims in realigning the scope. They further suggest that handling of the scope after the rifle's discovery might have contributed to the scope's being misaligned. However, photos of the rifle in its hiding place indicate that it was not hastily thrown down. In fact, it was discovered standing upright between a narrow gap between two rows of boxes. And the handling of the scope after the fact should not have caused it to be so misaligned.

Additionally, the gunsmith at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), where the Carcano was examined, reported that the scope had been aligned as if for a left-handed person (Meagher 106). Oswald was right-handed. This, however, does not necessarily prove anything. In the CBS rifle test, the scope was aligned slightly to the left, to facilitate faster firing, yet some of the expert shooters managed to score at least two hits in three shots in less than six seconds anyway. But these were expert riflemen. The leftward alignment of the scope probably would have been awkward for a marksman of average ability, such as Oswald. In response, lone-gunman theorists claim that there is no such thing as a left-handed scope. But most conspiracists don't claim the scope was a "left-handed scope"; rather, they observe that, according to the APG's gunsmith, the scope had been aligned for a left-handed shooter. Lone-gunman theorists reply that neither is there such a thing as aligning a scope for a left-handed rifleman, but they are at a loss to explain why the APG's gunsmith reported the scope had been aligned "as if for a left-handed man." The answer probably lies in the fact that in order to be fired as rapidly as possible, the Carcano's scope would have had to be positioned slightly to the left. However, as mentioned, it is likely that this alignment would have been awkward for a gunman of average ability.

Moore asserts that the shot from the southeast corner window "was not difficult" (49). He adds that he has visited the window any times and that "the more I stood in the sixth-floor window, the easier Oswald's feat became" (49). Moore does not explain why the expert marksmen hired by the WC were unable to duplicate Oswald's alleged performance. In fact, they failed to do so even though they fired from a tower that was thirty feet lower than the sixth-floor window, and even though they fired at stationary targets, while Oswald, of course, would have been faced with a moving target. I think one of the reasons those shooters could not repeat Oswald's alleged feat was that they used the alleged murder weapon itself.

Moore claims that Oswald "apparently availed himself of many opportunities to work the bolt and to sight imaginary targets while familiarizing himself with the Carcano in his screened-in back porch" (49). There is no hard evidence to support this assertion.

If anything, the evidence indicates Oswald had very little time for target practice in the weeks preceding President Kennedy's death. Oswald's landlady reported that in the forty days preceding the assassination Oswald usually watched TV or read after he came home from work. On the weekends, he almost always visited his wife and children. When and where did Oswald have the chance to practice firing at a moving target from sixty feet up and from an average of two hundred feet away?

And Oswald would have needed lots of practice. He was at best an average shot. One of his Marine Corps buddies, Nelson Delgado, reported that Oswald had trouble meeting the minimum Marine marksmanship standards, and that he was such a poor shot that he often missed the target completely. In 1977 former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty of Oswald's Marine colleagues. Apparently, not one of them described the alleged assassin as an excellent shot, and nearly all of them agreed with Delgado's testimony that Oswald was a poor marksman (Hurt 99-100).

Some WC defenders point to the CBS television network's reenactment of the assassination as proof that Oswald could have shot Kennedy. The CBS rifle test was reported in the 1975 documentary THE AMERICAN ASSASSINS and was presented as evidence of the WC's findings regarding the shooting. However, CBS's reenactment failed to establish that Oswald could have done what the WC said he did.

The CBS test was not a realistic simulation of the shooting feat attributed to Oswald. CBS used eleven expert riflemen, but Oswald was an average marksman at best. Also, the CBS test assumed the correctness of the single-bullet theory. Therefore, the shooters were not required to load and fire their second shot, or any shot, in approximately one second. They should have been asked to do so since numerous witnesses from all over Dealey Plaza said two of the shots came so closely together that they were nearly simultaneous (see, for example, Menninger 249, 253, 278, 298, and Brown 92-93, 99, 115). Some of these witnesses said the two shots were so close together that they almost sounded like a single burst of two bullets from an automatic weapon. No gunman, no matter how skilled, could have fired the Carcano with that kind of speed, and, obviously, the CBS shooters were not required to do so.

It should also be kept in mind that the CBS reenactment did not take into account such matters as the cramped conditions in which Oswald would have had to fire, and the fact that in the forty days preceding the assassination Oswald had few if any chances to target practice. The riflemen in the CBS test did not use the supposed murder weapon itself. They used a Carcano, but not the one Oswald allegedly used. Additionally, not one of the expert CBS shooters managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds on his first attempt, yet Oswald would have had only one attempt. Seven of the CBS riflemen failed to score two hits on ANY of their attempts.

During the 1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by a British television network, Monty Lutz, a former member of the HSCA's firearms panel, testified that to his knowledge no one had ever duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting performance. (Substantial portions of the mock trial were released in the form of the video presentation entitled THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, which has been shown on the A&E Network over the last few years.) Years earlier, FBI marksman and ballistics expert Robert Frazier said much the same thing during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.

Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting

It goes without saying that a key component in any case against Oswald would be to place him at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed, i.e., to place him at the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the time of the shooting. But here, too, a prosecutor would be in for some very rough going.

The WC said Oswald was at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. If so, then how is it he was seen by the building manager, Roy Truly, and a pistol-waving police officer, Patrolman Marrion Baker, well under ninety seconds afterwards on the SECOND floor, standing in the lunchroom with a Coke in his hand, giving every appearance of being perfectly calm and relaxed?

Moore and other lone-gunman theorists assume that Oswald bought the Coke after the encounter with the manager and the policeman (53). However, the available evidence indicates Oswald purchased the Coke before the second-floor encounter (Marrs 50-52). Furthermore, Oswald had no reason to lie about when he bought the Coke. When he mentioned the Coke-buying during his questioning, he did so in passing, and he could not have known the important role the timing of this detail would subsequently play in the investigation. I agree with what David Lifton has said on this subject:

The original news accounts said that when [Officer Marrion] Baker first saw Oswald, the latter was drinking a Coke. This seemingly minor fact was crucial, because if Oswald had time to operate the machine, open the bottle, and drink some soda, that would mean he was on the second floor even earlier than the Commission's reconstructions allowed. In a signed statement Officer Baker was asked to make in September 1964, at the tail-end of the investigation, he wrote: "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." A line was drawn through "drinking a coke," and Baker initialed the corrected version. [Dallas] Police Captain Will Fritz, in his report on his interrogation of Oswald, wrote: "I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca Cola when the officer came in."
If I were a juror, I would have believed Oswald already had the Coke in hand, and indeed, had drunk some of it, by the time the officer entered the lunchroom. (Lifton 351)
Oswald could not have made it to the second floor in well under ninety seconds, in time to be seen by Baker, and without being seen by Roy Truly. The evidence indicates that he was seen on the second floor about sixty to seventy-five seconds after the shots were fired. The Dallas police indicated that the alleged murder weapon was carefully hidden under and between a stack of book boxes at the OPPOSITE end of the sixth floor from where the shots were supposedly fired. It is reasonable to assume Oswald would have attempted to wipe his fingerprints off the rifle (at least those parts that he would have just handled while firing it). Someone wiped off the Carcano before it was "discovered" because the FBI found no identifiable prints on it when it examined the weapon on November 23. This would mean that in well under ninety seconds Oswald chambered another round, wiped off the rifle, squeezed out of the sniper's nest, ran all the way to the opposite end of the sixth floor, took the time to carefully hide the weapon under some boxes, ran down four flights of stairs to the second floor (actually eight small flights), made his way to the lunchroom, and then bought a Coke, and yet did not appear the least bit winded or nervous when seen by the manager and the policeman.

In most of his statements, Baker said that Oswald was walking away from him when he spotted him through the small window on the foyer door. Baker indicated that Oswald was about twenty feet from him when he saw him. The WC placed Oswald just past the foyer door, about eighteen feet from Baker when Baker allegedly spotted him. Yet, in Baker's final statement to the FBI, Baker said that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was STANDING in the lunchroom.

The WC staged a reenactment to prove Oswald could have reached the second-floor lunchroom in about ninety seconds after supposedly shooting Kennedy. However, the person playing Oswald was only able to meet the ninety-second time limit when he skipped wiping off the rifle, simply leaned over as if to drop the weapon on the floor (instead of carefully hiding it, although there is a conflicting report on this point), and delayed buying the Coke until after encountering the manager and the police officer (Weberman and Canfield 143-144; see also Brown 200-201, and Weisberg 110-122). And these are not the only alleged Oswald actions that the reenactment failed to simulate.

Furthermore, after wiping off the rifle and stashing it at the opposite end of the sixth floor, Oswald would have had to use the back stairway to reach the second floor as soon as possible. However, none of the people who were on or near that stairway heard footsteps or saw Oswald racing down the stairs for his encounter with the manager and the policeman (Marrs 53). What's more, if Oswald had come down the stairs to get to the lunchroom, he would have been seen by Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker.

Another clear indication that Oswald could not have made it to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker is the fact that the door to the lunchroom had an automatic closer, and the building manager, who was running up the stairs leading to the second floor ahead of the policeman, did NOT see the door close (and Baker probably didn't see it closing either, even though he later tentatively suggested he did to the WC). Notes Harold Weisberg,

With all the deliberateness of all the so-called reconstructions it still was not possible to get Oswald to and into that second-floor lunchroom before he would have been seen outside of it by the building manager, Roy Truly, who was rushing up those stairs ahead of police officer Marrion Baker.
Oswald was inside that lunchroom--the door to which had an automatic closer and with a Coke in his hand when Baker saw him through the small window in the door, he said, and when Truly, ahead of Baker and farther up the stairs, did not see him or the door close. (Weisberg 88)
According to the WC, Oswald went through the foyer door just a second or two before Baker spotted him. If so, Truly would have seen Oswald going through or approaching the door, and if the former had been the case then the door would have been virtually wide open when Truly passed it. Yet, Truly said nothing in any of his statements about seeing the door open or in motion, and he did not see Oswald on the stairs or near the door. Baker only mentioned this (that the door might have been in motion as it was about to close) as a faint possibility when he appeared before the Warren Commission. Even then, Baker said that if the door was moving, it was almost shut. It would have had to be nearly closed, or else Baker would have had an even harder time spotting Oswald through its window; as it was, with the door shut the window would have been at a 45-degree angle to Baker. Moreover, how could the automatic door have closed or nearly closed behind Oswald (1) if Oswald was supposedly only a foot or two past the door when Baker spotted him, and (2) when Truly did not see Oswald coming down the stairs, even though Truly was running ahead of Baker? In fact, to judge from Truly's WC testimony, the door was CLOSED when Truly saw it.

There are indications that Baker and Truly arrived to the second-floor landing in right around a minute, not ninety seconds. Oswald could not have done everything the Commission and its witnesses said he did and still made it past the foyer door without being seen by Truly.

Photographs taken of the TSBD before and after the shooting show that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor window shortly after Kennedy was shot. This fact was corroborated by photographic expert Dr. Robert R. Hunt for the House Select Committee (4 HSCA 422-423). In fact, the Select Committee's photographic panel concluded: "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within two minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109). Obviously, Oswald could not have been in the second-floor lunchroom meeting the building manager and the policeman while moving boxes around on the sixth floor at the same time. So who was moving the boxes less than two minutes after the shooting? Whoever it was, it wasn't Oswald.

Several people reported seeing TWO men, one with a rifle, on the sixth floor of the Book Depository shortly before the shooting (Summers 40-46; Hurt 91-94). WC defenders have pointed out some inconsistencies in their accounts, but I believe the evidence supports the essential components of their stories. One of those witnesses saw the two men on the sixth floor at around 12:15 P.M., which is when Oswald was reportedly seen by another Book Depository employee eating lunch in the lunchroom on the SECOND floor. Who were the two men? None of the descriptions of them matches Oswald. So, whoever they were, evidently Oswald wasn't one of them.

Cohen asserts that two people identified Oswald in a police lineup as the person they had seen in the sixth-floor window (33). There was only one such witness, Howard Brennan, and he gave implausible, contradictory testimony (Marrs 25-27; Lane 83-99; Brown 119-130). In fact, Brennan failed to make a positive identification of Oswald in a police lineup on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture on TV beforehand (Summers 78). Only after weeks of "questioning" by federal agents did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. Moreover, a number of points in Brennan's account actually cast doubt on the official version of the shooting (Brown 119-130). The House Select Committee found Brennan's testimony so problematic that it ignored his story entirely.

I am inclined to believe that Brennan DID see SOMEONE firing from the sixth-floor window, but that the gunman he saw was not Oswald. I believe Brennan later identified Oswald only because he was pressured into doing so. Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing matches that given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, as mentioned, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day.

What About the Magic Bullet?

According to lone-gunman theorists, the same 6.5 mm bullet which supposedly hit Kennedy in the back of the neck exited his throat, passed downward through Governor Connally's back, chest, wrist, and thigh, causing all of his extensive wounds, and yet emerged in nearly pristine condition to be found at Parkland Hospital shortly after the President was pronounced dead. This bullet, known to many as the "magic bullet," is officially listed as Commission Exhibit (CE) 399. Lone-gunman theorists claim that CE 399 has been ballistically matched to fragments from Connally's wrist and from the Presidential limousine, which allegedly proves Oswald shot Kennedy.

It should be pointed out that initially the WC operated on the assumption that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate bullets. The single-bullet theory wasn't even conceived of until the news came out that another bullet had struck the curb and had caused a piece of concrete to strike a bystander named James Tague in the face. The Commission tried to ignore the reports about the errant bullet. Eventually, though, it was forced to acknowledge that a bullet had missed the limousine. The WC was then left with only one bullet to account for the President's back and throat wounds plus all of Governor Connally's extensive wounds. In response to this dilemma, Commission staffers, led by Arlen Specter, came up with the single-bullet theory.

Therefore, if the magic-bullet theory is wrong, the lone-gunman scenario collapses. To put it another way, if the single-bullet theory is incorrect, then there had to be at least two gunmen firing at President Kennedy.

The magic-bullet theory is foundationally dependent on a number of improbable assumptions. The theory assumes Oswald scored two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds firing a bolt-action rifle at a moving target from sixty feet up and from over two hundred feet away on average. The hypothesis also assumes that one of the bullets which hit President Kennedy struck him in the neck and then exited his throat. There is considerable evidence against both of these assumptions.

Many assassination researchers find it hard to take the single-bullet theory seriously because it seems so implausible on its face. As unlikely as the theory appears at first glance, however, it looks even more tenuous upon close examination. Even the Kennedy autopsy doctors were highly skeptical of the theory; one of them called it "most unlikely," and the other two agreed with that assessment (Groden and Livingstone 64). Dr. Charles Gregory, one of the physicians who treated Governor Connally, said the bullet which hit the Governor "behaved as though it had never struck anything except him" (Groden and Livingstone 64).

CE 399 could not be the same round that hit Kennedy because more fragments were removed from Connally than are missing from CE 399. Parkland Nursing Supervisor Audrey Bell says, "What we took off [Governor Connally] was greater than what is missing from this bullet [CE 399]." "Much greater?" Nurse Bell was asked. "Yes," she replied (Livingstone 312). She also said the following:

. . . the smallest [of the fragments] was the size of the striking end of a match and the largest at least twice that big. I have seen the picture of the magic bullet, and I can't see how it could be the bullet from which the fragments I saw came. (Groden and Livingstone 73)
Furthermore, one fragment reportedly remained in Connally until the day he died. Therefore, there is no way the magic bullet could be the same missile that hit Connally (Groden and Livingstone 64, 66, 491 n 9; Summers 38, 546; Livingstone 163, 304, 312).

Several pages could be devoted to discussing the conflicting and impossible trajectories of the alleged magic bullet. In testifying before the HSCA, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and a member of the Committee's medical panel at the time, summarized some of the problems with these trajectories:

The [HSCA's medical] panel, to the best of my recollection, was in unanimous agreement that there was a slight upward trajectory to the bullet that went through President John F. Kennedy, that is to say, that the bullet wound of entrance on the President's back, lined up with the bullet wound of exit in the front of the President's neck drawing a straight line, showed that vertically the bullet had moved slightly upward, slightly, but upward.
That is extremely important for two reasons. One, under the single-bullet theory--with Oswald as the sole assassin, or anybody else, in the sixth floor window, southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building, you have the bullet coming down at a downward angle of around 20-25 degrees, something like that, maybe a little bit less. It had originally been postulated, I think, by the autopsy team, and the initial investigators, at considerably more. How in the world can a bullet be fired from the sixth floor window, strike the President in the back, and yet have a slightly upward direction?
There was nothing there to cause it to change its course. And then with the slightly upward direction, outside the President's neck, that bullet then embarked upon a rollercoaster ride with a major dip, because it then proceeded, under the single-bullet theory, through Gov. John Connally at a 25 degree angle of declination.
To my knowledge, there has never been any disagreement among the proponents and defenders of the Warren Commission report or the critics, about the angle of declination in John Connally--maybe a degree or two. We have that bullet going through the Governor at about 25 degrees downward. How does a bullet that is moving slightly upward in the President proceed then to move downward 25 degrees in John Connally. This is what I cannot understand.
My colleagues on the panel are aware of this. We discussed it, and what we keep coming back to is, "well, we don't know how the two men were seated in relationship to each other." I don't care what happened behind the Stemmons freeway sign, there is no way in the world that they can put that together; and likewise on the horizontal plane, the bullet, please keep in mind, entered in the President's right back, I agree, exited in the anterior midline of the President's neck, I agree, and was moving thence by definition, by known facts, on a straight line from entrance to exit, from right to left.
And so with that bullet moving in a leftward fashion, it then somehow made an acute angular turn, came back almost two feet, stopped, made a second turn, and slammed into Gov. John Connally behind the right armpit, referred to medically as the right posterior axillary area.
The vertical and horizontal trajectory of this bullet, 399, under the single-bullet theory is absolutely unfathomable, indefensible, and incredible. (1 HSCA 344-345; cf. 1 HSCA 357- 358)
Notwithstanding all of the evidence against the magic-bullet theory, WC defenders continue to hail the neutron activation analysis (NAA) conducted by Dr. Vincent Guinn for the HSCA. Guinn analyzed a sample from CE 399 and some alleged fragments from Connally's wrist, from Kennedy's brain, and from the limousine. He concluded it was "very likely" and "highly probable" they were from the same ammunition. The HSCA's chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey, accepted Guinn's NAA without question, and he continues to portray it as absolute proof of the single-bullet theory and of Oswald's alleged guilt. Walter Cronkite's 1988 NOVA documentary, WHO SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY?, portrayed Guinn's conclusions as definitive. Moore and Cohen see Guinn's NAA as scientific confirmation of the single-bullet theory and of the lone-gunman scenario, with Oswald, of course, identified as the gunman (Moore 170-171; Cohen 38). However, in light of the evidence against the magic-bullet theory, Guinn's conclusions deserve to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism from the outset. As for Guinn's NAA itself, given the items he tested, as well as those he did NOT test, his NAA does not support the magic-bullet theory, nor it evidence of the lone-gunman scenario.

When Guinn began his NAA, he found that a can which had contained fragments that had apparently struck the limousine's windshield was empty, so he obviously could not test them (Groden and Livingstone 73). The fragments from Connally's wrist that were tested in 1964 were (and still are) missing and thus were not subjected to Guinn's NAA, either (Marrs 447). Of the fragment specimens which were available to Guinn, one of them, CE 569, could not be tested because it was only the copper jacket with no lead inside (Groden and Livingstone 73). In addition, Guinn later conceded that none of the wrist fragments available for his test weighed the same as those listed as evidence by the FBI in 1964 (Groden and Livingstone 69; Lifton 558-559). Dr. Guinn also admitted he could not verify the genuineness of the fragments given to him for testing. There are significant gaps in the chain of evidence for the fragments that were reportedly recovered from the limousine. There was ample opportuni
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Kev Grey on September 12, 2012, 07:01:27 PM
I have yet to find any documentation as to whether or not any forensic's were performed on the window's or window sill's and frame's of the TSBD. Since the building is a book depository any gunpowder residue would indicate something other than book's. Perhaps the position of sniper and or sniper's? Once the suspect MC was found, did the search continue for any other weapon's? As for J Mc. He couldn't even convince me to go fishing. :fishing:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 12, 2012, 07:12:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have yet to find any documentation as to whether or not any forensic's were performed on the window's or window sill's and frame's of the TSBD. Since the building is a book depository any gunpowder residue would indicate something other than book's. Perhaps the position of sniper and or sniper's? Once the suspect MC was found, did the search continue for any other weapon's? As for J Mc. He couldn't even convince me to go fishing. :fishing:

No forensics were performed on the windows or the window sills.
Why do you think there is no TV show called CSI: Dallas?
They couldn't even identify the Walker bullet.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: David Josephs on September 12, 2012, 09:45:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No forensics were performed on the windows or the window sills.
Why do you think there is no TV show called CSI: Dallas?
They couldn't even identify the Walker bullet.


Hang on there Anthony...  Day removes a portion of the window sill and states that he gives it to the FBI (Drain?) on that day.
I can't find an exhibit or Dallas document confirming the giving or the recording of the item in the FBI's inventory...

What DID the FBi do with that piece of wood? 

and is that piece gone in this photo from a few days later?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268b.htm (http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268b.htm)

(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/FBItooksnipersnestsillon11-22perCarlDayaarc-cia410-01_0057_0005.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 13, 2012, 04:54:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hang on there Anthony...  Day removes a portion of the window sill and states that he gives it to the FBI (Drain?) on that day.
I can't find an exhibit or Dallas document confirming the giving or the recording of the item in the FBI's inventory...

What DID the FBi do with that piece of wood? 

and is that piece gone in this photo from a few days later?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268b.htm (http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268b.htm)

(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/FBItooksnipersnestsillon11-22perCarlDayaarc-cia410-01_0057_0005.jpg)

FINGERPRINTS. I thought the question was about gunpowder residue.
Day probably did not think that wood would hold any fingerprints. I doubt that the FBI even tried even if they got it.
I don't see anything missing in that photo.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 13, 2012, 02:02:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You and other LN's have said yourselves that Oswald was on an impossible suicide mission so please explain how he wasn't caught after he fired the shots. He simply got lucky is a cop out. It seems to me the only way to get away was to plan it but you guys tell me that other than take the rifle to work on the off chance that he would get a chance to shoot the POTUS as he was driving by, was the only plan he had. So please explain how he managed to elude everyone out of the TSBD? So far what you guys have come up with is he MUST have.
Did he catch the lift down? You see that would be my guess for the shooter if he wasn't on the stairs.

How did your shooter on the 6th floor get out?  What plan could there be other than to head for the door as quickly as possible and hope that you are not caught?  Is he going to parachute from the roof?  We don't have to speculate about what happened.  We know shots were fired from the 6th floor and the shooter got out of the building.  Even if you believe that's improbable, it happened.  And Oswald was arrested in less than two hours.  His luck was only momentary.  He took advantage of the initial confusion and got out of the building in the minutes before it was locked down.   
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 13, 2012, 08:37:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How are you using the term patsy?  Many CTers have used that term to mean that Oswald was innocent.  Fleeing is clearly not consistent with that interpretation.  In addition, it is inconsistent with Oswald's own use of the term to explain that the authorities had rushed to judgment in arresting him because of his having lived in the Soviet Union.  He did not say that he was being framed as part of a conspiracy.   We know Oswald's use of the term is incorrect since there is no evidence those who arrested him even knew he had lived in the USSR.   However, I assume you mean "patsy" in the sense that Oswald had some insight as to what was going on and realized somehow after the fact (within three minutes after the shots) but not apparently before that he was being set up.  He got smart real fast.  The biggest problem with this is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it.  It is simply an ad hoc theory to shoehorn a possible conspiracy narrative into the facts.  We could come up with all sorts of ad hoc explanations without evidence to support his leaving the building.  Maybe he erroneously thought there was a fire drill etc. 

And yet, John Murray is telling Miles on another thread that it does NOT mean guilt either!  Why can't LHO have been afraid for his safety like everyone else?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 13, 2012, 08:40:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you claiming Oswald did not flee the building immediately after the assassination?  Otherwise it's difficult to see any point here.  Everyone was eventually accounted for except Oswald.  No one was "missing" except for him.  To the extent that Givens wasn't present was because the police did not let him back into the building.  He tried to get in.  He was doing what an innocent person would do which is return - not flee - from the crime scene.  Just the opposite of Oswald.  Truly had also noticed him outside around the time the shots were fired confirming that he was not the assassin even if he couldn't be immediately located.  However, Truly knew Oswald was inside the building per his lunchroom encounter and long gone.  Only a dimwit would attempt to compare the circumstances involving Givens and Oswald.

There was NO roll call Dick.  I have posted this information before.  Others left the building too and one had a APB out on him, why are you NOT suspecting them based on your silly premise? You are fibbing when you claim "no one was missing but him (LHO)" as others were missing.

You are making excuses for the others, but hang LHO for the same actions.  YOU are a biased hypocrite with only one goal -- hang LHO.  Why is that?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 13, 2012, 09:16:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And yet, John Murray is telling Miles on another thread that it does NOT mean guilt either!  Why can't LHO have been afraid for his safety like everyone else?



Because other fleeing men don't wind up accused of pumping a police officer full of lead.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 14, 2012, 02:38:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd love to know all that Richard but unfortunately other than Oswald did it alone (even though no one saw him), the WC didn't bother with any other alternatives. This case was cinched on circumstantial evidence and one suspect. It is what it is.
I find it highly improbable that without help, ANYONE could get away with shooting the POTUS in a building full of potential witnesses and yet you are giving me a speculative lecture on what is possible? :scratch:
You guys will believe anything once you believe Oswald acted alone.

Don't you mean a building where everyone was either outside or watching the motorcade from windows??? Well maybe except Piper and Dougherty.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 14, 2012, 10:30:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't you mean a building where everyone was either outside or watching the motorcade from windows??? Well maybe except Piper and Dougherty.

And West.....Actually Piper claimed to be watching the motorcade but simple sat somewhere that made it impossible.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 14, 2012, 12:40:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't you mean a building where everyone was either outside or watching the motorcade from windows??? Well maybe except Piper and Dougherty.

But there were multiple employers in the building, making it practically impossible for just about anyone to control the environment.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 14, 2012, 01:59:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd love to know all that Richard but unfortunately other than Oswald did it alone (even though no one saw him), the WC didn't bother with any other alternatives. This case was cinched on circumstantial evidence and one suspect. It is what it is.
I find it highly improbable that without help, ANYONE could get away with shooting the POTUS in a building full of potential witnesses and yet you are giving me a speculative lecture on what is possible? :scratch:
You guys will believe anything once you believe Oswald acted alone.


I don't think this is very complicated or requires any speculation.  There is only one way out from the 6th floor and that's down and out the door.  If you agree that shots were fired from the 6th floor and the shooter was not apprehended in the TSBD, then you know it was not only possible but in fact what actually happened.   Even if you believe that to be improbable it happened.  What alternatives are there to consider in this escape scenario?  A parachute or tunnel?  What "help" could have been provided to the assassin?  A scenario that involves others actually cuts against your own premise.  The more strangers lurking in the building the more likely it is that someone who worked there would have reported it.  Oswald is less likely to be noticed on his own because he works in the building.  People expect to see him there.  The fact that he escaped unnoticed is more likely if he is the lone assassin than if there were strangers in the building diverting people away so the shooter could escape. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 06:11:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because other fleeing men don't wind up accused of pumping a police officer full of lead.

The key word is "accused" John, show me were he was EVER FOUND GUILTY of doing so?

Why do you want to hang LHO based on false accusations?

What's in it for YOU John?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 06:18:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The key word is "accused" John, show me were he was EVER FOUND GUILTY of doing so?

Why do you want to hang LHO based on false accusations?

What's in it for YOU John?

False accusations?  He's caught with the gun on his person along with the ammo and admitted buying the gun.  For a paranoid kook, this means nothing.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 06:23:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
False accusations?  He's caught with the gun on his person along with the ammo and admitted buying the gun.  For a paranoid kook, this means nothing.

"Paul", you are requested to cite your evidence showing he shot JDT anytime you want, but guess what?  You CAN'T since NONE exists!  The bullets INSIDE JDT did NOT match LHO's alleged revolver and even the WC gave us evidence showing this!

LOL!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 06:31:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Paul", you are requested to cite your evidence showing he shot JDT anytime you want, but guess what?  You CAN'T since NONE exists!  The bullets INSIDE JDT did NOT match LHO's alleged revolver and even the WC gave us evidence showing this!

LOL!


The four recovered spent casings were bulged in diameter causing the extractor
mechanism to not be able to provide enough force to remove all of the
expanded casings from the revolvers' cylinder at the same time.  The
undersized shells used in the revolver made for a more difficult, manual
extraction of the casings, as was described by the witnesses at the scene.   
There would have been no reason to remove the unfired round (MO, five
shots were fired).  After the killing of Tippit, the revolver was reloaded
as it was recovered fully loaded at the TT.  LHO was found to be in
possession of an additional five unfired cartridges in his trouser pocket.   
The evidence at the scene discounts the use of an automatic pistol.  No
spent shell casings were found near the immediate scene of the murder.   
An automatic discharges it's spent casings within the immediate area of
where it was fired.  All of the recovered casings were recovered some
distance away from the shooting, with two of them being found around the
side of the Davis' house along Patton.  The location of the spent casings
corresponds with the witness statements of LHO unloading his revolver as
he fled the scene of the murder.


Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 14, 2012, 06:38:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The four recovered spent casings were bulged in diameter causing the extractor
mechanism to not be able to provide enough force to remove all of the
expanded casings from the revolvers' cylinder at the same time.  The
undersized shells used in the revolver made for a more difficult, manual
extraction of the casings, as was described by the witnesses at the scene.   
There would have been no reason to remove the unfired round (MO, five
shots were fired).  After the killing of Tippit, the revolver was reloaded
as it was recovered fully loaded at the TT.  LHO was found to be in
possession of an additional five unfired cartridges in his trouser pocket.   
The evidence at the scene discounts the use of an automatic pistol.  No
spent shell casings were found near the immediate scene of the murder.   
An automatic discharges it's spent casings within the immediate area of
where it was fired.  All of the recovered casings were recovered some
distance away from the shooting, with two of them being found around the
side of the Davis' house along Patton.  The location of the spent casings
corresponds with the witness statements of LHO unloading his revolver as
he fled the scene of the murder.




Also this:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143. I ask you whether you are familiar with this group of exhibits.
Mr. NICOL. These two are fired lead projectiles that were designated by the FBI as K-3, companions to the tests in 595.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say companions, you mean they were given to you
Mr. NICOL. They were given to me simultaneously in an envelope, at that time wrapped in cotton.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the other Exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. This was the projectile designated by the FBI, I believe, as Q-13. This is a .38 Special projectile designated Q-502. That would correspond to Commission Exhibit 603.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the item you just identified?
Mr. NICOL. Q-13 would correspond with 602. This is Q-501, corresponding to Exhibit 604. This is Q-500, corresponding to Exhibit 605.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you familiar with all of those?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I have seen and examined all of these.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct
.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 06:48:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also this:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143. I ask you whether you are familiar with this group of exhibits.
Mr. NICOL. These two are fired lead projectiles that were designated by the FBI as K-3, companions to the tests in 595.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say companions, you mean they were given to you
Mr. NICOL. They were given to me simultaneously in an envelope, at that time wrapped in cotton.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the other Exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. This was the projectile designated by the FBI, I believe, as Q-13. This is a .38 Special projectile designated Q-502. That would correspond to Commission Exhibit 603.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the item you just identified?
Mr. NICOL. Q-13 would correspond with 602. This is Q-501, corresponding to Exhibit 604. This is Q-500, corresponding to Exhibit 605.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you familiar with all of those?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I have seen and examined all of these.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct
.


Case closed!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 06:50:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Case closed!

We are talking about an UNSOLVED MURDER dimwit, the case CAN'T BE CLOSED! 

You are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs again!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 06:51:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The four recovered spent casings were bulged in diameter causing the extractor
mechanism to not be able to provide enough force to remove all of the
expanded casings from the revolvers' cylinder at the same time.  The
undersized shells used in the revolver made for a more difficult, manual
extraction of the casings, as was described by the witnesses at the scene.   
There would have been no reason to remove the unfired round (MO, five
shots were fired).  After the killing of Tippit, the revolver was reloaded
as it was recovered fully loaded at the TT.  LHO was found to be in
possession of an additional five unfired cartridges in his trouser pocket.   
The evidence at the scene discounts the use of an automatic pistol.  No
spent shell casings were found near the immediate scene of the murder.   
An automatic discharges it's spent casings within the immediate area of
where it was fired.  All of the recovered casings were recovered some
distance away from the shooting, with two of them being found around the
side of the Davis' house along Patton.  The location of the spent casings
corresponds with the witness statements of LHO unloading his revolver as
he fled the scene of the murder.




 :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

NONE of the four rounds INSIDE JDT could be matched to the revolver in question, CE-143, thus, you have NOTHING.

End of story!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 06:52:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We are talking about an UNSOLVED MURDER dimwit, the case CAN'T BE CLOSED! 

You are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs again!



Well, I believe history has recorded this case closed!  Except in the tepid minds of kooks such as you!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 14, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Case closed!

Well, it is to any reasonable person who has looked at it. That aspect of it is anyway. Who but an absolute ignoramus would argue otherwise?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 06:54:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also this:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143. I ask you whether you are familiar with this group of exhibits.
Mr. NICOL. These two are fired lead projectiles that were designated by the FBI as K-3, companions to the tests in 595.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say companions, you mean they were given to you
Mr. NICOL. They were given to me simultaneously in an envelope, at that time wrapped in cotton.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the other Exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. This was the projectile designated by the FBI, I believe, as Q-13. This is a .38 Special projectile designated Q-502. That would correspond to Commission Exhibit 603.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the item you just identified?
Mr. NICOL. Q-13 would correspond with 602. This is Q-501, corresponding to Exhibit 604. This is Q-500, corresponding to Exhibit 605.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you familiar with all of those?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I have seen and examined all of these.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct
.


Sorry Timmy-Jim, but Nicol does NOT trump the FBI experts who told the WC and the HSCA that NO bullets matched the revolver in question! 

Nicol was called in because they had NO one at the FBI who would say they did match, thus, they used a man who lied for them.

'Tis that simple.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 14, 2012, 06:56:40 PM
Case in point.  ROFLMFAO
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 07:00:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry Timmy-Jim, but Nicol does NOT trump the FBI experts who told the WC and the HSCA that NO bullets matched the revolver in question! 

Nicol was called in because they had NO one at the FBI who would say they did match, thus, they used a man who lied for them.

'Tis that simple.

True, for a simple minded CT.  Just one more conspiracy theory.  It's never ending.  Let's just add one more individual into this conspiracy of thousands. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 14, 2012, 07:10:02 PM
It's not only hopeless but pointless to discuss with Caprio.  Because Oswald died before he could be convicted in a trial the case remains open?  LOL.  I guess Hitler is not a war criminal under that logic.  Perhaps a good defense attorney would have gotten him off at Nuremberg.  Therefore, we can't say he was responsible for the Holocaust.   Let's all band to together with OJ and look for the real killers in that case.  He was never convicted.  And on and on it goes.  Compulsion disorder run amok.   Oswald was arrested within two hours.  There is more evidence against him, as set out in the Warren Report, than 99% of those in prison today. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 07:11:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where were  the shells kept after their tests were completed.


Relevancy?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 08:01:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, I believe history has recorded this case closed!  Except in the tepid minds of kooks such as you!

Wasn't "case closed" a favorite expression of Archie Bunker?  It sure was!

You wish it was closed dimwit, but it is NOT.  IT can't be since it is a murder case with NO statute of limitations.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 08:03:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, it is to any reasonable person who has looked at it. That aspect of it is anyway. Who but an absolute ignoramus would argue otherwise?

And yet, Timmy-Jim can't cite/quote one piece of evidence that actually shows LHO shot anyone!  What a fool he is, huh?

Or more to the point -- what a con man he is for trying to fool us.  Not a VERY GOOD one mind you, but a con man nonetheless.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 08:04:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
True, for a simple minded CT.  Just one more conspiracy theory.  It's never ending.  Let's just add one more individual into this conspiracy of thousands. 

Sorry John, but the JFK case is a CONSPIRACY FACT.  The ONLY theory going around is the WC's and that was shown to be full of crap in 1965/66.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 08:06:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry John, but the JFK case is a CONSPIRACY FACT.  The ONLY theory going around is the WC's and that was shown to be full of crap in 1965/66.

Well, since Caprio proclaims the JFK case a CONSPIRACY FACT, then it must be so!!  After all, if nothing else, Caprio has proven EVERYTHING he says is the truth!  Unfortunately, those nasty conspirators simply won't allow this TRUTH to come out publicly.  Oh well. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 08:10:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's not only hopeless but pointless to discuss with Caprio.  Because Oswald died before he could be convicted in a trial the case remains open?  LOL.

Dick/Uncle Ronnie laughs at our legal system.  Shocker!

Quote
I guess Hitler is not a war criminal under that logic.

Technically he isn't, but you wouldn't understand that.  By the way, why was Stalin allowed to KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN HITLER and never be branded a "war criminal?"

Quote
Perhaps a good defense attorney would have gotten him off at Nuremberg.

Typical LNer fantasy here -- there would have been evidence Hitler was a war criminal, but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS LHO SHOT ANYONE ON 11/22/63.

YOU are comparing apples and oranges again Dick/Uncle Ronnie.

Quote
Therefore, we can't say he was responsible for the Holocaust.

The problem you are running from is there is NO evidence that LHO shot anyone as claimed.  Stay on topic LNer.

Quote
Let's all band to together with OJ and look for the real killers in that case.  He was never convicted.

And thus, whether you like it or not, he is considered INNOCENT in the eyes of the court.  By the way, they had way more evidence showing O.J. was guilty than LHO, but that is NOT hard when there is ZERO evidence against LHO.

Quote
And on and on it goes.  Compulsion disorder run amok.   Oswald was arrested within two hours.  There is more evidence against him, as set out in the Warren Report, than 99% of those in prison today. 

Then all you have to do is cite/quote it Dick/Uncle Ronnie, but in all your time here you have NOT done this but maybe once (a quote of testimony).

Why does the evidence in the 26 volumes scare you so much?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 08:13:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, since Caprio proclaims the JFK case a CONSPIRACY FACT, then it must be so!!  After all, if nothing else, Caprio has proven EVERYTHING he says is the truth!  Unfortunately, those nasty conspirators simply won't allow this TRUTH to come out publicly.  Oh well. 

There can be NO more proof needed than the FACT they hire folks like you to come here and offer nothing but insults to try and protect the WC's lunacy.

Thanks for proving a conspiracy took place!

KUTGW!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 14, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The key word is "accused" John, show me were he was EVER FOUND GUILTY of doing so?

Why do you want to hang LHO based on false accusations?

What's in it for YOU John?

And why do you think I said "accused"?

I know you don't like Benavides, Markham, Scoggins, or the Davis sisters.  But now you used the key word "false".  I assume this means you are accusing all of these individuals of lying about their stories. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 08:21:35 PM
Stalin did not kill more people than Hitler.  Another example of Caprio's bias and piss awful research.   After two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 08:29:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And why do you think I said "accused"?

I know you don't like Benavides, Markham, Scoggins, or the Davis sisters.  But now you used the key word "false".  I assume this means you are accusing all of these individuals of lying about their stories. 

More lies by Murray and then he claims NOT to be a LNer.  Why wouldn't I like any of the people you listed since NONE of them show LHO shot JDT!  Your desire to show he was guilty despite there being NO evidence is duly noted LNer!

Carry on Troll!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 08:30:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There can be NO more proof needed than the FACT they hire folks like you to come here and offer nothing but insults to try and protect the WC's lunacy.

Thanks for proving a conspiracy took place!

KUTGW!



More speculation and conjecture.  As usual.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 08:41:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stalin did not kill more people than Hitler.

He did moron.  Go do some research.

Quote
Another example of Caprio's bias and piss awful research.

NOW I am biased against one dictator!  LOL! The insanity of it all!

Quote
After two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did.

Cite your "research" then.  It has been accepted that Stalin killed more than 11 million people during his reign.

Quote
That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.

It is irrelevant as the topic is murder, NOT for what reasons.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 08:45:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He did  :cop:.  Go do some research.

NOW I am biased against one dictator!  LOL! The insanity of it all!

Cite your "research" then.  It has been accepted that Stalin killed more than 11 million people during his reign.

It is irrelevant as the topic is murder, NOT for what reasons.

It has been accepted by whom?  Who specifically accepted the fact Stalin killed more people than Hitler?


Stalin did not kill more people than Hitler.  Another example of Caprio's bias and piss awful research.   After two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 14, 2012, 08:57:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Typical LNer fantasy here -- there would have been evidence Hitler was a war criminal, but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS LHO SHOT ANYONE ON 11/22/63.

This is simply not true.  You have been shown plenty of evidence which shows that Oswald shot Tippit.  You simply ignore it.  But, that doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't slapped across your face.  I tried to show you some of this evidence, but when you made the claim that Will Fritz, Captain of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau of the Dallas Police Department, was the boss of members of the FBI and the Texas Rangers.... well.... I just lost interest.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul May on September 14, 2012, 09:01:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is simply not true.  You have been shown plenty of evidence which shows that Oswald shot Tippit.  You simply ignore it.  But, that doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't slapped across your face.  I tried to show you some of this evidence, but when you made the claim that Will Fritz, Captain of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau of the Dallas Police Department, was the boss of members of the FBI and the Texas Rangers.... well.... I just lost interest.

Mindful people often lose interest the moment they engage Caprio.  It saves time.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 14, 2012, 09:01:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is simply not true.  You have been shown plenty of evidence which shows that Oswald shot Tippit.  You simply ignore it.

You are lying again Bill, what you showed me (and believe me it is limited) does NOT show LHO shot JDT.  That is an out and out lie by you.

Quote
But, that doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't slapped across your face.  I tried to show you some of this evidence, but when you made the claim that Will Fritz, Captain of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau of the Dallas Police Department, was the boss of members of the FBI and the Texas Rangers.... well.... I just lost interest.

More nonsense from Bill.  He has NO evidence to "slap me with" so he makes up lies instead.  What you quoted was a bunch of nonsense that did NOT show LHO shot JDT.  'Tis that simple.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 14, 2012, 09:02:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More lies by Murray and then he claims NOT to be a LNer.  Why wouldn't I like any of the people you listed since NONE of them show LHO shot JDT!  Your desire to show he was guilty despite there being NO evidence is duly noted LNer!

Carry on Troll!



LOL - as usual, you try to delude.

William Scoggins:
Mr. BELIN. Sometime after you got there after the noon meal you saw the lineup, is that correct?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
Mr. BELIN. You didn't know his name as Oswald at that time, did you, or did you not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, the next day I did. But, of course I didn't know what his name was the day that I picked him out.
Mr. BELIN. You saw a man in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone tell you any particular man was Oswald in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Well, describe what happened in the police station with regard to the lineup, what they did to you, what they said to you, and what you said to them, and so on.
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, they had the four men up there in the lineup, and before they brought them in they told us what they wanted us to do, to look them over and be sure we was, in our estimation, we was right on the man, and which one it was, the one that we saw, the one that I saw.
Mr. BELIN. Did they tell you one of the men was the man you saw or not, or did they tell you "See if you can"--just what did they say? Did they say "Here is a lineup, see if you-can identify anyone," or did they say, "One of the men in the lineup"--
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, I believe those are the words they used. I am not--
Mr. BELIN. Did all of these men look different to you? Were most of them fat, or were most of them thin, or some fat, some thin, some tall, some short?
Mr. SCOGGINS. There were two of them--the one that I identified as the one I saw over at Oak Cliff, and there was one I saw similar to him, and the other two was a little bit shorter.
Mr. DULLES. Had you been looking at television or seeing television prior to your appearance here at the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No.


Virginia Davis:
Mr. BELIN. All, right, you went with the detective to a dark room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the dark room?
Mrs. DAVIS. He told us to sit down.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mrs. DAVIS. And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?
Mrs. DAVIS. The boy that shot Tippit.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. The man I saw carrying the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Was he white or a Negro man?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was white.
Mr. BELIN. Were all the men in the lineup white men or some Negroes?
Mrs. DAVIS. All of them were white.
Mr. BELIN. Could you describe any other people in the lineup as to whether they might be fat or thin or short or tall?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, one of them was sort, well, he was tall and slim. And then the other one there, he was sort of chubby and he was short. Then this other one, he was about the same height as the other one, the last one I told you about, short and chubby. And the other one was about--medium tail.
Mr. BELIN. Now you identified someone in that lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear your sister-in-law identify him first, or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; I identified him first.
Mr. BELIN. Where was your sister when you identified him?
Mrs. DAVIS. She was sitting right next to me.
Mr. BELIN. How did you identify him? Did you yell that this is the man I saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. No; I just leaned over and told the detective it was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the detective? Was he to your right or to your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. Let's see, to my right.
Mr. BELIN. Where was your sister, to your right or to your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. Right.
Mr. BELIN. As she was to your right, so you leaned over to the detective and told the detective it was No. 2?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else that you can think of that happened that day?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Later did you ever see a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When did you first see it on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they was bringing him out of the jail out here.
Mr. BELIN. When?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they were bringing him out of the jail.
Mr. BELIN. You mean Sunday when he got shot?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did this look, could you tell whether this was the same man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I wouldn't say for sure.
Mr. BELIN. You mean from seeing his picture on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about the man you identified as No. 2? Would you say for sure that he was the man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I would say that was him for sure.
Mr. BELIN. What you are saying is that you couldn't necessarily tell from the television picture?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir. Our television was blurred anyway, so we couldn't hardly tell.

Barbara Davis:
Mr. BALL. Were you shown a group of people in the police station and asked if you could identify the man?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Were you alone in that room when you were shown these people?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you?
Mrs. DAVIS. My husband, my sister-in-law was with me, and some other men.
Mr. BALL. That is your husband Troy, your sister-in-law Virginia Davis, and yourself, and other men?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you know those men?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Were police officers there?
Mrs. DAVIS. They were all in suits, some sat at the back of the room.
Mr. BALL. When those--how many men were shown to you in this lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Four.
Mr. BALL. Were they of the same size or of different sizes?
Mrs. DAVIS. Most of them was about the same size.
Mr. BALL. All white men, were they?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. BALL. Number 2 you recognized? Did you tell any policeman there anything after you recognized them?
Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him
Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw.
Mr. BALL. That you saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what?
Mrs. DAVIS. Unloading the gun.
Mr. BALL. And going across your yard?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.


Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 14, 2012, 09:35:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL - as usual, you try to delude.

William Scoggins:
Mr. BELIN. Sometime after you got there after the noon meal you saw the lineup, is that correct?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
Mr. BELIN. You didn't know his name as Oswald at that time, did you, or did you not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, the next day I did. But, of course I didn't know what his name was the day that I picked him out.
Mr. BELIN. You saw a man in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone tell you any particular man was Oswald in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Well, describe what happened in the police station with regard to the lineup, what they did to you, what they said to you, and what you said to them, and so on.
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, they had the four men up there in the lineup, and before they brought them in they told us what they wanted us to do, to look them over and be sure we was, in our estimation, we was right on the man, and which one it was, the one that we saw, the one that I saw.
Mr. BELIN. Did they tell you one of the men was the man you saw or not, or did they tell you "See if you can"--just what did they say? Did they say "Here is a lineup, see if you-can identify anyone," or did they say, "One of the men in the lineup"--
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, I believe those are the words they used. I am not--
Mr. BELIN. Did all of these men look different to you? Were most of them fat, or were most of them thin, or some fat, some thin, some tall, some short?
Mr. SCOGGINS. There were two of them--the one that I identified as the one I saw over at Oak Cliff, and there was one I saw similar to him, and the other two was a little bit shorter.
Mr. DULLES. Had you been looking at television or seeing television prior to your appearance here at the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No.


Virginia Davis:
Mr. BELIN. All, right, you went with the detective to a dark room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the dark room?
Mrs. DAVIS. He told us to sit down.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mrs. DAVIS. And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?
Mrs. DAVIS. The boy that shot Tippit.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. The man I saw carrying the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Was he white or a Negro man?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was white.
Mr. BELIN. Were all the men in the lineup white men or some Negroes?
Mrs. DAVIS. All of them were white.
Mr. BELIN. Could you describe any other people in the lineup as to whether they might be fat or thin or short or tall?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, one of them was sort, well, he was tall and slim. And then the other one there, he was sort of chubby and he was short. Then this other one, he was about the same height as the other one, the last one I told you about, short and chubby. And the other one was about--medium tail.
Mr. BELIN. Now you identified someone in that lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear your sister-in-law identify him first, or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; I identified him first.
Mr. BELIN. Where was your sister when you identified him?
Mrs. DAVIS. She was sitting right next to me.
Mr. BELIN. How did you identify him? Did you yell that this is the man I saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. No; I just leaned over and told the detective it was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the detective? Was he to your right or to your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. Let's see, to my right.
Mr. BELIN. Where was your sister, to your right or to your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. Right.
Mr. BELIN. As she was to your right, so you leaned over to the detective and told the detective it was No. 2?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else that you can think of that happened that day?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Later did you ever see a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When did you first see it on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they was bringing him out of the jail out here.
Mr. BELIN. When?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they were bringing him out of the jail.
Mr. BELIN. You mean Sunday when he got shot?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did this look, could you tell whether this was the same man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I wouldn't say for sure.
Mr. BELIN. You mean from seeing his picture on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about the man you identified as No. 2? Would you say for sure that he was the man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I would say that was him for sure.
Mr. BELIN. What you are saying is that you couldn't necessarily tell from the television picture?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir. Our television was blurred anyway, so we couldn't hardly tell.

Barbara Davis:
Mr. BALL. Were you shown a group of people in the police station and asked if you could identify the man?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Were you alone in that room when you were shown these people?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you?
Mrs. DAVIS. My husband, my sister-in-law was with me, and some other men.
Mr. BALL. That is your husband Troy, your sister-in-law Virginia Davis, and yourself, and other men?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you know those men?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Were police officers there?
Mrs. DAVIS. They were all in suits, some sat at the back of the room.
Mr. BALL. When those--how many men were shown to you in this lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Four.
Mr. BALL. Were they of the same size or of different sizes?
Mrs. DAVIS. Most of them was about the same size.
Mr. BALL. All white men, were they?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. BALL. Number 2 you recognized? Did you tell any policeman there anything after you recognized them?
Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him
Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw.
Mr. BALL. That you saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what?
Mrs. DAVIS. Unloading the gun.
Mr. BALL. And going across your yard?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.


TESTIMONY OF MRS. CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS

Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.

---------------------------------

TESTIMONY OF MRS. BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?
Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.

--------------------------------

Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.

-----------------


Did Howard Leslie Brennan Really Attend
an Identification Lineup?

by Ian Griggs

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html (http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html)

"...It was now over 24 hours since the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit. The world's media - radio, TV and the press - had covered very
little else in that period. Oswald's name, his photograph, his description, his place of work, his undoubted guilt, his defection to
the Soviet Union and his personal history had been thrust unceasingly at the public through every branch of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald
was now probably as famous as the late President himself! As if that were not enough to indicate him as the suspect, his actions and
attitude on this fourth lineup certainly gave away a few clues.

Consider the following from Whaley's testimony: "But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him
because he was bawling out the policemen, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that ...
he showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought of them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to
railroad him and he wanted his lawyer ... I said anyone who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that."
Whaley thought that Oswald was in a line "with five others ... just young kids they might have got them in jail".

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 14, 2012, 09:38:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

TESTIMONY OF MRS. CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS

Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.

---------------------------------

TESTIMONY OF MRS. BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?
Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.

--------------------------------

Both Davis sisters still picked "Saint Lee of the Oswalds" out of a lineup, by recognizing his face.  So what's your point?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 15, 2012, 12:52:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was it one of these sort of lineups Bill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk#)

Paul, are you accusing Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis of having no conscious?  If "Saint Lee of the Oswalds" was not the man they saw earlier that day with a weapon in his hands (and shaking the spent shells onto the ground), then they wouldn't have picked him.  They would have picked none of the men.  Do you think they would identify a man who could possibly be innocent, just because your patsy protested before heading into the lineup?  No.  The Davis sisters picked your patsy because his face is the face they saw at the corner of Tenth and Patton with the murder weapon in his hands.

The following list are witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the murderer of Officer Tippit:  Taxi driver William Scoggins, Helen Markham, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and William Smith.  Also, Ted Callaway (manager of a used car lot) and Sam Guinyard (an employee of the car lot) both identified Oswald fleeing the scene with a pistol in his hand after they heard the shots.  Harold Russell, Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson identified Oswald as the man they saw running with the revolver in his hand moments after the shooting.  As far as the weapon, 4 cartridge cases were found in the bushes by Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis.  Cortland Cunningham, who worked for the FBI in the Firearms Identifications Unit, compared a test cartridge fired from the revolver taken from Oswald with the 4 cartridges found by the witnesses, and concluded that Oswald's revolver fired the 4 cartridges found on the scene to the exclusion of all other weapons.  Robert Frazier and Charles Killion, 2 FBI firearms experts, and Joseph Nicol, superintendent of the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification Investigation, arrived at the same conclusion as Cunningham.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 15, 2012, 01:11:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both Davis sisters still picked "Saint Lee of the Oswalds" out of a lineup, by recognizing his face.  So what's your point?

"Saint Lee of the Oswalds" .  :rofl3: That's the second time I've seen you use that. Consider it now to be public domain.  ROFLMFAO
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 15, 2012, 01:35:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mind the sunburn Bills bending!. :rofl:

Ian,

I've noticed that, as of late, you seem to be talking in gibberish. Is everything alright with you?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 15, 2012, 02:36:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He doesn't have to be a saint to protest about how unfair the line ups were being conducted. I would like to think that sort of thing is a basic human right that judicially has to be extended to cop killers, president killers and patsies alike. I don't accuse the Davis sisters of anything. You try those cheap tricks all the time Bill. Its getting old hat. Those witnesses were under an enormous amount of pressure to identify the one and only suspect. Just ask Brennan your lying star witness.


Well done Paul, you finally got something right...Oswald was indeed the "one and only suspect".   :clapxx:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 15, 2012, 03:36:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mind the sunburn Bills bending!. :rofl:
???? :wtf:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 15, 2012, 03:43:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

NONE of the four rounds INSIDE JDT could be matched to the revolver in question, CE-143, thus, you have NOTHING.

End of story!


Are you saying it is mere coincidence that four rounds were found in Tippits body and Oswald was positively indentified as the person pumping said rounds into him??? If so, you are completely delusional.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 15, 2012, 04:20:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

TESTIMONY OF MRS. CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS

Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.

---------------------------------

TESTIMONY OF MRS. BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?
Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.

--------------------------------

Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.

-----------------


Did Howard Leslie Brennan Really Attend
an Identification Lineup?

by Ian Griggs

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html (http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html)

"...It was now over 24 hours since the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit. The world's media - radio, TV and the press - had covered very
little else in that period. Oswald's name, his photograph, his description, his place of work, his undoubted guilt, his defection to
the Soviet Union and his personal history had been thrust unceasingly at the public through every branch of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald
was now probably as famous as the late President himself! As if that were not enough to indicate him as the suspect, his actions and
attitude on this fourth lineup certainly gave away a few clues.

Consider the following from Whaley's testimony: "But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him
because he was bawling out the policemen, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that ...
he showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought of them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to
railroad him and he wanted his lawyer ... I said anyone who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that."
Whaley thought that Oswald was in a line "with five others ... just young kids they might have got them in jail".


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

TESTIMONY OF MRS. CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS

Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.

---------------------------------

TESTIMONY OF MRS. BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?
Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.

--------------------------------

Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.

-----------------


Did Howard Leslie Brennan Really Attend
an Identification Lineup?

by Ian Griggs

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html (http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html)

"...It was now over 24 hours since the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit. The world's media - radio, TV and the press - had covered very
little else in that period. Oswald's name, his photograph, his description, his place of work, his undoubted guilt, his defection to
the Soviet Union and his personal history had been thrust unceasingly at the public through every branch of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald
was now probably as famous as the late President himself! As if that were not enough to indicate him as the suspect, his actions and
attitude on this fourth lineup certainly gave away a few clues.

Consider the following from Whaley's testimony: "But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him
because he was bawling out the policemen, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that ...
he showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought of them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to
railroad him and he wanted his lawyer ... I said anyone who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that."
Whaley thought that Oswald was in a line "with five others ... just young kids they might have got them in jail".



The Davis sisters positively identified the same man too.  And what Whaley ACTUALLY said was...

But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.

It's misleading and unethical to misquote a witness to support a theory.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 15, 2012, 04:29:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

-snip-

The following list are witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the murderer of Officer Tippit:  Taxi driver William Scoggins, Helen Markham, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and William Smith.  Also, Ted Callaway (manager of a used car lot) and Sam Guinyard (an employee of the car lot) both identified Oswald fleeing the scene with a pistol in his hand after they heard the shots.  Harold Russell, Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson identified Oswald as the man they saw running with the revolver in his hand moments after the shooting.  As far as the weapon, 4 cartridge cases were found in the bushes by Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis.  Cortland Cunningham, who worked for the FBI in the Firearms Identifications Unit, compared a test cartridge fired from the revolver taken from Oswald with the 4 cartridges found by the witnesses, and concluded that Oswald's revolver fired the 4 cartridges found on the scene to the exclusion of all other weapons.  Robert Frazier and Charles Killion, 2 FBI firearms experts, and Joseph Nicol, superintendent of the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification Investigation, arrived at the same conclusion as Cunningham.


"The following list are witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the murderer of Officer Tippit" 

Wrong!

Helen Markham was the only witness who claimed to have seen a suspect actually murder Tippit.



http://www.marklane.com/writings/articles/VinnieitisRound.pdf (http://www.marklane.com/writings/articles/VinnieitisRound.pdf)

from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane


                     The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot
the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission , Mrs. Markham confirmed her
positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz -- who needed that
identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4;30 that afternoon, less than three
and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"
when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the
record of her tesimony.

Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Markham: Yes , sir.

Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir

Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-Ihave asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?

          Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer.

Markham: From their face, no.

Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Markham: I didn't know nobody.

Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No one of them.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No, sir.

        At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and
a member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a
rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a
more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but
disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I
picked."
Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't-, but Mrs. Markham interrupted
to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."

Counsel then inquired:

Q: You recognized him from his appearance?

Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

        A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous
discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her
testimont reliable."
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 15, 2012, 04:36:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Davis sisters positively identified the same man too.  And what Whaley ACTUALLY said was...

But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.

It's misleading and unethical to misquote a witness to support a theory.

"It's misleading and unethical to misquote a witness to support a theory."

 I don't know whether to call you a hypocrite or a  more-on.

You miss the point entirely, regardless.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 15, 2012, 05:52:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"It's misleading and unethical to misquote a witness to support a theory."

 I don't know whether to call you a hypocrite or a  more-on.

You miss the point entirely, regardless.

I believe the key point is, did Whaley positively identify Oswald or not?  You cast a shadow over it with a misleading, partial quote of testimony.  You chose to illustrate Whaley's concerns over how the lineup was run; omitting him saying in the same breath that the man in the lineup, was, indeed, Oswald.

if that's hypocritical, please advise how.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 15, 2012, 06:55:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I believe the key point is, did Whaley positively identify Oswald or not?  You cast a shadow over it with a misleading, partial quote of testimony.  You chose to illustrate Whaley's concerns over how the lineup was run; omitting him saying in the same breath that the man in the lineup, was, indeed, Oswald.

if that's hypocritical, please advise how.

"You chose to illustrate Whaley's concerns over how the lineup was run"

I guess when the defendant is murdered in police custody and, despite numerous public pleas,

never recieved legal counsel, illegal line-ups are meaningless to the lynch mob.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 15, 2012, 05:15:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"You chose to illustrate Whaley's concerns over how the lineup was run"

I guess when the defendant is murdered in police custody and, despite numerous public pleas,

never recieved legal counsel, illegal line-ups are meaningless to the lynch mob.

We'll never know what went on in DPD headquarters, but the purpose of a lineup is to ensure that the accused is identified beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Considering Whaley's statement, do you think a lineup would have changed his mind at all?  Whaley was really, REALLY clear about what he said.  That doesn't mean Oswald did anything illegal; all it means is the Oswald WAS in Whaley's cab between 12:35 and 12:50.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 15, 2012, 05:35:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"You chose to illustrate Whaley's concerns over how the lineup was run"

I guess when the defendant is murdered in police custody and, despite numerous public pleas,

never recieved legal counsel, illegal line-ups are meaningless to the lynch mob.
Again you are spinning the facts to serve your ends. Oswald was offered counsel. He refused it. The line ups were perfectly legal. You do a disservice to real victims of real lynch mobs, who were never accorded the rights your beloved St Lee was. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 15, 2012, 06:37:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We'll never know what went on in DPD headquarters, but the purpose of a lineup is to ensure that the accused is identified beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Considering Whaley's statement, do you think a lineup would have changed his mind at all?  Whaley was really, REALLY clear about what he said.  That doesn't mean Oswald did anything illegal; all it means is the Oswald WAS in Whaley's cab between 12:35 and 12:50.

You still miss the point.

"We'll never know what went on in DPD headquarters, but the purpose of a lineup is to ensure that the accused is identified beyond a shadow of a doubt."


OK, now lets have a big serving of double standard.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 15, 2012, 06:44:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again you are "spinning" the facts to serve your ends. Oswald was offered counsel. He refused it. The line ups were perfectly legal. You do a disservice to real victims of real lynch mobs, who were never accorded the rights your beloved St Lee was. 

"Oswald was offered counsel."

Take the box off your head and things will stop spinning.

He asked for legal counsel every chance he got. :hello:

We're told he wanted an unreachable lawyer from another state (New York) and that's why he

didn't recieve counsel. :wtf:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 15, 2012, 08:11:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You still miss the point.

"We'll never know what went on in DPD headquarters, but the purpose of a lineup is to ensure that the accused is identified beyond a shadow of a doubt."


OK, now lets have a big serving of double standard.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2-1.jpg)

You just keep going.

MY point was that you posted manipulated testimony, which when compared with actual WC testimony, is absolutely true. 

And before you get too twisty about Brennan, you should also circle the positive ID on the same page.

As for Brennan, you're using his testimony to prove your point and dismissing three positive IDs.  He also said that he "believed" that he "could" identify him.  So maybe he saw someone else, and maybe he didn't and just couldn't be sure of who or what he saw.

I believe in the question of trying to call a lawyer, he was trying to call Paul Abt of the ACLU, and he did ask in his press conference for someone to come forward.   Kind of interesting though - he didn't call any of the people that would have been logical, such as the Paines, or his boss, asking for a referral to a lawyer.  Not saying it's gospel, but I think he could have easily gotten counsel if he really wanted someone.  IMHO, he was dialed in on Abt and was waiting for him rather than desperately trying to find another.  I mean, I've heard the stories of him screaming about being a patsy, etc, but I'm not very sure about that.  I think indictment was likely possible to happen quickly, but even Oswald would know it would be weeks before he'd be put on trial....so getting a lawyer fast wasn't essential.  Remember, Miranda rights weren't part of the system until 1966, so this set of circumstances was hardly unusual.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Miles Scull on September 15, 2012, 08:19:43 PM
Did Howard Leslie Brennan Really Attend
an Identification Lineup?

by Ian Griggs

Introduction

As I think we are all aware, Lee Harvey Oswald seemed to be officially declared "guilty" within a very short time of his arrest. When I say "officially" I mean in the eyes of the Dallas Police Department, the FBI and the Dallas District Attorney's office. Since it was so obviously an "open-and-shut" case and the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit was safely in custody, there was nothing more to do but cross the T's and dot the I's 1. I think the expression "Case Closed" saw the light of day in Dallas 30 years before Gerald Posner used it as the title of his nasty little book.
Maybe this was also the reason that the separate identity parades which Oswald attended were conducted in such a haphazard, unfair and downright sloppy manner. They could almost have been filmed and shown to future police recruit classes as how not to do it!

The Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony
Illogical as it may seem, the least reliable form of identification is that of the eyewitness. This is an obvious anomaly since it is natural to assume that this would be the most accurate and straightforward means of verifying a person's presence at a certain place at a certain time.How often do we use the phrase "I saw it with my own eyes" as a means of stressing that something is true? The human perception and memory are, however, nowhere near as accurate as we mistakenly believe.
I know that this is not a view shared by all researchers. Indeed, in the 1997 book Assassination Science, Dr David Mantik goes to great lengths to claim the opposite. I can only speak from my own professional experience over many years in dealing with eyewitnesses giving descriptions of people they have seen. I even recall an occurrence in 1974 when my witness got the person's colour wrong!

Was There Really a Howard Brennan Lineup?
It should have been a relatively simple task to track down the records of the Oswald lineups. That, however, was not the case. Apart from discrepancies in some of the official records and documentation, I encountered some confusing claims in assassination literature. For example, I read in Ray and Mary La Fontaine's Oswald Talked that "(John) Elrod says today that he was put on a chain with Oswald, (and) appeared in lineups ..." That is patently untrue, but then as far as I am concerned, so is the title of that book 2.
One "official" account (published in the Warren Commission Report) indicates that between his arrest at 1.50pm on Friday 22nd and his death less than 46 hours later, Lee Harvey Oswald was put up on five separate lineups before no less than nine witnesses 3. Four of these lineups are scrupulously described 4 and it is a simple matter to trace who appeared on them, either as witnesses or as Oswald's companions in the line, and which police officers organised them. During the preparation of this paper, I began to form a suspicion that the other lineup, the one involving Howard Leslie Brennan, never actually took place.

This suspicion grew rapidly when I found another "official" version (again, published in the Warren Commission Report), which indicated that the only lineups attended by Oswald on Friday 22nd were those "at about 4:20" (obviously Helen Markham), "two hours later, at 6:20pm" (this would be Callaway, Guinyard and McWatters) and "a third lineup at about 7.40pm" (obviously the Davis sisters-in-law). The fourth and final lineup described is one at 2:15pm the following day 5.


Howard Brennan
Only 32 pages separate these two conflicting "official" accounts but in that brief space, Howard Leslie Brennan's possible attendance at an Oswald lineup has been completely erased from the record. The Warren Commission appears to be backing both horses in a two-horse race - and hoping that nobody notices. Well I have noticed, and as far as I am concerned, there can only be one of two possible explanations here:

Howard Leslie Brennan never attended a lineup at which Lee Harvey Oswald appeared;
Howard Leslie Brennan did attend an Oswald lineup but when he either failed or refused to identify him as the man he claimed to have seen in the sixth floor window, it was decided by the authorities to expunge all reference to Brennan being at the lineup.
I will deal with the four definite lineups first before returning to the vexed question of Mr Brennan later.

How the Oswald Lineups Were Organised
Under English Law, with which I am obviously far more conversant, the rules and procedures for the conduct of identity parades (lineups) have always been very strictly laid down and adhered to. In England, in 1963 as now, it was required for the parade to consist of at least eight persons plus the suspect. They were to be "of similar age, height, general appearance and position in life" as the suspect.
Unfortunately for Oswald, the situation in Dallas, Texas in November 1963 was somewhat different.

The Oswald lineups were conducted in what was known colloquially as the showup room (sometimes also called the assembly room or the lineup room) in the basement of DPD Headquarters. I believe I am one of very few researchers who has had the opportunity to visit this part of the old City Hall 6. It is no longer used for that purpose and now serves as a combined office and refreshment room. The raised wooden platform on which the members of the lineups were paraded is still in its original position on the left as you enter but the set of horizontal lines on the wall behind it, indicating the lineup members' height, together with the numbers 1 to 6, has long been painted out 7.

This showup room was "perhaps 50 feet long and 20 feet wide" 8 and was the scene of the well-known press conference held at 12.30am on the morning of 23rd November. This was the occasion when Oswald was paraded before the press and Jack Ruby gained admittance and corrected DA Henry Wade when he misquoted the name of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee as Free Cuba Movement 9.

Standing there, on that platform, as I did in November 1996, it is easy to drift back in time and imagine the scene back in November 1963. It's a pretty scary experience.

The procedure for each of the Oswald lineups was that he was included with just three other individuals 10. Those three would line up first and Oswald was then invited to take whatever position he chose. All four men were then handcuffed together and they stood under strong lighting facing a one-way nylon screen. They could not see through it but the eyewitness, who stood on the other side of it, could see them. The members of the parade were allocated the numbers 1 to 4, these numbers being displayed over their heads.

When the eyewitness was in position, each man was asked to step forward in turn and state his name and place of work. The eyewitness then studied the four men full-face and then in profile. The witness was instructed that if he recognized the suspect, he should indicate that person's number to one of the officers conducting the lineup.

I have never heard it asked where the other people on these lineups came from? I think it important that this is addressed and to answer it, we can do no better than go to the Warren Commission testimony of DPD Detective Elmer L. Boyd 11. He is being questioned by Assistant Counsel Ball, who puts just that same point to him:

BALL: "What is the usual thing - when you are going to have a showup and you are in charge of investigation, who picks the people who appear in the showup?"

BOYD: "Well, most of the time we call down to the jail office and have them send us down - if he's already in jail, we just have them send up there and get him and just how many we want in the showup and we tell them to give us this particular one - or three or four men - whatever the case may be."

BALL: "Who picks them?"

BOYD: "The jailers upstairs."

BALL: "Do you tell them to get all the same color?"

BOYD: "Yes sir; we always tell them to get them all the same color. I never have had much trouble getting them all the same color."

BALL: "What about the size and weight?"

BOYD: "Now, we always tell them to get them as near the same size and age and weight as they can. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't."

I don't think I need to labour this point. It seems that there were no set rules and regulations laid down for the procedure when assembling a lineup. It appears almost to have been made up as it went along. Even the number of people on it seemed to be up to the individual whim of the officer in charge 12. It did not seem particularly important that the size, age and weight of the lineup members were similar to that of the suspect. As Detective Boyd said: "Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't." Let us give credit where credit is due however. At least they tried to get people the same colour as the suspect - and as far as I can find, there were no females on any of the Oswald lineups!

In each of the four lineups I am discussing here, Oswald was accompanied by three other people - but not always the same three. Some of them appeared on more than one lineup. The total number involved in those four lineups with Oswald was eight 13.

The following are brief descriptions of Oswald and the eight people who appeared with him on those four lineups 14.

Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Patrolman J D Tippit. Age 24, 5'9" tall, weight 131 pounds, brown hair, grey eyes, wearing a brown shirt and dark trousers. (He changed to a white tee-shirt for the final parade.) He had a black eye and cuts to his forehead and lip. According to Detective Boyd, Oswald's clothes were "a little rougher in character" than the others and the others were "better dressed than Oswald". It is on record (an FBI report reproduced on page 625 of the Warren Report) that during an FBI interview on 23rd, "Oswald complained of a lineup wherein he had not been granted a request to put on a jacket similar to those worn by some of the other individuals in the lineup."

William E Perry, an Acting Detective with the DPD Vice Squad. Late 20s, 5'11", 150 pounds, brown hair, blue eyes, medium fair complexion. Wearing brown sports coat, no tie. Commission Exhibit 1054 shows two photographs of Perry with the next two gentlemen I describe.

Richard L Clark, a DPD Vice Squad Detective. Late 20s, 5'11", weighed about 177 pounds, blond hair, blue eyes, fair complexion. Wearing red vest (for the benefit of my fellow Brits, that means waistcoat), white short-sleeved shirt, brown trousers with belt. This man was very blond, two inches taller than Oswald and 46 pounds heavier!

Don R. Ables, a civilian Jail Clerk employed by the DPD at City Hall. Ables was in his mid 20s, 5'9" tall, weighed around 165 pounds, and had dark hair, brown eyes and a ruddy complexion. On each of the three lineups he attended, he wore a white shirt, a grey-knit sweater and dark trousers. (7H 239-242). There is an individual photograph of Ables at Commission Exhibit 745.

Richard Walter Borchgardt, a remand prisoner being held on suspicion of firearms, burglary and theft offences. He was 23 years old, 5'9", 161 pounds and had brown hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion.

Ellis Carl Brazel, another prisoner, on remand for motoring offences. He was 21 years old, 5'10", 169 pounds and had blond hair, green eyes and a ruddy complexion.

John Thurman Horne, also on remand for motoring offences. He was 18 years old. Other details not known.

David Edmond Knapp, another prisoner, on remand on suspicion of burglary and theft. He was also 18 years old. No other details.

Daniel Gutierrez Lujan, another prisoner, arrested on 21st November on suspicion of narcotics offences. He was 26 years old., 5'8", 170 pounds and had black hair, brown eyes and an olive complexion. He confirmed that he was of Mexican descent. This man was an inch shorter than Oswald but nearly 40 pounds heavier!

I will now take you through those four lineups and as I do so, I am sure that you will agree with me that the deck was very much stacked against the suspect. With respect to our friend John Kelin, "Fair Play" - certainly towards the suspect - had been tossed out of the window! I will spend some time setting the scene for the first lineup but the subsequent ones were conducted in an identical manner.

The First Lineup - Mrs Helen Louise Markham - the Utter Screwball
The first lineup was convened less than three and a half hours after the murder of Patrolman J D Tippit. Its purpose was to give 47-year old Dallas waitress Mrs Helen Louise Markham the opportunity to pick out the man she claimed to have seen shoot the officer. I will point out here that there are problems establishing the exact times of all these lineups. In each case, I will use the time given in the official DPD investigation file 15. According to that document, this lineup was held at 4.35pm.
As on all three lineups on Friday 22nd, Oswald selected the no. 2 position in the four-man lineup and was handcuffed to the man on either side of him. His companions were Acting Detective Perry (no.1), Detective Clark (no. 3) and Jail Clerk Don Ables (no.4).

When Mrs Markham had been brought in and was in position on the other side of the one-way nylon screen, each man was asked to step forward and state his name and place of employment. Perhaps significantly, only Oswald was truthful here. The three DPD employees (by their own admission in their later sworn testimony), each gave fictitious answers. Oswald was the only one of the four with facial injuries; he had been named and shown on TV that afternoon and it had also been broadcast that his place of employment was believed to be the source of the attack on Kennedy. In view of those facts, it cannot be claimed that everything was being arranged with scrupulous fairness to the suspect!

As for the witness, she was hardly in a fit state to undertake the responsible task of identifying (or not identifying, as the case may be) the killer of Patrolman Tippit. Homicide Detective L. C. Graves, one of those organising the lineup, said that she was "quite hysterical" and "crying and upset" 16 and there was even talk of her being sent to hospital. In his testimony, Captain Fritz stated: "We were trying to get that showup as soon as we could because she was beginning to faint and getting sick. In fact I had to leave the office and carry some ammonia across the hall, they were about to send her to the hospital or something and we needed that identification real quickly, and she got to feeling all right after using this ammonia." 17.

According to the Warren Report, Mrs Markham "identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman" 18. The Report also stated that "in testimony before the Commission, Mrs Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit" 19.

Sylvia Meagher, in Accessories After the Fact, argued that the testimony of this alleged eyewitness to the shooting of Tippit by Oswald, lacks any semblance of credibility 20. Several members of the Warren Commission staff have subsequently voiced their opinions of Mrs Markham's value as a witness. Assistant Counsel Liebeler has described her testimony as "contradictory and worthless" 21, whilst Assistant Counsel Ball described her as "an utter screwball" 22.

Norman Redlich, another Warren Commission staff member, is quoted as saying "The Commission wants to believe Mrs Markham and that's all there is to it." 23. I think this remark is very important since Mrs Markham was the only witness who ever claimed to have actually seen Tippit being shot. Like it or not, the investigators were stuck with her! If she had announced that the Earth was flat, they would have been hard-pressed not to believe her!

What the Warren Report does not divulge about the testimony of its star Tippit witness is the fact that she required considerable prompting concerning her identification of Oswald. In her testimony, she initially stated six times that she recognised nobody in the lineup. Tiring of this, Assistant Counsel Ball unashamedly produced one of the most amazing leading questions ever asked: "Was there a number two man in there?" After a few similar questions, he managed to get her to say "I asked... I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure but I had cold chills run all over me ... when I saw the man. But I wasn't sure." 24.

As already stated, I do not intend to deal with the other lineups in as much detail as this one. I will, however, reveal a few discrepancies and some glaring examples of unfairness, inconsideration and downright bias shown against the suspect.

The Second Lineup - a Trio of Confused People
Oswald attended a second lineup at 6.30 that same evening 25. It was held in the same showup room and featured exactly the same four people as for Mrs Markham. They took up the same positions, with Oswald again choosing to stand between Perry and Clark in the number 2 position.
On this occasion, the lineup was viewed simultaneously by three witnesses. These were Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard and Cecil McWatters. Not only does it strike me as strange that three witnesses should attend the same parade - but here, they were not even witnesses to the same crime!

The Warren Report tells us that Callaway and Guinyard "picked Oswald as the man who had run south on Patton with a gun in his hand" immediately following the Tippit murder 26.

McWatters was the driver of the bus in which Oswald was alleged to have attempted to make his getaway after killing the President and according to the Warren Report, McWatters identified Oswald as the man who had boarded his bus shortly after the assasssination 27.

Whilst the Warren Report states that each of these three witnesses identified Oswald, there are serious doubts in each instance. Callaway had been so observant at the scene that he had asked another witness which way the gunman had fled 28. Guinyard's overall powers of observation were so acute that twice in his testimony he told Assistant Counsel Ball that the four men in the lineup "wasn't all about the same colour." They were, in fact, four white men 29. As for McWatters, it appears from his testimony that he was totally confused about exactly who he was trying to identify. As Joe Backes has stressed in a recent Fair Play article30, it now appears that McWatters was under the impression that he was identifying Roy Milton Jones, a teenager who was another passenger on his bus and was totally unconnected to Oswald.

I think it accurate to say that the so-called "identifications" of Oswald by each of these three witnesses, Callaway, Guinyard and McWatters, were decidedly unsafe.

The Third Lineup - The Sisters-In-Law
Barbara Jeanette Davis and her 16-year old sister-in-law, Virginia Ruth Davis, lived in separate apartments at 400 East 10th Street on the 22nd November 1963. That is the house right on the corner of 10th and Patton. Neither of them claimed to have seen the actual shooting of Tippit. They did, however, see a man running from the approximate area of the crime and they later retrieved four spent cartridge cases which he had emptied from a revolver.
Together, they attended an identity lineup at City Hall at 7.55pm on the 22nd 31. The lineup again had Oswald in the no. 2 position but this time his companions were two of the remand prisoners, Richard Borchgardt and Ellis Brazel (at positions 1 and 3 respectively), with Jail Clerk Don Ables again at no. 4. The procedure was identical to the two previous lineups.

The Warren Report deals with the result of this lineup in a very cold and matter-of-fact way. It states that the ladies "viewed a group of four men in a lineup and each one picked Oswald as the man who crossed their lawn while emptying his pistol." 32. A few lines later, we read that the two women "were sitting alongside one another when they made their positive identification of Oswald. Each woman whispered Oswald's number to the detective. Each testified that she was the first to make the identification." I find it difficult to imagine two witnesses sitting next to one another at an identity parade and casually indicating their opinions by whispering to a detective. To me that almost defies belief.

It seems there were two lineups in operation here. We had the Oswald lineup behind the screen whilst in front of it we had a row of three chairs on which, from left to right, sat Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis and an unnamed DPD detective 33. As the Warren Report said, each of the witnesses whispered Oswald's number to the detective. When they were later asked if they had watched any televison that afternoon, both ladies claimed that they had not. Virginia Davis, however, also stated "Our television was blurred anyway, so we couldn't hardly tell." 34. Now don't you agree with me that such a remark is significant!

At one stage, I thought it odd that these two near-eyewitnesses to a murder would not have subsequently switched on their television, but that remark convinces me that they did! Well, wouldn't you?

The Final Lineup - The Two Taxi Drivers
This lineup was assembled in the same City Hall showup room at 2.15pm the following day, Saturday 23rd November 1963 35. Again, it was an example of two witnesses attending together. This one, however, is even stranger than the one involving the Davis sisters-in-law. At least those two ladies claimed to have seen and experienced roughly the same thing.
The two men on this fourth lineup were William Wayne Whaley and William W Scoggins. Whaley was alleged to have carried Oswald from downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff in his cab. Scoggins claimed to have seen both Tippit and his killer on Tenth Street a few minutes before the shooting. These two men were not even witnesses in the same case! The only thing that had in common, apart from their first name, was the fact that they were both cab drivers. In the absence of any other explanation, I can only assume that to be the reason they attended the same lineup.

The lineup consisted of Oswald with three different remand prisoners, the teenagers John Horne and David Knapp and the Hispanic, Daniel Lujan. This time, Oswald forsook his previous number two position and occupied the number three position, with Knapp on his right and Lujan on his left.

It was now over 24 hours since the deaths of Kennedy and Tippit. The world's media - radio, TV and the press - had covered very little else in that period. Oswald's name, his photograph, his description, his place of work, his undoubted guilt, his defection to the Soviet Union and his personal history had been thrust unceasingly at the public through every branch of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald was now probably as famous as the late President himself! As if that were not enough to indicate him as the suspect, his actions and attitude on this fourth lineup certainly gave away a few clues.

Consider the following from Whaley's testimony: "But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policemen, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that ... he showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought of them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer ... I said anyone who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that." Whaley thought that Oswald was in a line "with five others ... just young kids they might have got them in jail" 36.

In view of that, is it any surprise that both Scoggins and Whaley picked out Oswald? He might just as well have had the word KILLER tattooed across his forehead!

The "Other" Lineup - Howard Leslie Brennan
As I said in my opening remarks, I originally believed that the four lineups I have described were the only ones which took place. However, the Warren Report states that Howard Leslie Brennan also attended a lineup at City Hall at which he "identified Oswald as the man who bore the closest resemblance to the man in the window but he said he was unable to make a positive identification." This is reported to have occurred at an unstated time "during the evening of November 22" 37.
As far as I can find, the only corroboration of this claim that Brennan attended a lineup are in his own Warren Commission testimony, in his posthumously-published 1987 book Eyewitness to History 38 and in the confusing testimony of Secret Service Agent Forrest V. Sorrels 39. Shortly after the completion of this paper, however, I learnt of another source which claimed that Brennan had attended the same lineup as the Davis sisters-in-law 40. This is discussed at the end of this section.

In Brennan's testimony, he said that he was picked up by Secret Service Agent Patterson "at 6 o'clock, at my home, and taken to the Dallas Police Station" 41. Somewhat confusingly, he went on to say that there were "a possibility seven more or less one" in the lineup. Since the lineup positions were permanently numbered from 1 to 6, it was not possible for there to be more than six people on the same lineup 42. When asked by Mr Belin: "Were they all white, or were there some Negroes in there?" Brennan produced the incredible reply: "I do not remember" 43. He was never asked and did not volunteer the time of the lineup.

In his book 44, Brennan quoted a different time for his journey to City Hall and described how he received a telephone call at home "about 7:15pm." He said that he was asked by FBI Agent Robert C. Lish to "come down to make an identification." He was then driven to City Hall by "one of the FBI (sic) agents who had been watching the house." This man has been identified as Dallas-based Secret Service Agent William H. Patterson 45 It is unfortunate that there is no further explanation of this odd occurrence and why the Secret Service had apparently mounted a surveillance operation on Brennan's home.

In both his book and in his testimony, Brennan described his experience at the lineup. He said that he had entered the room and immediately recognised Oswald as the number two man in "perhaps as many as seven" 46. However, he steadfastly refused to identify him. He explained that he felt personally threatened by the whole situation and as it was obvious that the police had got their man, his identification of Oswald would not make any difference. According to the account in his book, he was driven back to his home, arriving at "about 9:00 in the evening" 47. Brennan lived at 6814 Woodard Street, Urbandale, a section of East Dallas, about six miles by road from City Hall.

Forrest Verne Sorrels' Warren Commission testimony describes that it was his idea to get Brennan to a lineup that evening and he had arranged for SA Patterson to bring Brennan to City Hall. He said that Brennan was reluctant to identify Oswald and had said: "I am sorry, but I can't do it ... I just can't be positive. I'm sorry." 48. Like Brennan, Sorrels seemed uncertain of the number of men on the lineup, eventually settling for five, together with Oswald 49.

A Strange Claim
As mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, shortly after completing this paper, I was informed by a fellow researcher of a claim that Howard Brennan had been present at the same lineup as the Davis women. The origin of this was the Judy Bonner book The Investigation of Homicide 50.
On page 13, she writes: "7:40pm - Third 'show-up'. Howard Brennan identifies Oswald as man he saw in sixth floor window of Texas School Book Depository when shots were fired at motorcade. Jeanette and Virginia Davis identify him as man they saw fleeing from scene of Tippit's shooting."

On page 156, she says: "At the third show-up, Howard Brennan picked Oswald..."

Unfortunately, Ms. Bonner fails to offer anything remotely resembling a source note for this unique piece of information. Brennan attended the same lineup as the Davis women? Who says so? I can find nothing to substantiate her claim. Quite the opposite, in fact. There is nothing in the accounts or testimony of the Davis women that they shared that lineup with Brennan or with anyone else. Ms. Bonner states that Brennan identified Oswald, but we know that he never did that. Ms. Bonner's book is very DPD-orientated. She was a local newspaper crime reporter with contacts in the police department. She later moved to London and worked on the Daily Mirror.

I think Judy Bonner's unique, interesting but uncorroborated remarks here can safely be accepted as untrue - and that is precisely how I intend to regard them.

No Mention of a Brennan Lineup
I think it significant that Brennan's attendance at an Oswald identity lineup is not mentioned in any of the following places where one would expect to find it described in detail: *** Commission Exhibit 2003 (page 293 of the exhibit), which is the Warren Commission's official and comprehensive listing of all the identity parades involving Lee Harvey Oswald. It is called SHOWUPS OF OSWALD. It details the four lineups I have described and includes the names of all persons present, together with their function. The 12 members of the Dallas Police Department personnel supervising these parades are all named, as are Oswald's lineup companions. There is no mention of Brennan.
(Reproduced on pp. 458-459 of Dale Myers' With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, are two pages of handwritten notes relating to the Oswald lineups. Myers gives their source as Box 1, Folder 10, Item 3, pages 1 and 2 at the Dallas Municipal Archives and Records Center. These notes are identical in every respect to those described as SHOWUPS OF OSWALD and were obviously the source of the information contained therein. I cannot overstress the fact that only four lineups are covered. There is no mention whatsoever of a separate Howard Brennan lineup or of Brennan being present on any of the four documented lineups.

*** The name Brennan does not appear in the testimony or affidavits of any of the DPD Officers who supervised the lineups 51. Captain Fritz described the other lineups in detail in his testimony 52 but he volunteered nothing whatsoever about one involving Brennan. When specifically asked by John J. McCloy if he was present "at the showup at which Brennan was the witness" Fritz produced one of the most confusing answers even the Warren Commission ever heard.: "I don't think I was present but I will tell you what, I helped Mr. Sorrels find the time that that man - we didn't show that he was shown at all on our records, but Mr. Sorrels called me and said he did show him and he wanted me to give him the time of the showup. I asked him to find out from his officers who were with Mr. Brennan the names of the people that we had there, and he gave me those two Davis sisters, and he said, when he told me that, of course, I could tell what showup it was and then I gave him the time." Mr McCloy, doubtless as confused by this as you and I are now, sought basic clarification and asked: "But you were not present to the best of your recollection when Brennan was in the showup?" Fritz replied: "I don't believe I was there, I doubt it." Mr McCloy obviously felt it prudent not to pursue the matter and immediately went on to ask Fritz questions about a totally unrelated subject (the Neely Street house) 53.

*** The name Brennan does not appear in the testimony of any of Oswald's lineup companions 54.

*** The name Brennan does not appear in the testimony of any of the other eyewitnesses who attended the lineups. (See my remarks concerning the Davis sisters-in-law above.)

*** The name Brennan does, however, appear in the Warren Report where it is stated that he "identified Oswald as the person in the lineup who bore the closest resemblance to the man in the window but he said that he was unable to make a positive identification." 55.

Is there any logical reason that a lineup which took place with Brennan as the witness would not be mentioned by any of the participants? The obvious conclusion is that it never took place.

There is, however, the other more sinister possibility which I touched upon earlier. Supposing that Brennan lineup did take place but Brennan completely failed to pick out Oswald, perhaps by choice. This is exactly what he claimed in his testimony 56. If the powers that be were unable to get Brennan to identify Oswald at all, would it not be in their interests to expunge all reference to that lineup? Yes, I agree that this smacks of a combination of Orwell's 1984 and Kafka's The Trial - but it would not be unique in this case. Howard Leslie Brennan had very quickly been elevated almost to celebrity status but if, when it mattered most, he failed to deliver the goods, what else could the authorities have done except adopt a head-in-the-sand attitude, deny that he even attended a lineup, and hope that the problem would go away? Perhaps it did go away - until now.

Brennan's co-authored book, Eyewitness to History, over which the investigators and report writers had no direct influence, did not appear until 24 years later, four years after his death. What about the Warren Report, you may ask? Why does that document state that Brennan attended an Oswald identity parade if the plan was to delete all reference to it? Well, as I detailed earlier, 32 pages after stating that Brennan did attend a lineup, the Report stated that he did not. This is an outstanding example of the Commission confusing even itself as it seeks to confuse the future readers of its Report.

I leave you to ponder the answer here. Whatever that may be, I contend that it was yet another ingredient in the deliberate and well-organised plan to railroad Lee Harvey Oswald, a plan that continued even after his untimely death.

* * *
Acknowledgements
It is impossible for me to acknowledge all the encouragement and assistance I have received from fellow researchers. There are just too many of them.
There are, however, some who have proved of outstanding value and have travelled much of this path with me, offering belief in what was initially a completely new approach to Howard Leslie Brennan's part in all this. Foremost among these people has been Mary Ferrell, one of the first I approached, and who wholeheartedly supported me. Martin Shackelford, as always, was a tower of strength and a fount of knowledge. Several members of the Texas Connections group deserve individual mention. Thank you Barb Junkkarinen, Michael Parks, Ed Dorsch, Connie Kritzberg, Larry Hancock, Russ Shearer, Milicent Cranor, Glenn Cressy, Cheryl Overfield, Bill Hamley, Bill MacDowall and particularly Martha Moyer. I also offer thanks to Rikky Rooksby, who helped far more than he could ever realize.

I must also acknowledge my debt to Jerry Rose and to JFK-Lancer. See below.

*******
(Author's note: This is an amended and extended version of my paper, under the title "The Railroading of Lee Harvey Oswald", presented at the JFK-Lancer Annual Conference in Dallas in November 1998. That in turn was a development of an article published in The Fourth Decade, Vol. 1, No. 2 in January 1994 under the title "Eyewitnesses to the Kennedy and Tippit Murders.")

Ian Griggs,
24 Walton Gardens,
Waltham Abbey,
Essex EN9 1BL,
U.K.

email: bjorkian@yahoo.com


Return to Main Page

* * *
Notes

1. Just two days after the assassination, the American press was quoting Homicide Chief, Captain Will Fritz as saying: "We're convinced beyond any doubt that he killed the President. I think the case is cinched" beneath headlines proclaiming "Police say prisoner is the assassin" (New York Times, 24th November).
2. Ray and Mary La Fontaine: Oswald Talked: the New Evidence in the JFK Assassination, Pelican Publishing Company, Inc., Gretna, Louisiana; 1996; p. 41.

3. Warren Commission Report (WCR) pp. 145 and 166; Commission Exhibit 2003 (p. 293 of exhibit) at 24H 347.

4. CR 2003 (p. 293 of exhibit) at 24H 347.

5. WCR p. 198.

6. 22nd November 1996.

7. The horizontal "height" lines, plus one of the six numbers below which the lineup members stood, are clearly visible in photographs in Jesse Curry's Personal JFK Assassination File, self-published, 1969; pp. 76-77. (The position of the number 6 in the centre-right photograph on p. 77 shows that there could be a maximum of only six people in a lineup.) There is an even better photograph, taken at the 12.30am press conference, on the first page of photographs in Larry Sneed's 1998 book No More Silence, published by Three Forks Press, Dallas. This shows much of the wall with the horizontal "height" lines and the position numbers 4, 5 and 6. (See also note 9 below.)

8. 4H 166 (Testimony of Chief Jesse Curry).

9. Brief footage of this press conference is included around 46 minutes into the 105 minutes-long, 1992 G.G. Communications (US) version of Nigel Turner's The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Part of the stage and the horizontal "height" lines on the wall are clearly visible. (Full transcript of this press conference appears as CE 2169.)

10. Details of the organization and set-up of the lineups involving Oswald can be found in the Warren Commission testimony of Detectives Elmer L. Boyd (7H 119-137), Charles N. Dhority (7H 149-158), Richard M. Sims (7H 158-186), Walter E. Potts (7H 195-202), Acting Detective Charles W. Brown (7H 246-251) and Detectives L. C. Graves (7H 251-260) and James R. Leavelle (7H 260-270).

11. 7H 131 (Testimony of Detective Elmer L. Boyd).

12. Detective L. C. Graves virtually reiterated what Boyd had said: "When we want to show a person up, we call the jail supervisor and tell him what we want and who we want in the showup, and to put two or three or four other people with him, the approximate age, size and so forth" (7H 253).

13. As note 4 above.

14. Compiled from the testimony of the detectives named in note 10 above.

15. As note 4 above.

16. 7H 252 (Testimony of Detective L. C. Graves).

17. 4H 212 (Testimony of Captain J. W. Fritz).

18. WCR p. 167.

19. ibid.

20. Sylvia Meagher: Accessories After The Fact, Vintage Books, New York, 1976; p. 256.

21. Edward Jay Epstein's interviews of Assistant Counsel Wesley J. Liebeler at Newfane, Vermont, 20th June - 1st July 1965.

22. Assistant Counsel Joseph A. Ball, speaking at a public debate at Beverly Hills, California, 4th December 1964

23. Assistant Counsel Norman Redlich, during Epstein's Vermont interviews at note 21 above.

24. 3H 311 (Testimony of Helen Louise Markham).

26. As with the Markham lineup, I rely on note 4 above to establish the time of this lineup.

26. WCR p. 169.

27. WCR p. 159. However, on the same page, the Report states that McWatters later "said he had been in error and that a teenager named Milton Jones was the passenger he had in mind"

28. 6H 452 (Testimony of Domingo Benavides): "And so Ted (Callaway) then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he (the supposed Tippit killer) went."

29. 7H 399 (Testimony of Sam Guinyard).

30. Fair Play web site: URL - http://rmii.com/~jkelin/fp.html (http://rmii.com/~jkelin/fp.html) (no. 24, Sept./Oct 1998)

31. As note 25 above.

32. WCR p. 168.

33. 3H 350 (Testimony of Mrs Barbara Jeanette Davis); 6H 462 (Testimony of Mrs Charlie Virginia Davis).

34. 6H 462 (Testimony of Mrs Charlie Virginia Davis).

35. As note 25 above.

36. 2H 261 (Testimony of William Wayne Whaley).

37. WCR p. 145.

38. Howard L. Brennan with J. Edward Cherryholmes: Eyewitness to History, Texian Press, Waco, Texas, 1987.

39. 7H 332-360 (Testimony of SA Forrest V. Sorrels).

40. Judy Whitson Bonner: Investigation of a Homicide: The Murder of John F. Kennedy, Droke House Publishers, Anderson, South Carolina, USA, 1969.

41. 3H 145 (Testimony of Howard Leslie Brennan).

42. See note 7 above.

43. 3H 147 (Testimony of Howard Leslie Brennan).

44. Brennan with Cherryholmes, p. 24.

45. Kathlee Fitzgerald: "Who's Who in the Secret Service," privately published, 1996; p. 168.

46. Brennan with Cherryholmes, p. 25.

47. ibid, p. 27.

48. 7H 355 (Testimony of SA Forrest V. Sorrels).

49. 7H 354 (Testimony of SA Forrest V. Sorrels).

50. See note 40 above, pp. 13 and 156.

51. Chief Jesse Curry and Homicide Detectives Sims, Boyd, Graves, Leavelle, Brown, Dhority, Moore and Potts. Detectives Hall and Senkel did not testify before the Warren Commission.

52. 4H 202-249, 15H 145-153 (Testimony of Captain J. Will Fritz).

53. 4H 237 (Testimony of Captain J. Will Fritz). At one point in his testimony, Captain Fritz describes the lineup of 2:15pm, Saturday 23rd specifically as "Showup No. 4" (4H 227). This effectively excludes the alleged Brennan lineup altogether.

54. Detectives Clark and Perry, Jail Clerk Ables and remand prisoner Lujan (7H 243-246). None of the other remand prisoners involved were called to testify.

55. WCR p. 145.

56. 3H 148 (Testimony of Howard Leslie Brennan).
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 16, 2012, 01:12:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Oswald was offered counsel."

Take the box off your head and things will stop spinning.

He asked for legal counsel every chance he got. :hello:

We're told he wanted an unreachable lawyer from another state (New York) and that's why he

didn't recieve counsel. :wtf:
I never said he didn't ask for counsel. I did say HE WAS OFFERED COUNSEL AND REFUSED IT. You are a disinformation expert.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 16, 2012, 04:07:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I never said he didn't ask for counsel. I did say HE WAS OFFERED COUNSEL AND REFUSED IT. You are a disinformation expert.


Did he really refuse, Ron?

Or did he say he wanted to hear from the lawyer he has asked for first?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 16, 2012, 04:19:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did he really refuse, Ron?

Or did he say he wanted to hear from the lawyer he has asked for first?
That is a refusal, he was allowed to call anyone he wanted AND he was offered the services of the local Bar Association in finding an attorney. He did not take advantage of either opportunity. Wouldn't you, in that position, take advantage of your rights ???
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 16, 2012, 04:24:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is a refusal, he was allowed to call anyone he wanted AND he was offered the services of the local Bar Association in finding an attorney. He did not take advantage of either opportunity. Wouldn't you, in that position, take advantage of your rights ???

Wait...remember the press conference?  He PUBLICLY asked for someone to come forward to provide him a defense.  And did he not try to call Paul Abt of the ACLU to defend him as well, but could not reach him?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 16, 2012, 04:27:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That is a refusal, he was allowed to call anyone he wanted AND he was offered the services of the local Bar Association in finding an attorney. He did not take advantage of either opportunity. Wouldn't you, in that position, take advantage of your rights ???


So, despite his public requests for legal assistance he did not really want a lawyer..... is that what you are saying?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 16, 2012, 04:46:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, despite his public requests for legal assistance he did not really want a lawyer..... is that what you are saying?
NO. I am saying that the old saw that he was DENIED representation is null and void.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 16, 2012, 07:46:16 AM
Nichols offered legal representation to Oswald, which was denied by the wretched waif.

Oswald said he wanted a New York lawyer named John Abt or a lawyer associated with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent him.  Oswald also wanted a lawyer "who believes as I believe, and believes in my innocence."

Nichols:  "What I am interested in is knowing right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"

Oswald:  "No.  Not right now."
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 16, 2012, 09:58:35 AM
Dean Andrews......now that would have been a trial worth watching.  :beer:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 16, 2012, 10:36:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nichols offered legal representation to Oswald, which was denied by the wretched waif.

Oswald said he wanted a New York lawyer named John Abt or a lawyer associated with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent him.  Oswald also wanted a lawyer "who believes as I believe, and believes in my innocence."

Nichols:  "What I am interested in is knowing right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"

Oswald:  "No.  Not right now."

Just read Nichols WC testimony......interesting stuff. Nothing was done by Nichols until the evening of Saturday 23rd. He was obviously coming under pressure from legal heavyweights to find out if Oswald needed/requested representation. He talked to Henry Wade and Captain King. No one seemed to hear Oswald's repeated pleas for legal representation. It seems, according to Nichol's that wanted Abt or an ALCU lawyer. He was also under the impression that someone was actively trying to arrange that. Apart from the request to Ruth Paine, was anyone trying? If Oswald knew of the difficulties in finding Abt, announcing it to the world via the media would seem logical.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 16, 2012, 02:18:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just read Nichols WC testimony......interesting stuff. Nothing was done by Nichols until the evening of Saturday 23rd. He was obviously coming under pressure from legal heavyweights to find out if Oswald needed/requested representation. He talked to Henry Wade and Captain King. No one seemed to hear Oswald's repeated pleas for legal representation. It seems, according to Nichol's that wanted Abt or an ALCU lawyer. He was also under the impression that someone was actively trying to arrange that. Apart from the request to Ruth Paine, was anyone trying? If Oswald knew of the difficulties in finding Abt, announcing it to the world via the media would seem logical.

That does make sense.  I'm guessing that the government wanted to get on with the show, and not much could happen until they got Oswald represented.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 16, 2012, 02:24:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That does make sense.  I'm guessing that the government wanted to get on with the show, and not much could happen until they got Oswald represented.

I think a lot happened already. The heavyweights were Law Deans from eastern universities. I don't think anyone investigating was concerned with Oswald's legal rights. Nichols was a reluctant and disinterested participant.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 16, 2012, 02:29:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That does make sense.  I'm guessing that the government wanted to get on with the show, and not much could happen until they got Oswald represented.

I re-read about Oswald's requests...it was John Abt, not Paul Abt, and he didn't work for the ACLU.  Abt had defended the National Communist party in a high profile case, which is why Oswald thought of him, allegedly.  And if he wasn't going to get Abt, he then suggested he might get in touch with the ACLU.  Sorry If I misled anyone on that.....

It does seem like he was looking for much more than simply a legal aid lawyer...probably because he knew that this might be pretty tough to get out of.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 16, 2012, 05:57:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I re-read about Oswald's requests...it was John Abt, not Paul Abt, and he didn't work for the ACLU.  Abt had defended the National Communist party in a high profile case, which is why Oswald thought of him, allegedly.  And if he wasn't going to get Abt, he then suggested he might get in touch with the ACLU.  Sorry If I misled anyone on that.....

It does seem like he was looking for much more than simply a legal aid lawyer...probably because he knew that this might be pretty tough to get out of.


Or maybe he had heard about Abt being a good lawyer and wanted somebody from another state rather than being possibly railroaded by a local lawyer...... after all, this was Texas 1963.... history has proven since that Texas back then was not a good place to be as a murder suspect... innocent or guilty!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 16, 2012, 06:14:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Or maybe he had heard about Abt being a good lawyer and wanted somebody from another state rather than being possibly railroaded by a local lawyer...... after all, this was Texas 1963.... history has proven since that Texas back then was not a good place to be as a murder suspect... innocent or guilty!

Oh I'd agree with that....especially if you're accused of killing someone in law enforcement!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 16, 2012, 10:42:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just read Nichols WC testimony......interesting stuff. Nothing was done by Nichols until the evening of Saturday 23rd. He was obviously coming under pressure from legal heavyweights to find out if Oswald needed/requested representation. He talked to Henry Wade and Captain King. No one seemed to hear Oswald's repeated pleas for legal representation. It seems, according to Nichol's that wanted Abt or an ALCU lawyer. He was also under the impression that someone was actively trying to arrange that. Apart from the request to Ruth Paine, was anyone trying? If Oswald knew of the difficulties in finding Abt, announcing it to the world via the media would seem logical.
He was fixated on a marxist lawyer, that's understandable, but that does not negate the fact that he had access to both a phone book and a phone by DPD. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 17, 2012, 04:21:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you
Prove Oswalds political affiliations please?.
Maybe a
Membership card or some of his writings?
His speech to the Jesuits was political how?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx06JfhXYUs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx06JfhXYUs#)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:16:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both Davis sisters still picked "Saint Lee of the Oswalds" out of a lineup, by recognizing his face.  So what's your point?

No Bill, they claimed to recognize him from a PARTIAL VIEW of his face.  NEITHER one said they saw his face full on. 

So what is your point?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:19:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you saying it is mere coincidence that four rounds were found in Tippits body and Oswald was positively indentified as the person pumping said rounds into him??? If so, you are completely delusional.

You are making stuff up.  The bullets inside JDT did NOT match to CE-143 (heck, they couldn't tie CE-143 to LHO with evidence either) and this is the revolver the WC claimed he used, thus, you can NOT say he was the shooter.

You have no reliable witness for showing he did shoot JDT either.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:20:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Davis sisters positively identified the same man too.  And what Whaley ACTUALLY said was...

But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.

It's misleading and unethical to misquote a witness to support a theory.

It wasn't LHO!  Why? Because neither described what LHO was wearing and neither one saw the man's full face.  Profile only ID's are not strong and NOT allowed in most cases.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:22:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again you are spinning the facts to serve your ends. Oswald was offered counsel. He refused it. The line ups were perfectly legal. You do a disservice to real victims of real lynch mobs, who were never accorded the rights your beloved St Lee was. 

Then it should be IN WRITING as that is the only way you can waive your rights!  You can produce this waiver of rights, right?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:26:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I never said he didn't ask for counsel. I did say HE WAS OFFERED COUNSEL AND REFUSED IT. You are a disinformation expert.

It is in the best interest of the police and the DA's office to protect the rights of the accused so the EVIDENCE WILL BE ADMITTED IN COURT!  Thus, if he did refuse this counsel, and I doubt it, they should have provided him with a public defender until he could secure a lawyer of his liking.  They did NOT do this, thus, all that was allegedly gotten would have been thrown out of court or NOT admitted in the first place.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:27:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wait...remember the press conference?  He PUBLICLY asked for someone to come forward to provide him a defense.  And did he not try to call Paul Abt of the ACLU to defend him as well, but could not reach him?

A public defender is provided until a suspect can secure their own lawyer.  This is part of the Bill of Rights.

Did they provide a public defender?  NO is the answer.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:29:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
NO. I am saying that the old saw that he was DENIED representation is null and void.

And yet, he had NO legal representation! 

 :rofl:

 :sheeshxx:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nichols offered legal representation to Oswald, which was denied by the wretched waif.

Oswald said he wanted a New York lawyer named John Abt or a lawyer associated with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent him.  Oswald also wanted a lawyer "who believes as I believe, and believes in my innocence."

Nichols:  "What I am interested in is knowing right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"

Oswald:  "No.  Not right now."

Bill once again relies on *hearsay* to form his opinions.  This says it all for me.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 06:32:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I re-read about Oswald's requests...it was John Abt, not Paul Abt, and he didn't work for the ACLU.  Abt had defended the National Communist party in a high profile case, which is why Oswald thought of him, allegedly.  And if he wasn't going to get Abt, he then suggested he might get in touch with the ACLU.  Sorry If I misled anyone on that.....

It does seem like he was looking for much more than simply a legal aid lawyer...probably because he knew that this might be pretty tough to get out of.

And him allegedly requesting a lawyer who represented the "National Communist Party" doesn't raise any red flags for you?  How convenient can it get for the DPD?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 17, 2012, 06:36:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And him allegedly requesting a lawyer who represented the "National Communist Party" doesn't raise any red flags for you?  How convenient can it get for the DPD?



Your point?  Or are you just having another paranoid interlude?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 17, 2012, 06:40:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A public defender is provided until a suspect can secure their own lawyer.  This is part of the Bill of Rights.

Did they provide a public defender?  NO is the answer.

Are you a resident on planet earth?  The Bill of Rights?  LOL.  You can't force a lawyer on someone who refuses one.  Even a dunce who claims it is hearsay for Marina to testify to things she saw with her own eyes might be expected to realize this.  The police have no obligation to insist upon a suspect having an attorney.  Oswald wanted a specific attorney and refused any other legal representation.   Not unlike yourself, he wasn't too bright.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 17, 2012, 06:50:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you a resident on planet earth?  The Bill of Rights?  LOL.  You can't force a lawyer on someone who refuses one.  Even a dunce who claims it is hearsay for Marina to testify to things she saw with her own eyes might be expected to realize this.  The police have no obligation to insist upon a suspect having an attorney.  Oswald wanted a specific attorney and refused any other legal representation.   Not unlike yourself, he wasn't too bright.

I'm under the impression Oswald was required to have some sort of legal counsel, to explain the charges etc.,

before any arraignment for the murder of Tippit and JFK. ??????????
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 07:00:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your point?  Or are you just having another paranoid interlude?

 :rofl:

IMO this could have been written by "Paul May!" 

The point is they claimed he was a member of the Communist Party while producing NO paperwork or membership card showing he was.  To add weight to this false accusation they claimed he was trying to secure the leading "Communist Party" lawyer.

It smells fishy to me.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 07:04:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you a resident on planet earth?  The Bill of Rights?  LOL.  You can't force a lawyer on someone who refuses one.

The *ONLY* way one can refuse one is by signing a waiver form.  Can you produce this?  IF not, you have NO evidence showing us he refused a lawyer. 

The law is to protect the cops and prosecutors too so they are obliged to follow it.

Quote
Even a dunce who claims it is hearsay for Marina to testify to things she saw with her own eyes might be expected to realize this.

Your failure to understand our legal system does NOT make me a dunce. Marina's UNSUPPORTED/UNCORROBORATED word is NOT evidence.

Quote
The police have no obligation to insist upon a suspect having an attorney.

This sums up your knowledge of this area quite well.  YOU are a total fool.

Quote
Oswald wanted a specific attorney and refused any other legal representation.   Not unlike yourself, he wasn't too bright.

And yet, you can't show this happened or why his rights were denied.  YOU are the fool.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 17, 2012, 07:19:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:rofl:

IMO this could have been written by "Paul May!" 

The point is they claimed he was a member of the Communist Party while producing NO paperwork or membership card showing he was.  To add weight to this false accusation they claimed he was trying to secure the leading "Communist Party" lawyer.

It smells fishy to me.



As this is the third such suggestion in the past 15 minutes, I've reported again.  This is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 17, 2012, 08:07:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No Bill, they claimed to recognize him from a PARTIAL VIEW of his face.  NEITHER one said they saw his face full on. 

So what is your point?

Another perfect example of the evidence slapping you across your head and you choosing to ignore it.

Both Davis sisters identified "Saint Lee of the Oswalds" as the man who they saw run across their yard with a weapon in his hands.  This is true whether you accept it or not.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 17, 2012, 08:08:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are making stuff up.  The bullets inside JDT did NOT match to CE-143 (heck, they couldn't tie CE-143 to LHO with evidence either) and this is the revolver the WC claimed he used, thus, you can NOT say he was the shooter.

You have no reliable witness for showing he did shoot JDT either.

Tests to determine whether or not the bullets were fired from Oswald's revolver were inconclusive.  This does not mean that they were not fired from Oswald's revolver.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 17, 2012, 08:14:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nichols offered legal representation to Oswald, which was denied by the wretched waif.

Oswald said he wanted a New York lawyer named John Abt or a lawyer associated with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent him.  Oswald also wanted a lawyer "who believes as I believe, and believes in my innocence."

Nichols:  "What I am interested in is knowing right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"

Oswald:  "No.  Not right now."

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill once again relies on *hearsay* to form his opinions.  This says it all for me.

Uh, oh.  You consider this hearsay?    :rofl:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 08:20:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As this is the third such suggestion in the past 15 minutes, I've reported again.  This is ridiculous.



Go ahead and report it as I am ENTITLED TO MY OPINION!  Do you want Duncan to BAN OPINIONS?  I sure hope so since that is all YOU LNers have to work with!

Your writing matches "May's" quite a bit and I am going by many years of experience in reading it too! 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 17, 2012, 08:22:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Another perfect example of the evidence slapping you across your head and you choosing to ignore it.

Both Davis sisters identified "Saint Lee of the Oswalds" as the man who they saw run across their yard with a weapon in his hands.  This is true whether you accept it or not.

Bill, one can claim anything, but can you support it?  When most of us read their statements and testimony it is obvious they did NOT see LHO based on the clothing and the fact they NEVER saw his full-face.

You can argue all you want, but that is the truth.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 17, 2012, 08:41:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill, one can claim anything, but can you support it?  When most of us read their statements and testimony it is obvious they did NOT see LHO based on the clothing and the fact they NEVER saw his full-face.

You can argue all you want, but that is the truth.

Okay.  Let's all have a look at how honest you can or cannot be.

Did each of the Davis sisters pick Lee Oswald out of a lineup, saying he was the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?  Yes or no?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Miles Scull on September 17, 2012, 08:52:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Okay.  Let's all have a look at how honest you can or cannot be.

Did each of the David sisters pick Lee Oswald out of a lineup, saying he was the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?  Yes or no?



David sisters?

Let's now bicker about spelling.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 17, 2012, 10:30:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Okay.  Let's all have a look at how honest you can or cannot be.

Did each of the David sisters pick Lee Oswald out of a lineup, saying he was the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?  Yes or no?

Bingo. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 18, 2012, 03:12:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are making stuff up.  The bullets inside JDT did NOT match to CE-143 (heck, they couldn't tie CE-143 to LHO with evidence either) and this is the revolver the WC claimed he used, thus, you can NOT say he was the shooter.

You have no reliable witness for showing he did shoot JDT either.
Well, that does answer my question.  I thought you were completely delusional, now the whole world knows it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 18, 2012, 03:16:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As this is the third such suggestion in the past 15 minutes, I've reported again.  This is ridiculous.


No offense John, I can see you getting worse abuse from both sides down the road. Thicker skin could be an asset. Crapio is really delusional, not acting delusional. There are others, best to let it slide off your back.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 18, 2012, 03:47:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No offense John, I can see you getting worse abuse from both sides down the road. Thicker skin could be an asset. Caprio is really delusional, not acting delusional. There are others, best to let it slide off your back.

I think you're right Ron.  y'know, after attacks from Collins, Caprio and at least support for them from Dunckel, and not having any such attacks from LNers even though I believe in a conspiracy...about now, I'd consider it a compliment to be called an LNer.  Because some of these CTers aren't exactly civil.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 18, 2012, 04:06:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
CT's don't consider you a CT John because you are the sort of CT that by admission, would consider it a compliment to be called a LNer. That is why CT's aren't exactly civil towards you when you claim to be a CT.

I think I understand that, but the problem is that this place is like Twilight, Paul.  People are picking Team Edward or Team Jacob and the team is more important than the truth.  Caprio's constant dismissal of me as an LNer should be ample proof of that.  It's like he's trying to kick me out of the fictional clubhouse in his mind.  Meh.  I only want to know what happened that day, so people can call me anything they like. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 18, 2012, 06:43:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think I understand that, but the problem is that this place is like Twilight, Paul.  People are picking Team Edward or Team Jacob and the team is more important than the truth.  Caprio's constant dismissal of me as an LNer should be ample proof of that.  It's like he's trying to kick me out of the fictional clubhouse in his mind.  Meh.  I only want to know what happened that day, so people can call me anything they like. 

Yes, when I wandered onto JFK assassination boards the first time, I felt the same thing. Still do. How is anyone supposed to learn anything when there's all this partisanship? That's not how you figure something out. On my first post (on another board), I was accused of being someone else.

One thing I'd recommend is ignoring Caprio entirely. I skip his posts and have learned not to respond when he addresses me. It's difficult for sane people to understand that there are staring mad people in this world; Caprio is one of them.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 18, 2012, 12:07:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You should know this by now John. You've been here long enough now. I found out the same thing from my very first post and it was courtesy of the LN's.


Well, at least our skin's thickening :)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 19, 2012, 05:46:15 AM
Did each of the Davis sisters pick Lee Oswald out of a lineup, saying he was the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?  Yes or no?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 19, 2012, 11:11:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did they see Oswald murder Tippit?.

No.  Now it's your turn to answer, since Rob Caprio won't.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 19, 2012, 11:43:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did they see Oswald murder Tippit?.

Let's see...Caprio's answer would be - two witnesses seeing a man with a weapon walking away from a murder scene 15 seconds after the last shot isn't evidence.  However, if Oswald had seen the Davis sisters, and if someone else, say Benavides, had seen him 5 minutes earlier in the general neighbourhood, that WOULD be proof.  After all, he's going with that to exonerate Oswald from the Kennedy assassination with Jarman/Norman/Arnold.   But yeah, when it comes to Tippit, it seems that guys like Caprio aren't going to believe anything unless the entire city of Dallas plus a few outlying towns actually saw Oswald do anything.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 19, 2012, 02:30:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
its Just a question Bill .like did Brennan ID Oswald.
And no I am not Mr Caprio but thanks for asking.

I don't care about Brennan one way or another.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 19, 2012, 05:04:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did each of the Davis sisters pick Lee Oswald out of a lineup, saying he was the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?  Yes or no?

Mr. Duplicitous, Billy Brown.

Paul just posted the contradiction in their ID of the Tippit murder suspect.

------------------------

quote author=Paul Klein
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I said he had on--he looked to me that he had on
dark trousers, and it looked like a light-colored shirt, with a dark
coat over it."
(here is the other sister )
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw
him running across the lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him
in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.


(http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy253/seanmurphyroi/Tippitmurderjacketcolour.jpg)

----------------

"On the Trail of the Assassins"
 by Jim Garrisson.


"....As I continued my research, I discovered that beyond the eyewitnesses
there was other evidence gathered and altered by the Dallas homicide
unit showing that Lee Oswald had been framed in the Tippit murder.

For instance, I read transcripts of the messages sent over the Dallas
police radio shortly after the murder. These were recorded automat-
ically on a log. Just minutes after a citizen first reported the murder on
Tippit's radio, Patrolman H.W. Summers in Dallas police unit
number 221 (the designation for the squad car) reported that an
"eyeball witness to the getaway man" had been located. The suspect
was described as having black wavy hair, wearing an Eisenhower jacket
of light color, with dark trousers and a white shirt. He was "apparently
armed with a .32, dark finish, automatic pistol," which he had in his
right hand. Moments later, Sergeant G. Hill reported that "the shell at
the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38
rather than a pistol."

It seemed clear to me from this that the hand gun used to shoot
Tippit was an automatic. But the gun allegedly taken from Lee Oswald
when Dallas police later arrested him at the Texas Theatre was a
revolver. Unless Oswald had stopped and changed guns, which no one
had ever suggested, this fact alone put a severe hole in the govern-
ment's case.

The bullets found in Officer Tippit's body and the cartridges found
at the scene of his murder yielded further evidence of the frameup. The
Dallas coroner had conducted an autopsy on Tippit's body and had
removed four bullets from it. Three of them, it turned out, were
copper-coated and had been manufactured by the Winchester Western
company. The fourth, however, was a lead bullet made by the
Remington-Peters company

This was awfully strange, I thought, because bullets were never sold
in mixed lots. Gun users bought either a box of all Winchesters or one
of all Remingtons, but not some of each. The discovery of two different
makes of bullets in Tippit's body indicated to me and would indicate
to most experienced police officers a likelihood that two different
gunmen did the shooting. This was consistent with the eyewitness
testimony of Acquilla Clemons and Mr. and Mrs. Wright..."
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 19, 2012, 11:01:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did each of the Davis sisters pick Lee Oswald out of a lineup, saying he was the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?  Yes or no?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. Duplicitous, Billy Brown.

Paul just posted the contradiction in their ID of the Tippit murder suspect.

------------------------

quote author=Paul Klein
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I said he had on--he looked to me that he had on
dark trousers, and it looked like a light-colored shirt, with a dark
coat over it."
(here is the other sister )
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw
him running across the lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him
in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.


(http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy253/seanmurphyroi/Tippitmurderjacketcolour.jpg)

----------------

"On the Trail of the Assassins"
 by Jim Garrisson.


"....As I continued my research, I discovered that beyond the eyewitnesses
there was other evidence gathered and altered by the Dallas homicide
unit showing that Lee Oswald had been framed in the Tippit murder.

For instance, I read transcripts of the messages sent over the Dallas
police radio shortly after the murder. These were recorded automat-
ically on a log. Just minutes after a citizen first reported the murder on
Tippit's radio, Patrolman H.W. Summers in Dallas police unit
number 221 (the designation for the squad car) reported that an
"eyeball witness to the getaway man" had been located. The suspect
was described as having black wavy hair, wearing an Eisenhower jacket
of light color, with dark trousers and a white shirt. He was "apparently
armed with a .32, dark finish, automatic pistol," which he had in his
right hand. Moments later, Sergeant G. Hill reported that "the shell at
the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38
rather than a pistol."

It seemed clear to me from this that the hand gun used to shoot
Tippit was an automatic. But the gun allegedly taken from Lee Oswald
when Dallas police later arrested him at the Texas Theatre was a
revolver. Unless Oswald had stopped and changed guns, which no one
had ever suggested, this fact alone put a severe hole in the govern-
ment's case.

The bullets found in Officer Tippit's body and the cartridges found
at the scene of his murder yielded further evidence of the frameup. The
Dallas coroner had conducted an autopsy on Tippit's body and had
removed four bullets from it. Three of them, it turned out, were
copper-coated and had been manufactured by the Winchester Western
company. The fourth, however, was a lead bullet made by the
Remington-Peters company

This was awfully strange, I thought, because bullets were never sold
in mixed lots. Gun users bought either a box of all Winchesters or one
of all Remingtons, but not some of each. The discovery of two different
makes of bullets in Tippit's body indicated to me and would indicate
to most experienced police officers a likelihood that two different
gunmen did the shooting. This was consistent with the eyewitness
testimony of Acquilla Clemons and Mr. and Mrs. Wright..."


Why all the nonsense?  Paul didn't answert the question and now, neither did you.  Why not simply answer the question?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 12:20:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Blah ,Blah, Blah errrrr......no they did not.
And do you think I am Mr Caprio ?.
I need no pseud to hide behind I can assure you.
You can apply the same rigorous tests or just call I am here to help
In anyway possible to allay your worries of duplicity!.

You make think I is nuts
But I am an honest nut.

No Ian, I don't think you're Caprio.  Don't even think you're nuts :)  I was just illustrating a point about some folks...we've just got to be consistent on what level of proof we ask each other for.  I feel Oswald shot Tippit, because hey, he's shaking cartridges out of his gun as he's walking away from a murder scene.  Oswald goes around the corner, and Scoggins sees him too.  That level of evidence would be enough to convict about 99.9% of murder suspects any day of the week.  And yet, a guy like Caprio thinks the fact that OSWALD saw Jarman and Norman is an alibi for not shooting the President.  All I'm saying is, let's ALL be consistent.  If we want a smoking gun for an opposing viewpoint to prove their position, then we should also have a smoking gun to prove ours.  If we only have circumstantial evidence in support of our position, then we also should not expect the opposing viewpoint to provide more.  I guess all I'm saying is....none of us should ask for more than we're willing to provide.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Miles Scull on September 20, 2012, 12:37:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No Ian, I don't think you're Caprio. 

I guess all I'm saying is....none of us should ask for more than we're willing to provide.

What a load of unmitigated hippo poop.           :clapxx:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 20, 2012, 03:10:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why all the nonsense?  Paul didn't answert the question and now, neither did you.  Why not simply answer the question?
Paul won't answer that question Bill. He is too busy complaining about the lineup conditions. Too unsettled by the clothing ID mistakes and St Lee's rights to ever admit that two women positively ID'd Oswald in a legal but imperfect lineup. Maybe DPD should have put everybody in a coat and tie before the lineups. Maybe with a big sign hung around their necks saying"COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ME!!", that way its all fair and up to New Zealand standards.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 03:12:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why all the nonsense?  Paul didn't answert the question and now, neither did you.  Why not simply answer the question?

It's not nonsense.

You don't understand the issues.

Your question ignores the obvious problems with the Davis sister's ID and the line-up ID's.

Picking Oswald out of a DPD line-up was a sham and only meaningful to the dense when it

supported the WCR.

What's the story when Brennen couldn't pick Oswald out of a line-up on 11/22/63?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 03:22:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's not nonsense.

You don't understand the issues.

Your question ignores the obvious problems with the Davis sister's ID and the line-up ID's.

Picking Oswald out of a DPD line-up was a sham and only meaningful to the dense when it

supported the WCR.

What's the story when Brennen couldn't pick Oswald out of a line-up on 11/22/63?



Don't know.  The Davis sisters are compelling to me.  Are you suggesting they're lying about seeing Oswald?  Because they sounded fairly confident about who they saw, at least to me.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 20, 2012, 03:56:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Don't know.  The Davis sisters are compelling to me.  Are you suggesting they're lying about seeing Oswald?  Because they sounded fairly confident about who they saw, at least to me.


Check out their affidavits.... it's interesting.... one said it happened at 1.00 pm the other said it happened at 1.30 pm..... they were together when it happened..... very compelling indeed.... :hmmm2:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 04:03:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't know.  The Davis sisters are compelling to me.  Are you suggesting they're lying about seeing Oswald?  Because they sounded fairly confident about who they saw, at least to me.

"The Davis sisters are compelling to me."

Of course they are.

You think they support the WCR.

Open your eyes and mind and you'll see they contradict the WCR.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 20, 2012, 04:06:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't know.  The Davis sisters are compelling to me.  Are you suggesting they're lying about seeing Oswald?  Because they sounded fairly confident about who they saw, at least to me.
He prefers Acquila Clemmons. :rofl:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 20, 2012, 04:08:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He prefers Acquila Clemmons. :rofl:


Ron.. please take your medication
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 04:12:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The Davis sisters are compelling to me."

Of course they are.

You think they support the WCR.

Open your eyes and mind and you'll see they contradict the WCR.

Considering I think the findings of the WCR were predetermined, I don't believe you have a clue what I think.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 04:14:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Considering I think the findings of the WCR were predetermined, I don't believe you have a clue what I think.

So, are you saying you haven't been truthful in your posts?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 04:18:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, are you saying you haven't been truthful in your posts?

No, but I guess you're somehow suggesting it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 04:25:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, but I guess you're somehow suggesting it.

"I don't believe you have a clue what I think.".

No. you're suggesting it.

The only clue I have of what you think is what you've posted.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 04:29:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"I don't believe you have a clue what I think.".

No. you're suggesting it.

The only clue I have of what you think is what you've posted.

Weird, dude.  Come back when you're sober.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 20, 2012, 04:34:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean whether they picked this guy from a lineup as the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJAQgYTdpk#)

I believe they did . I believe even I could have picked him out on their behalf had they been too busy to attend this type of cowboy lineup served up by the DPD. Not sure about his jacket though Bill. I would have said it was a light coloured jacket but I guess you had to be there for that one.
Any thoughts on why they both got that one so wrong ?

If Oswald was not the man they saw earlier that day with a weapon in his hands (and shaking the spent shells onto the ground), then they wouldn't have picked him.  They would have picked none of the men.  Do you think they would identify a man who could possibly be innocent, just because your he protested before heading into the lineup?  No.  The Davis sisters picked Oswald out of the lineup because his face is the face they saw at the corner of Tenth and Patton with the murder weapon in his hands.

You are aware that there are times when a witness, who is viewing a lineup, picks none of the men in the lineup.  Right?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 04:36:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Weird, dude.  Come back when you're sober.

We're done.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 20, 2012, 04:37:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Check out their affidavits.... it's interesting.... one said it happened at 1.00 pm the other said it happened at 1.30 pm..... they were together when it happened..... very compelling indeed.... :hmmm2:

What's compelling about that?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 20, 2012, 04:38:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Oswald was not the man they saw earlier that day with a weapon in his hands (and shaking the spent shells onto the ground), then they wouldn't have picked him.  They would have picked none of the men.  Do you think they would identify a man who could possibly be innocent, just because your he protested before heading into the lineup?  No.  The Davis sisters picked Oswald out of the lineup because his face is the face they saw at the corner of Tenth and Patton with the murder weapon in his hands.

You are aware that there are times when a witness, who is viewing a lineup, picks none of the men in the lineup.  Right?
Bill, Bill, Bill............................they make sure they have the right guy before they make an arrest in New Zealand. No need for lineups.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 04:39:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We're done.

So deeply hurt.  You're the one that started tossing volleys.  If you don't want to get dirty, don't start stirring the mud, pal.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 04:45:42 AM

Odd, no mention that the Davis sisters saw a suspect wearing a dark jacket and the
Warren Commission says Oswald was wearing a light beige jacket.
Let me guess Bill, They were "mistaken".
(http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy253/seanmurphyroi/Tippitmurderjacketcolour.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 04:51:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So deeply hurt.  You're the one that started tossing volleys.  If you don't want to get dirty, don't start stirring the mud, pal.

 :wtf: You find the inconvienent truth dirty mud and tossing volleys.

We're done.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 04:52:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:wtf: You find the inconvienent truth dirty mud and tossing volleys.

We're done.


That's the second time you've said that.  Do me a favor, and try to be sincere this time.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 20, 2012, 04:55:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's the second time you've said that.  Do me a favor, and try to be sincere this time.

Wow you can count!

Any other talents?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 20, 2012, 05:03:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow you can count!

Any other talents?

Saying what I mean.  As in, "We're Done".  I'm teaching a course in it.  You should sign up.

Now, we ARE done.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 20, 2012, 05:09:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Saying what I mean.  As in, "We're Done".  I'm teaching a course in it.  You should sign up.

Now, we ARE done.


You seem to be done very quickly with a lot of people who believe in a conspiracy, like you say you do...... why?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 04:45:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Okay.  Let's all have a look at how honest you can or cannot be.

Did each of the Davis sisters pick Lee Oswald out of a lineup, saying he was the man they saw in their yard with a weapon in his hand?  Yes or no?

Again Bill, ONE can say anything they want, but can they support it or can it be supported?

Their descriptions of the shooter's clothing do NOT match the way LHO was dressed.  Furthermore, since they did NOT see the shooter FULL-FACED their ID would be torn apart.

The other fact you keep forgetting is that there is NO evidence LHO ever went to 10th & Patton in the first place and even Bill Alexander said this.



Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 04:46:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bingo. 

Was his name-o!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 04:47:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, that does answer my question.  I thought you were completely delusional, now the whole world knows it.

This is all LNers have -- denial. I am sharing the ACTUAL EVIDENCE the WC gave us and he calls me delusional!  LOL!

Why don't you learn the evidence BEFORE you try and defend it?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 04:49:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you're right Ron.  y'know, after attacks from Collins, Caprio and at least support for them from Dunckel, and not having any such attacks from LNers even though I believe in a conspiracy...about now, I'd consider it a compliment to be called an LNer.  Because some of these CTers aren't exactly civil.

How can you believe in a conspiracy when you constantly say there is NO evidence/proof for one?

Please end this charade already!  The FACT NO LNers attack you is proof all by itself for what you really are.

 :sheeshxx:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 04:51:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think I understand that, but the problem is that this place is like Twilight, Paul.  People are picking Team Edward or Team Jacob and the team is more important than the truth.  Caprio's constant dismissal of me as an LNer should be ample proof of that.  It's like he's trying to kick me out of the fictional clubhouse in his mind.  Meh.  I only want to know what happened that day, so people can call me anything they like. 

Wrong -- I am simply letting current and future guests who may NOT know the evidence much or at all (kind of like you John) know what your side really is so they don't fall for your silly nonsense and game playing.

'Tis that simple.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, when I wandered onto JFK assassination boards the first time, I felt the same thing. Still do. How is anyone supposed to learn anything when there's all this partisanship? That's not how you figure something out. On my first post (on another board), I was accused of being someone else.

One thing I'd recommend is ignoring Caprio entirely. I skip his posts and have learned not to respond when he addresses me. It's difficult for sane people to understand that there are staring mad people in this world; Caprio is one of them.



Lee, you are NOT here to 'learn' as you claim and I know this because us CTers cite/quote the evidence to you and the other LNers all the time and you keep on telling the same fibs as IF no one showed you they were fibs in the first place.

So how do they get around their obvious fibs and distortion?  They claim you are MAD or crazy with NO proof!

Lee is slandering me here as he can't show what he claims is the truth, but what else is new?  NOTHING they say can be supported!  And yet, for them to believe in a conspiracy they claim it has TO BE SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE! But, they believe in the WC's claims with NO support!  NOW that is INSANE!

Good Lee, keep on ignoring me as that won't bother me a bit!

 :thumbs1xx:

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 20, 2012, 04:58:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again Bill, ONE can say anything they want, but can they support it or can it be supported?

Their descriptions of the shooter's clothing do NOT match the way LHO was dressed.  Furthermore, since they did NOT see the shooter FULL-FACED their ID would be torn apart.

The other fact you keep forgetting is that there is NO evidence LHO ever went to 10th & Patton in the first place and even Bill Alexander said this.

None of that changes the fact that you incorrectly claimed that none of the Tippit witnesses identified Oswald by his face.  You were wrong.  Why didn't you answer my very simple yes or no question?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 05:36:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No.  Now it's your turn to answer, since Rob Caprio won't.

Sorry Bill, some of us other things to do in life besides repeat the same thing to you over and over again!  Let's look at their "ID" of the number two man (LHO), ok?

Barbara Davis:

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you have some difficulty in identifying this No. 2 man in the showup when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, they made us look at him a long time before they let us say anything.

Note: Why would they "make them look for a long time" if it was obvious to them as they said that the number two man was the shooter?

Mr. BALL. What about you? I am not talking about what you told them.
What was your reaction when you saw this man?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I was pretty sure it was the same man I saw. When they made him turn sideways, I was positive that was the one I seen.

Note: Again, we see you could only be "positive" from a profile view since that is ALL she saw.  This opens the door for the defense to show she is wrong since the stronger ID is based on his full face.

Mr. DULLES. And did you identify the man by number or by pointing?
Mrs. DAVIS. By number.
Mr. DULLES. Do you remember what number it was?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was number 2. From the left.
Mr. DULLES. Have you any questions?
Representative FORD. Did you whisper this information to the man behind you?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we were all sitting in a line, and he was sitting on this side of me. He just leaned over and asked me which one I thought it was.
Representative FORD. He was sitting on your right?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.

Note: Remember this as it is important.

Representative FORD. And you turned to your right and told him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. And your sister-in-law was sitting on your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. On the other side, yes.
Representative FORD. When you spoke to him, you were speaking away from her?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. Did you speak in a loud voice or a whisper?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; very quietly.
Representative FORD. You think your sister-in-law heard you say the number?
Mrs. DAVIS. I don't know.

Virginia Davis:

Mr. BELIN. Before they led you to the dark room, did he show you any pictures of anyone?
Mrs. DAVIS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Had you seen any pictures on television of anyone that might be the man you saw walking with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Had you watched television at all?
Mrs. DAVIS. No; we didn't watch television.

The first question is very SPECIFIC. "Had you seen any pictures on television of anyone that might be the man you saw walking with the gun?"  She said no, but this WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IF SHE SAW LHO as she later claimed, now wouldn't it?

The second question is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the first one as she is asked did you watch any television and she said NO! Now, if she watched NO television as stated here, why did she NOT say this when answering the FIRST question? Furthermore, does anyone believe she watched NO television when the president was just gunned down?  I sure don't.


Mr. BELIN. Had you seen any newspapers that afternoon?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; we didn't get the newspapers until that following morning.
--------------

Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the dark room?
Mrs. DAVIS. He told us to sit down.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mrs. DAVIS. And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.

Boys? I thought a lineup was supposed to be made up of people who resembled one another?

Mr. BELIN. You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?
Mrs. DAVIS. The boy that shot Tippit.

The boy? LHO was 24 years old and NO one would call him a boy if they saw him.  LHO actually looked a little older than he was IMO. How could she have seen LHO and thought he was a "boy?"

Mr. BELIN. You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. The man I saw carrying the gun.

We even see Belin trying to get her back on track here.
--------------

Mr. BELIN. Could you describe any other people in the lineup as to whether they might be fat or thin or short or tall?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, one of them was sort, well, he was tall and slim. And then the other one there, he was sort of chubby and he was short. Then this other one, he was about the same height as the other one, the last one I told you about, short and chubby. And the other one was about--medium tall.

What kind of lineup was this?  What is with the "short and chubby" ones?  Could it be they were framing LHO by making a lineup so at odds with the way he looked to make him stand out?  OR were they working off of info given to them by Markham who described a man like this?

Either way, it is apparent LHO was made to stand out and be picked out quite easily.


Mr. BELIN. Now you identified someone in that lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Here's were it gets interesting.  Remember what Barbara said.

Mr. BELIN. Did you hear your sister-in-law identify him first, or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; I identified him first.

And yet, Barbara said she ID'd him first!  What?

Mr. BELIN. Where was your sister when you identified him?
Mrs. DAVIS. She was sitting right next to me.
Mr. BELIN. How did you identify him? Did you yell that this is the man I saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. No; I just leaned over and told the detective it was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the detective? Was he to your right or to your left?
Mrs. DAVIS.Let's see, to my right.
Mr. BELIN. Where was your sister, to your right or to your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. Right.
Mr. BELIN. As she was to your right, so you leaned over to the detective and told the detective it was No. 2?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

There is NO way Virginia could have told the detective FIRST and NOT had Barbara hear her since she would have been leaning over her to tell him! So this does NOT jive with me.  IF she fibbed here, and she had to or else her sister-in-law fibbed when she said they did NOT talk tell each other what they said. Someone is NOT telling the truth here.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else that you can think of that happened that day?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Later did you ever see a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When did you first see it on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they was bringing him out of the jail out here.
Mr. BELIN. When?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they were bringing him out of the jail.
Mr. BELIN. You mean Sunday when he got shot?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did this look, could you tell whether this was the same man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I wouldn't say for sure.

What? I thought she ID'd him as the man she saw running on the night of the shooting?  Watch what they do to get around this one.

Mr. BELIN. You mean from seeing his picture on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about the man you identified as No. 2? Would you say for sure that he was the man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I would say that was him for sure.
Mr. BELIN. What you are saying is that you couldn't necessarily tell from the television picture?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir. Our television was blurred anyway, so we couldn't hardly tell.

Good one!  They watch a "blurry" television all the time!  IT is apparent they were coached and led to the correct conclusion for the WC's claims -- the number two man.  Neither could really ID LHO positively since neither saw his full face.  Their clothing descriptions do NOT match either.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 20, 2012, 05:38:30 PM
So both Barbara and Virginia Davis did indeed identify Oswald by his face.  You're catching on, Rob.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 20, 2012, 05:48:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
None of that changes the fact that you incorrectly claimed that none of the Tippit witnesses identified Oswald by his face.  You were wrong.  Why didn't you answer my very simple yes or no question?

Just because you assert something does not prove that it is true. You need to back up your assertions with facts, not supposition.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's see...Caprio's answer would be - two witnesses seeing a man with a weapon walking away from a murder scene 15 seconds after the last shot isn't evidence.  However, if Oswald had seen the Davis sisters, and if someone else, say Benavides, had seen him 5 minutes earlier in the general neighbourhood, that WOULD be proof.  After all, he's going with that to exonerate Oswald from the Kennedy assassination with Jarman/Norman/Arnold.   But yeah, when it comes to Tippit, it seems that guys like Caprio aren't going to believe anything unless the entire city of Dallas plus a few outlying towns actually saw Oswald do anything.

This is an out and out lie.  I never say things are NOT evidence, but rather the claimed evidence does NOT support the claims being made.

ALL LNers lie about this.  It started with Allegedly "Ben Holmes" and keeps on going.  Even Gary Mack says that me saying the evidence doesn't fit the claims is JUST MY OPINION!  LOL!

Then they wonder why I am suspicious of them as they all seem to use the SAME STRATEGIES!  IF they were truly different people from different parts of the country (and world) this would NOT happen.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 20, 2012, 05:50:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just because you assert something does not prove that it is true. You need to back up your assertions with facts, not supposition.

Okay, but ...... wait.  What?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 05:55:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No Ian, I don't think you're Caprio.  Don't even think you're nuts :)  I was just illustrating a point about some folks...we've just got to be consistent on what level of proof we ask each other for.  I feel Oswald shot Tippit, because hey, he's shaking cartridges out of his gun as he's walking away from a murder scene.  Oswald goes around the corner, and Scoggins sees him too.  That level of evidence would be enough to convict about 99.9% of murder suspects any day of the week.  And yet, a guy like Caprio thinks the fact that OSWALD saw Jarman and Norman is an alibi for not shooting the President.  All I'm saying is, let's ALL be consistent.  If we want a smoking gun for an opposing viewpoint to prove their position, then we should also have a smoking gun to prove ours.  If we only have circumstantial evidence in support of our position, then we also should not expect the opposing viewpoint to provide more.  I guess all I'm saying is....none of us should ask for more than we're willing to provide.

You are a liar John.  I said the FACT he described two men out of over 70 employees and was proven right supports his claim that he was eating lunch when the shots were fired.  All YOU have offered to counter this is some lame claim that "they always ate lunch on the first floor and LHO knew this!"  What nonsense.  NO wonder you can't support it.

The LNers like John CAN'T deal with the evidence so they attack the person mentioning it and make it sound like we are "delusional", "crazy", "paranoid" or a "kook!"

They run from their own evidence.  That says it all to me.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 05:59:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Weird, dude.  Come back when you're sober.

Everyone who points out the fallacy of John Murray is "weird", "drunk", "crazy" or some other such nonsense.  Why won't he just admit he is a LNer retread and we all know it?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 06:04:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
None of that changes the fact that you incorrectly claimed that none of the Tippit witnesses identified Oswald by his face.  You were wrong.  Why didn't you answer my very simple yes or no question?

Bill, I'm NOT wrong and read on as I posted their "ID's" for you.  What a sham they were.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 20, 2012, 06:08:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill, I'm NOT wrong and read on as I posted their "ID's" for you.  What a sham they were.

Regardless of whether you believe the identifications to be a sham (that's for another discussion), you were 100% incorrect when you said that no witness identified Oswald by his face.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 06:11:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So both Barbara and Virginia Davis did indeed identify Oswald by his face.  You're catching on, Rob.

Lying and denial is all you have Bill.  That is quite apparent.  The other funny part of this is their "ID" is only for the man they saw "running", NOT shooting JDT!

These LNers constantly try to walk up an ice hill with honey on their shoes!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 20, 2012, 06:13:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Regardless of whether you believe the identifications to be a sham (that's for another discussion), you were 100% incorrect when you said that no witness identified Oswald by his face.

Wrong Bill and this just shows me you did NOT even read the testimony I posted.  NO wonder you are so lost as you avoid the evidence at all cost.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 20, 2012, 06:40:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are a liar John.  I said the FACT he described two men out of over 70 employees and was proven right supports his claim that he was eating lunch when the shots were fired. 



These two weren't in the lunchroom when "shots were fired."  They were on the fifth floor.  Entirely consistent with Oswald having seen them earlier.  It demonstrates nothing about where Oswald was during the assassination.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 21, 2012, 03:42:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These two weren't in the lunchroom when "shots were fired."  They were on the fifth floor.  Entirely consistent with Oswald having seen them earlier.  It demonstrates nothing about where Oswald was during the assassination.

How is their appearance on the fifth floor at the time of the shots consistent with Oswald seeing them earlier? Where and when did he see them earlier?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 21, 2012, 04:08:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are a liar John.  I said the FACT he described two men out of over 70 employees and was proven right supports his claim that he was eating lunch when the shots were fired.  All YOU have offered to counter this is some lame claim that "they always ate lunch on the first floor and LHO knew this!"  What nonsense.  NO wonder you can't support it.

The LNers like John CAN'T deal with the evidence so they attack the person mentioning it and make it sound like we are "delusional", "crazy", "paranoid" or a "kook!"

They run from their own evidence.  That says it all to me.



I don't have to counter this, because it's not evidence.  And your definition of a liar is odd.  Not to mention how hilarious it is that you say that " John CAN'T deal with the evidence so they attack" - which is literally all you've ever done since you started stalking my posts. 

And what is your excuse for your constant attacks, Rob?  I mean "You are a liar John." This is a standard in just about every post you make towards me.  So I guess you can't deal real well either.

And THAT says it all to me.  You need help, bucko.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 21, 2012, 02:04:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How is their appearance on the fifth floor at the time of the shots consistent with Oswald seeing them earlier? Where and when did he see them earlier?

Rob is making the argument that since Oswald saw these two individuals in the lunchroom that he could not be the shooter.  This is nonsensical as they were not in the lunch room at the time of the shots so even if Oswald saw them there earlier he still had time to be on the 6th floor.  The evidence of this is that the two guys he mentioned were on the 5th floor.  Therefore, whether he did in fact see them or just guessed they were there because he knew they usually ate there doesn't make much difference. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These two weren't in the lunchroom when "shots were fired."  They were on the fifth floor.  Entirely consistent with Oswald having seen them earlier.  It demonstrates nothing about where Oswald was during the assassination.

I should have said shortly before the shots were fired.  Both Ms. Arnold's sighting and the description of these two show us LHO would NOT have had the time to go up and reassemble the rifle, move 20-25 boxes, load the weapon and sight it before JFK came.  Heck, JFK was late and LHO would NOT know this.

Furthermore, you have NO evidence showing LHO was on the sixth floor past 11:55 A.M. as claimed either.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 05:57:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't have to counter this, because it's not evidence.  And your definition of a liar is odd.  Not to mention how hilarious it is that you say that " John CAN'T deal with the evidence so they attack" - which is literally all you've ever done since you started stalking my posts.

You have quoted testimony maybe TWICE in all your posts.  The rest are full of conjecture, opinion, speculation, false assertions and hyperbole against LHO.  The *only* people you disagree with are CTers.  It is so obvious. 

Quote
And what is your excuse for your constant attacks, Rob?

Like all LNers you see my request for support for your claims as "attacks!"  I would too IF I had NO support like you guys.  IT doesn't work though as people can see who is just blowing hot air and his name is John.

Quote
I mean "You are a liar John." This is a standard in just about every post you make towards me.

Sadly it is true because YOU LIE constantly.  I would think you would be embarrassed, but instead you wear it like a badge of honor it seems.

Quote
So I guess you can't deal real well either.

I am NOT here for the same games I have seen for many years John, I am here to discuss the JFK case in a real way with evidence.  You are afraid of the evidence so that is NOT possible with you.

Quote
And THAT says it all to me.  You need help, bucko.

More silliness and sounding like "May!"  You didn't say this stuff before I made the connection.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 05:58:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rob is making the argument that since Oswald saw these two individuals in the lunchroom that he could not be the shooter.  This is nonsensical as they were not in the lunch room at the time of the shots so even if Oswald saw them there earlier he still had time to be on the 6th floor.  The evidence of this is that the two guys he mentioned were on the 5th floor.  Therefore, whether he did in fact see them or just guessed they were there because he knew they usually ate there doesn't make much difference. 

What is nonsensical is your understanding of the time frame.  His sighting of these two and Ms. Arnold's sighting show us LHO had NO time to get in place for the shooting.  He was NOT on the sixth floor as claimed Dick. 

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 21, 2012, 06:25:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have quoted testimony maybe TWICE in all your posts.  The rest are full of conjecture, opinion, speculation, false assertions and hyperbole against LHO.  The *only* people you disagree with are CTers.  It is so obvious. 

Please cite the ONE time I have said anything that  resembles the statement "Oswald acted alone in the assassination". 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Like all LNers you see my request for support for your claims as "attacks!"  I would too IF I had NO support like you guys.  IT doesn't work though as people can see who is just blowing hot air and his name is John.

All people see is your hypocrisy.  Anyone here who thinks your primary function here is anything besides attacking who you perceive to be LNers is lying.  CTers and LNers can at least agree on that.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am NOT here for the same games I have seen for many years John, I am here to discuss the JFK case in a real way with evidence. 

Find me someone who will support you in that statement.  I doubt you can.  All everyone sees is a whiney, egotistical hypocrite who claims to have 20 years of research experience on this case and instead provides ridiculous arguments and, by your own admission, no theories of what happened that day.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More silliness and sounding like "May!"  You didn't say this stuff before I made the connection.

Grow up.  Your obsession with identities is making you look paranoid and irrelevant.  You try to mock me for posting so much, and yet you can't let a single one of my posts past without launching one of your paranoid, fact-devoid rants. 

Ta ta, Forrest.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 21, 2012, 06:25:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I should have said shortly before the shots were fired.  Both Ms. Arnold's sighting and the description of these two show us LHO would NOT have had the time to go up and reassemble the rifle, move 20-25 boxes, load the weapon and sight it before JFK came.  Heck, JFK was late and LHO would NOT know this.

Furthermore, you have NO evidence showing LHO was on the sixth floor past 11:55 A.M. as claimed either.



How do you know Oswald would not have done this in advance?  Move 20-25 boxes?  Most of the boxes were there to begin with.  He only had to move a few.  Load and sight the weapon?  LOL.  It wouldn't take more than 3 minutes to do whatever was necessary to fire the rifle.  He had plenty of time.    
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 21, 2012, 06:30:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is nonsensical is your understanding of the time frame.  His sighting of these two and Ms. Arnold's sighting show us LHO had NO time to get in place for the shooting.  He was NOT on the sixth floor as claimed Dick. 



Your two guys in the lunchroom are on the 5th floor in plenty of time to see the motorcade.  Why couldn't Oswald be on the 6th floor? 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 21, 2012, 06:38:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rob is making the argument that since Oswald saw these two individuals in the lunchroom that he could not be the shooter.  This is nonsensical as they were not in the lunch room at the time of the shots so even if Oswald saw them there earlier he still had time to be on the 6th floor.  The evidence of this is that the two guys he mentioned were on the 5th floor.  Therefore, whether he did in fact see them or just guessed they were there because he knew they usually ate there doesn't make much difference. 

Oswald did not say that. He said he saw them walk through the Domino Room on the first floor, not the lunch room on the second floor.
But anyway we really can't be sure exactly what words he used because the interrogations were not recorded and Fritz only took shorthand notes.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 21, 2012, 06:52:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald did not say that. He said he saw them walk through the Domino Room on the first floor, not the lunch room on the second floor.
But anyway we really can't be sure exactly what words he used because the interrogations were not recorded and Fritz only took shorthand notes.


Well put, actually.  I can't see how we can put emphasis on this in the end, because (a) the witnesses in question can't corroborate that Oswald was there to see them, and (b) we aren't sure what Fritz's notes actually were, as you said.  This, unfortunately, is a dead end that was lost when Ruby pulled the trigger.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 07:07:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please cite the ONE time I have said anything that  resembles the statement "Oswald acted alone in the assassination".

The point is this -- NO matter what LHO's role was we know he was NOT a shooter and the evidence shows us this, but, YOU keep claiming he did shoot JFK and JDT.  YOU are lying.

Quote
All people see is your hypocrisy.

The hypocrite is you.  YOU claim to be a believer in a conspiracy, somewhat, but you keep saying no one has produced evidence showing how one occurred, meanwhile, you are claiming LHO shot and killed JFK and JDT when there is NO evidence showing this happened.  YOU are a hypocrite and a  :pino:!

Quote
Anyone here who thinks your primary function here is anything besides attacking who you perceive to be LNers is lying.  CTers and LNers can at least agree on that.

YOU want folks to believe this LIE so your job of misleading those who don't know the evidence will be easier.  It WON'T work LNer.

Quote
Find me someone who will support you in that statement.  I doubt you can.  All everyone sees is a whiney, egotistical hypocrite who claims to have 20 years of research experience on this case and instead provides ridiculous arguments and, by your own admission, no theories of what happened that day.

I have theories, but I don't wish to share them with juvenile disinfo people like you.  YOU want to focus on CT theories so you can avoid the FACT you have NO evidence for the WC's theory you support so much.  I won't help you at all in that regard.

Quote
Grow up.

This is rich coming from you.  You claim to be a "fence-sitter", but your actions show us you are really a LNer.

Quote
Your obsession with identities is making you look paranoid and irrelevant.

And yet, as I showed just today others have been saying those things for years (Robert Harris thinking Chuch Schuyler and "Tom" were the same). I was accused of being someone else for a year and a half (still am) too! 

Wake up "fence-sitter", no one is buying your act.

Your posts have soared since "Paul" bid adieu!  IT is NOT a coincidence either.

Quote
You try to mock me for posting so much, and yet you can't let a single one of my posts past without launching one of your paranoid, fact-devoid rants. 

Ta ta, Forrest.

You have it backwards John, YOU CAN'T IGNORE MY POSTS LIKE YOU HAVE CLAIMED YOU WOULD DO MANY TIMES. YOU are ADDICTED to me and thus, you are my fan club president!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 07:09:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do you know Oswald would not have done this in advance?  Move 20-25 boxes?  Most of the boxes were there to begin with.  He only had to move a few.  Load and sight the weapon?  LOL.  It wouldn't take more than 3 minutes to do whatever was necessary to fire the rifle.  He had plenty of time.   

Even DVP admits he had to move 20-25 boxes.  Are you saying DVP is wrong? The crew on the sixth floor would have noticed if he did this in advance as you suggest, so can you show one of them saying they noticed this "nest" beforehand?

He had NO time Dick and again you show you don't know the timeline.  Learn it and get back to me.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 21, 2012, 07:10:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well put, actually.  I can't see how we can put emphasis on this in the end, because (a) the witnesses in question can't corroborate that Oswald was there to see them, and (b) we aren't sure what Fritz's notes actually were, as you said.  This, unfortunately, is a dead end that was lost when Ruby pulled the trigger.

How about (c) even if Oswald did see them it doesn't preclude him from being on the 6th floor in plenty of time for the assassination.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 07:11:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your two guys in the lunchroom are on the 5th floor in plenty of time to see the motorcade.  Why couldn't Oswald be on the 6th floor? 

Because there is NO evidence showing he was.  YOU have to overcome that problem Dick.  Can you?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 07:12:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well put, actually.  I can't see how we can put emphasis on this in the end, because (a) the witnesses in question can't corroborate that Oswald was there to see them, and (b) we aren't sure what Fritz's notes actually were, as you said.  This, unfortunately, is a dead end that was lost when Ruby pulled the trigger.

Nice try liar, but his words, Ms. Arnold's words, the mechanical door and ZERO evidence showing he was on the sixth floor show us he did NOT shoot at JFK.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 21, 2012, 07:13:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even DVP admits he had to move 20-25 boxes.  Are you saying DVP is wrong? The crew on the sixth floor would have noticed if he did this in advance as you suggest, so can you show one of them saying they noticed this "nest" beforehand?

He had NO time Dick and again you show you don't know the timeline.  Learn it and get back to me.



Yes. DVP is an idiot. Thos 20-25 boxes were moved and stacked by the floor laying crew.
Givens certainly noticed the stacked boxes when he used it as a smoker's nook.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 21, 2012, 07:23:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nice try liar, but his words, Ms. Arnold's words, the mechanical door and ZERO evidence showing he was on the sixth floor show us he did NOT shoot at JFK.

You don't even KNOW his words.  Not one.  You have no idea, apart from Fritz's notes, that he said anything at all about being in the domino room.  Anthony is quite right about the notes. 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on September 21, 2012, 07:23:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because there is NO evidence showing he was.  YOU have to overcome that problem Dick.  Can you?

We were discussing your less than brilliant contention that because Oswald identified two people in the domino room that he couldn't have been on the 6th floor during the assassination.  This is an alibi claim (i.e. Oswald was downstairs when the shots were fired).  I was not attempting to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor in addressing this claim.   Simply pointing out that your theory in nonsensical as the individuals he identified made it to the 5th floor for the motorcade.  Thus, Oswald had time to witness this and be on the 6th floor.   That alone doesn't prove he was on the 6th, but that your alibi theory is complete bull.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 07:26:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes. DVP is an  :cop:. Thos 20-25 boxes were moved and stacked by the floor laying crew.
Givens certainly noticed the stacked boxes when he used it as a smoker's nook.


Of course there were stacked boxes Tony, but we are discussing a VERY SPECIFIC set near a specific place. Can you show the alleged SN was in place prior to the shooting?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 07:27:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don't even KNOW his words.  Not one.  You have no idea, apart from Fritz's notes, that he said anything at all about being in the domino room.  Anthony is quite right about the notes. 

And yet, we know he described the two men who claimed to see there!  Go figure disinfo agent!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 07:28:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We were discussing your less than brilliant contention that because Oswald identified two people in the domino room that he couldn't have been on the 6th floor during the assassination.  This is an alibi claim (i.e. Oswald was downstairs when the shots were fired).  I was not attempting to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor in addressing this claim.   Simply pointing out that your theory in nonsensical as the individuals he identified made it to the 5th floor for the motorcade.  Thus, Oswald had time to witness this and be on the 6th floor.   That alone doesn't prove he was on the 6th, but that your alibi theory is complete bull.

Nice try Dick, but he the truth is there is ZERO evidence ever went back up to the sixth floor after he came down for lunch!  NONE.  YOU can't put him there, thus, you can't show he shot JFK. 

End of story.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 21, 2012, 07:35:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And yet, we know he described the two men who claimed to see there!  Go figure disinfo agent!


And yet, nobody saw him in there.  Nobody.  Is that disinformation too?

By the way, a question.  As Anthony says, Oswald claims he saw Jarman and Norman from the Domino room on the first floor, right?

Isn't it Arnold's position that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at the same time?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 08:17:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And yet, nobody saw him in there.  Nobody.  Is that disinformation too?

By the way, a question.  As Anthony says, Oswald claims he saw Jarman and Norman from the Domino room on the first floor, right?

Isn't it Arnold's position that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at the same time?

For the 200th time -- how could LHO describe two men, and be proven right, IF he was NOT there?  YOU make no sense, but NO LNer does in their attempt to save the WC.

Let Anthony quote this claim as he is known to bend the truth too.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 21, 2012, 08:24:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For the 200th time -- how could LHO describe two men, and be proven right, IF he was NOT there?  YOU make no sense, but NO LNer does in their attempt to save the WC.

Let Anthony quote this claim as he is known to bend the truth too.



Not where?  The Domino room, or the lunchroom?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 21, 2012, 09:49:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not where?  The Domino room, or the lunchroom?

How could he say he saw them, and be proven right, IF he never saw them? Please explain this for me.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 22, 2012, 12:44:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How could he say he saw them, and be proven right, IF he never saw them? Please explain this for me.



Let's say for a second that Fritz's notes are what we think they are, and let's further assume you're correct, and he saw Jarman and Norman.

How then, did Carolyn Arnold see him at pretty much the same time, one floor up in the lunchroom, as she told Earl Golz in 1978?

You can't logically have both.  If not, now you have to choose which one is not telling the truth.  Either Oswald, or Arnold.

If it's Oswald, then he's lying, and if he is lying, to what end? 

If it's Arnold, what possible motivation would she have for lying?  If she's telling the truth, this means then that Oswald is one floor up from Jarman and Norman as they get ready to go up.

Take away any bias for a second, take a deep breath, and analyze the question calmly.  For once, try to answer without using an allegation against me of lies, identity or my beliefs of the case.  Just answer, okay?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 01:37:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let's say for a second that Fritz's notes are what we think they are, and let's further assume you're correct, and he saw Jarman and Norman.

How then, did Carolyn Arnold see him at pretty much the same time, one floor up in the lunchroom, as she told Earl Golz in 1978?

You can't logically have both.  If not, now you have to choose which one is not telling the truth.  Either Oswald, or Arnold.

If it's Oswald, then he's lying, and if he is lying, to what end? 

If it's Arnold, what possible motivation would she have for lying?  If she's telling the truth, this means then that Oswald is one floor up from Jarman and Norman as they get ready to go up.

Take away any bias for a second, take a deep breath, and analyze the question calmly.  For once, try to answer without using an allegation against me of lies, identity or my beliefs of the case.  Just answer, okay?


How then, did Carolyn Arnold see him at pretty much the same time, one floor up in the lunchroom, as she told Earl Golz in 1978?

What does that mean..... "at pretty much the same time"?

How long do you think it took LHO to get from the first to the second floor? Oswald allegedly got down from the 6th floor to the 2nd in 90 seconds...... didn't he?

So if there are only two minutes between LHO seeing Jarman & Norman and him being seen by Arnold on the second floor both events could have happened......

There are way too many variables here to conclude with any kind of certainty that "you can't logically have both"....

First of all you don't know what LHO really told Fritz....Secondly, the time (established in earlier discussions on this forum) for Jarman & Norman passing the Domino room was an educated guess at best... It could well be off by a minute or so and thirdly the FBI said Arnold claimed to have seen LHO at 12:15 pm where she herself has always insisted that it was nearer to 12:25 pm....

So why precisely wouldn't both be possible?

 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 03:24:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How then, did Carolyn Arnold see him at pretty much the same time, one floor up in the lunchroom, as she told Earl Golz in 1978?

What does that mean..... "at pretty much the same time"?

How long do you think it took LHO to get from the first to the second floor? Oswald allegedly got down from the 6th floor to the 2nd in 90 seconds...... didn't he?

So if there are only two minutes between LHO seeing Jarman & Norman and him being seen by Arnold on the second floor both events could have happened......

There are way too many variables here to conclude with any kind of certainty that "you can't logically have both"....

First of all you don't know what LHO really told Fritz....Secondly, the time (established in earlier discussions on this forum) for Jarman & Norman passing the Domino room was an educated guess at best... It could well be off by a minute or so and thirdly the FBI said Arnold claimed to have seen LHO at 12:15 pm where she herself has always insisted that it was nearer to 12:25 pm....

So why precisely wouldn't both be possible?

 


Why would Oswald be sitting in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then go and sit in the 1st floor lunchroom then go back up to the 2nd floor lunchroom for a coke, that's frigging ridiculous!
Watching you Kooks make Oswald jump through all these crazy hoops to fit your illogical theories is simply hilarious! :rofl3:



JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 03:43:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why would Oswald be sitting in the 2nd floor lunchroom, then go and sit in the 1st floor lunchroom then go back up to the 2nd floor lunchroom for a coke, that's frigging ridiculous!
Watching you Kooks make Oswald jump through all these crazy hoops to fit your illogical theories is simply hilarious! :rofl3:

JohnM


Explain your reasoning.....

This is mine: Oswald was in the Domino room on the first floor eating his lunch, which is when he saw Jarman & Norman pass by at around 12:20 pm. He then went to the second floor lunchroom for a coke, where Arnold saw him at 12:25 pm and Truly and Baker ran into him at 12.32 pm..... nothing ridiculous about it.....

 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 04:03:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Explain your reasoning.....

This is mine: Oswald was in the Domino room on the first floor eating his lunch, which is when he saw Jarman & Norman pass by at around 12:20 pm. He then went to the second floor lunchroom for a coke, where Arnold saw him at 12:25 pm and Truly and Baker ran into him at 12.32 pm..... nothing ridiculous about it.....

 


But according to Anthony Summers who is a famous JFK author and has a vested interest in telling the truth interviewed Arnold and tells us that Arnold saw Oswald at 12:15, and we know that Jarman and Norman were not that early, so now you have more holes in your convoluted ridiculous theories.

BTW How did Norman and Jarman pass by the Domino room, the rear entrance is 50 feet from the Domino room! :rofl:



JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 04:11:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

But according to Anthony Summers who is a famous JFK author and has a vested interest in telling the truth interviewed Arnold and tells us that Arnold saw Oswald at 12:15, and we know that Jarman and Norman were not that early, so now you have more holes in your convoluted ridiculous theories.

BTW How did Norman and Jarman pass by the Domino room, the rear entrance is 50 feet from the Domino room! :rofl:

JohnM


Anthony Summers?....Are you reading CT writers, John...... really?... why?  Anyway... as you LNrs always say; time estimates are never accurate....so what's your point?

IMO Arnold saw LHO at 12.25 pm and the FBI tried to push back the time to 12.15 pm.....

And as to Norman & Jarman passing the Domino room... what about the window where he could see them pass by, John?.... Forgot about that one, didn't you?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 04:25:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


IMO Arnold saw LHO at 12.25 pm and the FBI tried to push back the time to 12.15 pm.....





Your opinion is irrelevant and your time is made up to fit your theory. :scratch:
The truth is that Summers who like yourself has an opinion but decided to report what Arnold actually said.
Arnold said 12:15 and she should know better than Roger Collins, right?




JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 22, 2012, 04:28:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How then, did Carolyn Arnold see him at pretty much the same time, one floor up in the lunchroom, as she told Earl Golz in 1978?

What does that mean..... "at pretty much the same time"?

How long do you think it took LHO to get from the first to the second floor? Oswald allegedly got down from the 6th floor to the 2nd in 90 seconds...... didn't he?

So if there are only two minutes between LHO seeing Jarman & Norman and him being seen by Arnold on the second floor both events could have happened......

There are way too many variables here to conclude with any kind of certainty that "you can't logically have both"....

First of all you don't know what LHO really told Fritz....Secondly, the time (established in earlier discussions on this forum) for Jarman & Norman passing the Domino room was an educated guess at best... It could well be off by a minute or so and thirdly the FBI said Arnold claimed to have seen LHO at 12:15 pm where she herself has always insisted that it was nearer to 12:25 pm....

So why precisely wouldn't both be possible?

 

Possible, yes.  But why would you be sitting in a Domino room on the first floor one minute, and then go up to the lunch room and just be "sitting" there?  You're right, I don't know what LHO told Fritz, and Arnold's sighting time, as you say, is in question.

In which case, so is Oswald's alibi.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 04:37:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Your opinion is irrelevant and your time is made up to fit your theory. :scratch:
The truth is that Summers who like yourself has an opinion but decided to report what Arnold actually said.
Arnold said 12:15 and she should know better than Roger Collins, right?

JohnM


Ok John... let's go with that, shall we.... at 12:15 pm the assassin was already in place and seen by witnesses... so LHO could not have been the assassin, right?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 04:38:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


And as to Norman & Jarman passing the Domino room... what about the window where he could see them pass by, John?.... Forgot about that one, didn't you?




Oswald said he had lunch with the coloured boys Jr. and a shorter one, obviously Jarman and Norman.

But what do Norman and Jarman say?
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he stated to a police officer that he had had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't




Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mr. NORMAN. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know, at Elm Street, towards Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. NORMAN. The first.
Mr. BALL. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by to fill orders.
Mr. BALL. Did he say anything to you?
Mr. NORMAN. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him?
Mr. NORMAN. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him at any time after that?
Mr. NORMAN. No; no more. I don't recall seeing him any more that day.


Conclusion
Oswald's alibi was false!


JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 04:46:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Possible, yes.  But why would you be sitting in a Domino room on the first floor one minute, and then go up to the lunch room and just be "sitting" there?  You're right, I don't know what LHO told Fritz, and Arnold's sighting time, as you say, is in question.

In which case, so is Oswald's alibi.


Well... let's see... LHO saw two men passing by the Domino room and minutes later Arnold saw him in the second floor lunchroom...... I'd say that's a fairly good alibi

If Arnold's sighting time was in question it would still be within the 12:15 - 12:25 pm time frame.....

Anything after 12:15 pm is a problem for the "Oswald did it" crowd, as the assassin was seen by witnesses from 12:15 pm onwards....
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 22, 2012, 04:47:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oswald said he had lunch with the coloured boys Jr. and a shorter one, obviously Jarman and Norman.

But what do Norman and Jarman say?
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he stated to a police officer that he had had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't




Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mr. NORMAN. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know, at Elm Street, towards Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. NORMAN. The first.
Mr. BALL. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by to fill orders.
Mr. BALL. Did he say anything to you?
Mr. NORMAN. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him?
Mr. NORMAN. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him at any time after that?
Mr. NORMAN. No; no more. I don't recall seeing him any more that day.


Conclusion
Oswald's alibi was false!


JohnM

John could you provide the question asked of Oswald and the various published interpretations of those present at the interrogation of his answer? This presumably is how you have determined Oswald claimed to be eating lunch with Jarman and Norman.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 04:48:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oswald said he had lunch with the coloured boys Jr. and a shorter one, obviously Jarman and Norman.

But what do Norman and Jarman say?
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he stated to a police officer that he had had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't




Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mr. NORMAN. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know, at Elm Street, towards Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. NORMAN. The first.
Mr. BALL. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by to fill orders.
Mr. BALL. Did he say anything to you?
Mr. NORMAN. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him?
Mr. NORMAN. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him at any time after that?
Mr. NORMAN. No; no more. I don't recall seeing him any more that day.


Conclusion
Oswald's alibi was false!


JohnM

Yeah right John... just keep on repeating the same crap..... we've been down this path before....
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 04:49:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok John... let's go with that, shall we.... at 12:15 pm the assassin was already in place and seen by witnesses... so LHO could not have been the assassin, right?



Firstly in 1963 Arnold told the FBI that;
"As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor."

Then she dramatically changed her story 15 years later, no honest researcher could ever believe Arnold!


Therefore only Oswald was seen on the 6th floor!



JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 04:54:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah right John... just keep on repeating the same crap..... we've been down this path before....




I'm simply quoting what the people saw, who were actually there.
They didn't see Oswald at lunchtime in the Domino Room, Oswald's alibi is provably false!




JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 22, 2012, 05:17:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well... let's see... LHO saw two men passing by the Domino room and minutes later Arnold saw him in the second floor lunchroom...... I'd say that's a fairly good alibi

If Arnold's sighting time was in question it would still be within the 12:15 - 12:25 pm time frame.....

Anything after 12:15 pm is a problem for the "Oswald did it" crowd, as the assassin was seen by witnesses from 12:15 pm onwards....

I'm just asking...did anyone besides Rowland see a gunman at 12:15?  I'm not aware of the roster of who saw what when outside....
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 05:18:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Firstly in 1963 Arnold told the FBI that;

"As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor."

Then she dramatically changed her story 15 years later, no honest researcher could ever believe Arnold!

Therefore only Oswald was seen on the 6th floor!

JohnM


Wrong again... Arnold told the FBI.... according to the FBI..... can you please provide a signed statement by Arnold, John?

Just a minute ago you quoted Anthony Summers, now you tell me you don't believe him.... could you please make up your mind?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm simply quoting what the people saw, who were actually there.

They didn't see Oswald at lunchtime in the Domino Room, Oswald's alibi is provably false!

JohnM


Yes, John... we know that Jarman and Norman did not see LHO.... but out of some 70 TSBD employees they were the only two who were near the Domino room at the time LHO said they were....

How did he know that, John? And please don't give me that "he must have guessed" crap, because it is beyond any reasonable believe....
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 05:57:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Yes, John... we know that Jarman and Norman did not see LHO.... but out of some 70 TSBD they were the only two who were near the Domino room at the time LHO said they were....

How did he know that, John? And please don't give me that "he must have guessed" crap, because it is beyond any reasonable believe....


(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/JarmanNorman2_zpsdd60c5b2.jpg)

BTW two people not accused of murder who don't see someone is more believable than a double murderer who lied profusely.



JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 06:00:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/JarmanNorman2_zpsdd60c5b2.jpg)

BTW two people not accused of murder who don't see someone is more believable than a double murderer who lied profusely.

JohnM


And right on cue here is the BS "Oswald guessed" argument...... forget it, John.... just too many variables..... if you understand that word

Btw.. who said Oswald lied profusely.... got any proof of that, have you?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 22, 2012, 06:03:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And right on cue here is the BS "Oswald guessed" argument...... forget it, John.... just too many variables..... if you understand that word
Hmmmmm but a conspiracy has no variables. Interesting.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 06:05:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hmmmmm but a conspiracy has no variables. Interesting.


Never said that, but sure a conspiracy has variables..... actually it may even rely on it.... so what's your point?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 06:07:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And right on cue here is the BS "Oswald guessed" argument...... forget it, John.... just too many variables..... if you understand that word



Oswald said he ate lunch with two coloured boys and described Jarman and Norman, they both said they didn't eat lunch with Oswald, so who do we believe, the dirty wife bashing double murderer or the corroborated stories of two innocent men???



JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 22, 2012, 06:09:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/JarmanNorman2_zpsdd60c5b2.jpg)

BTW two people not accused of murder who don't see someone is more believable than a double murderer who lied profusely.



JohnM

Just as BRW could have heard them from the SN and decided to go down and join them. Right?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 22, 2012, 06:12:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Oswald said he ate lunch with two coloured boys and described Jarman and Norman
, they both said they didn't eat lunch with Oswald, so who do we believe, the dirty wife bashing double murderer or the corroborated stories of two innocent men???



JohnM

Please provide how you deduced this claim.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 06:13:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oswald said he ate lunch with two coloured boys and described Jarman and Norman, they both said they didn't eat lunch with Oswald, so who do we believe, the dirty wife bashing double murderer or the corroborated stories of two innocent men???

JohnM


No, John.... Captain Fritz wrote in his notes that Oswald had said he ate lunch with two colored boys..... other reports of the same interview do not mention the eating lunch part at all......

Try again
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 06:28:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, John.... Captain Fritz wrote in his notes that Oswald had said he ate lunch with two colored boys..... other reports of the same interview do not mention the eating lunch part at all......

Try again



Captain Fritz wrote in his notes that Oswald had said he ate lunch with two colored boys

The oversight of this trivial fact by others hardly makes Fritz's statement any less true! :sheeshxx:



JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 22, 2012, 06:28:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please provide how you deduced this claim.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=43DEDE3ADD756035FE09328CCCB3BCD0?docId=29105 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=43DEDE3ADD756035FE09328CCCB3BCD0?docId=29105)

He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Mytton on September 22, 2012, 06:34:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=43DEDE3ADD756035FE09328CCCB3BCD0?docId=29105 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=43DEDE3ADD756035FE09328CCCB3BCD0?docId=29105)

He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy.


 :gimme5xx:


JohnM
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 22, 2012, 06:40:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Captain Fritz wrote in his notes that Oswald had said he ate lunch with two colored boys

The oversight of this trivial fact by others hardly makes Fritz's statement any less true! :sheeshxx:

JohnM


So you prefer to believe Fritz's notes above those of other law enforcement officers?...... Why?... What makes Fritz's notes so special?

Fritz also wrote in his notes that LHO said he had bought his revolver in Forth Worth..... do we believe that also?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 22, 2012, 06:43:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Oswald said he ate lunch with two coloured boys and described Jarman and Norman, they both said they didn't eat lunch with Oswald, so who do we believe, the dirty wife bashing double murderer or the corroborated stories of two innocent men???
JohnM

 :sheeshxx:  :wtf:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm)

James Hosty, Jr. and James W. Bookout
dictated 11/23/63

"OSAWLD stated that he went to lunch at apprximately noon and he
claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however
he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and
obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the
first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."


-snip-

"Oswald frantically denied shooting Dallas police officer Tippit or
shooting President John F. Kennedy."


--------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm)

James W. Bookout
dictated 11/24/63

"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the TSBD
building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building,
having just purchased a Coca-Cola from the soft drink machine, at which time a
police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked
there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police
officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald
stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had .
lunch in the employees lunchroom. He thereafter went outside and stood around for
five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly and thereafter went home. He stated
that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he
did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day due to the
confusion in the building."


----------------------


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm)

James W. Bookout
dictated 11/24/63


"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at
the TSBD, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and
the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able
to recognize."


----------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm)

Thomas J. Kelly Secret Service

"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one
of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy."


---------------------------


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0327a.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0327a.htm)

Thomas J. Kelly
Covers third interview with Oswald

November 29, 1963

"At that time he asked me whether I was an FBI Agent and I said that I was not that
I was a member of the Secret Service. He said when he was standing if front of the Textbook
Building and about to leave it, a young crew-cut man rushed up to him and said he was from the
Secret Service, showed a book of identification, and asked him where the phone was. Oswald
said he pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to
the phone before he left."


----------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm)

Harry D. Holmes U.S. Postal Inspector
December 17,1963

"When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time
came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of Negro employees invited him to eat
lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in
a few minutes." Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion
surrounding the assassination took place and he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to
his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman
had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building."


----------------

http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappE.html (http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappE.html)

Report of the FBI's First
Interview with Charles Givens


Author's note: This is the actual report of the FBI's first interview with Charles Givens. Givens is reported as saying nothing about the
alleged encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor that he was to describe to the Commission much later. Rather, he is reported to have told
the FBI on the day of the assassination that he saw Oswald on the first floor at the same time he later told the Commission he saw Oswald on
the sixth floor. This FBI report was not published by the Commission or mentioned in the Warren Report.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date     11/23/63

CHARLES DOUGLAS GIVENS, 2511 Cochran Street, advised he was employed by the Texas School Book Depository, Houston and Elm Street,
from October 1, 1963, to present time. GIVENS said he has worked at this same position as a wrapper on several occasions prior to
this employment. On November 22, 1963, GIVENS worked on the sixth floor of the building until about 11:30 A.M. when he used the
elevator to travel to the first floor where he used the restroom at about 11:35 A.M. or 11:40 A.M. GIVENS then walked around on
the first floor until 12 o'clock noon, at which time he walked onto the sidewalk and stood for several minutes, then walked to the
Classified Parking Lot at Elm and Records Street. GIVENS then walked to Main Street to watch the parade and after the President and
the group had passed, he walked back to the parking lot, at which time he heard several shots fired from the direction of the building
at which he is employed. He attempted to return to work but was told that he had been released for the balance of the day.
      GIVENS advised that a white male, known as LEE, was employed in the same building and worked as a wrapper or order filler. He
said he saw this same person's picture on television on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, who was supposed to have been the person
being investigated for the shooting of the President. LEE worked on all floors of the building, and on November 22, 1963, GIVENS recalls
observing LEE working on the fifth floor during the morning filling orders. LEE was standing by the elevator in the building at 11:30 A.M.
when GIVENS went to the first floor. When he started down in the elevator, LEE yelled at him to close the gates on the elevator so that he
(LEE) could have the elevator returned to the sixth floor. GIVENS said that during the past few days LEE had commented that he rode to work
with a boy named WESLEY.
      GIVENS said all employees enter the back door of the building when JACK DOUGHERTY, the foreman opens the door at about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.


**********

on     11/22/63     at     Dallas, Texas     File #     DL 89-43
by Special Agent     WILL HAYDEN GRIFFEN     and     BARDWELL D. ODUM (HM)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 22, 2012, 06:48:16 AM
Thomas J. Kelly Secret Service

"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one
of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy."


 :hmmm2:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 22, 2012, 06:53:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thomas J. Kelly Secret Service

"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one
of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy."


 :hmmm2:

Highlighting your cherry pickin in red - priceless.   :rofl:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm)

James W. Bookout
dictated 11/24/63


"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at
the TSBD, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and
the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able
to recognize."
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 22, 2012, 07:06:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Highlighting your cherry pickin in red - priceless.   :rofl:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm)

James W. Bookout
dictated 11/24/63


"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at
the TSBD, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and
the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able
to recognize."


Not cherry pickin. I reposted SA Kelly's statement to show that there were at least two who recalled Oswald saying that he had lunch with Jarman and the "short negro".
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 22, 2012, 07:22:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not cherry pickin. I reposted SA Kelly's statement to show that there were at least two who recalled Oswald saying that he had lunch with Jarman and the "short negro".

Clearly not a consensus from those present. If as John suggests Oswald knew these 2 were on the 5th floor at the time why would he pick them? Easily disproven right?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 22, 2012, 07:26:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Clearly not a consensus from those present. If as John suggests Oswald knew these 2 were on the 5th floor at the time why would he pick them? Easily disproven right?

Oswald said all kinds of things that were easily disproven. This was just one of them.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 22, 2012, 07:44:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Clearly not a consensus from those present. If as John suggests Oswald knew these 2 were on the 5th floor at the time why would he pick them? Easily disproven right?

In fact, if Oswald did know that Jarman and Norman were one floor below him at the time of the shots, his claiming to be aware of them at this time places him in their vicinity. According to your logic this is actually an admission rather than alibi.

Please provide the question asked of Oswald during the interrogation that he is responding to? All I see is Chinese whispers and differing recollections, many out of chronological order by those present.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 22, 2012, 05:35:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In fact, if Oswald did know that Jarman and Norman were one floor below him at the time of the shots, his claiming to be aware of them at this time places him in their vicinity. According to your logic this is actually an admission rather than alibi.

Please provide the question asked of Oswald during the interrogation that he is responding to? All I see is Chinese whispers and differing recollections, many out of chronological order by those present.

Colin, you seem to be talking to yourself. If not, who was that directed to?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 24, 2012, 08:40:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's say for a second that Fritz's notes are what we think they are, and let's further assume you're correct, and he saw Jarman and Norman.

So you are putting a set of ASSUMPTIONS with a fact? What? See, LHO could NOT have described Jarman and Norman, and be proven right, IF he did NOT see them.  He was PROVEN TO BE RIGHT.  Meanwhile, you give me a bunch of speculation.

Quote
How then, did Carolyn Arnold see him at pretty much the same time, one floor up in the lunchroom, as she told Earl Golz in 1978?

By the time she saw him both Jarman and Norman were on the fifth floor.  Her statement and time were changed repeatedly.

Quote
You can't logically have both.  If not, now you have to choose which one is not telling the truth.  Either Oswald, or Arnold.

Nice try, but he said he saw Jarman and Norman BEFORE the time Arnold would have seen him.

Quote
If it's Oswald, then he's lying, and if he is lying, to what end?

He is not lying, you are.   

Quote
If it's Arnold, what possible motivation would she have for lying?  If she's telling the truth, this means then that Oswald is one floor up from Jarman and Norman as they get ready to go up.

She is not lying, you are.

Quote
Take away any bias for a second, take a deep breath, and analyze the question calmly.  For once, try to answer without using an allegation against me of lies, identity or my beliefs of the case.  Just answer, okay?

These were two SEPARATE events at two DIFFERENT times.  You are lying and trying to make it sound like they happened at the same time.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 24, 2012, 08:43:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oswald said he had lunch with the coloured boys Jr. and a shorter one, obviously Jarman and Norman.

But what do Norman and Jarman say?
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he stated to a police officer that he had had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't




Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mr. NORMAN. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know, at Elm Street, towards Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. NORMAN. The first.
Mr. BALL. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by to fill orders.
Mr. BALL. Did he say anything to you?
Mr. NORMAN. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him?
Mr. NORMAN. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him at any time after that?
Mr. NORMAN. No; no more. I don't recall seeing him any more that day.


Conclusion
Oswald's alibi was false!


JohnM

And yet, IT WASN'T!  He was NOT on the sixth floor as you contend and I have the WC's evidence to prove it!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 25, 2012, 01:57:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you are putting a set of ASSUMPTIONS with a fact? What? See, LHO could NOT have described Jarman and Norman, and be proven right, IF he did NOT see them.  He was PROVEN TO BE RIGHT.  Meanwhile, you give me a bunch of speculation.

Now the real fun begins.  Thanks for this.  I gave you speculation, yes.  Well then, let's set the record straight.  Please provide the signed statement Oswald gave to Fritz, or the videotape where he states what you say he said.  After all, we don't want to speculate, do we?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He is not lying, you are.   

She is not lying, you are.

Prove it.  After all, speculation is out now, according to you, so if you're going to call me a liar, prove it.  If you can't prove it, then you have no justification for your statement.  And by extension of your logic you have stated many times (remember how, according to you, Oswald is innocent because of the 26 volumes?  Meaning, the entire body of the WC's work?) - if you cannot satisfactorily prove that I have, indeed, lied, then your entire body of work must indeed be called into question.

So, prove to all reading I've lied.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These were two SEPARATE events at two DIFFERENT times.  You are lying and trying to make it sound like they happened at the same time.

You have contended to me that Oswald's sighting of Jarman and Norman is corroborated by Arnold's sighting.  Now, you're saying that "These were two SEPARATE events at two DIFFERENT times. "  - so which one is it?  Separate events at separate times don't corroborate each other. 

For someone who's complained about me stalking them, you sure seem to zoom in on my posts a lot.  If you contribute 10 times what I do, as you suggest, why do you even care about my posts?

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  I appreciate it.  :thumbs1xx:

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 25, 2012, 06:33:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not cherry pickin. I reposted SA Kelly's statement to show that there were at least two who recalled Oswald saying that he had lunch with Jarman and the "short negro".

But you only posted one, and you highlighted it in red!

Post the second statement showing a second account of Oswald saying he had lunch with Jarman and the short negro.

I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 25, 2012, 06:51:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But you only posted one, and you highlighted it in red!

Post the second statement showing a second account of Oswald saying he had lunch with Jarman and the short negro.

I'm not holding my breath.

Gary,

Perhaps, you've held your breath for too long too many times and your grey matter has suffered as a result. 

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6954.msg188884.html#msg188884 (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6954.msg188884.html#msg188884)  :hmmm2:

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 25, 2012, 06:39:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There also would be a need to control the movements of everyone else in the building, and I have never seen any evidence of that..

Excellent point!

How could the conspirators have set up a mobile photo alteration lab in Dealey Plaza and have a team of skilled body alterationists on hand if three or four of Oswald's co-workers have decided to watch the motorcade from the sixth floor (as three did from the fifth floor). They would have gone to all that trouble for nothing?

And how do they let the conspirators in the Dal-Tex building, the Storm Drain, behind the grassy knoll, and on the roof of the Criminal Courts building know to abort the mission at the last minute?


Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lee Johnson on September 25, 2012, 08:52:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Excellent point!

How could the conspirators have set up a mobile photo alteration lab in Dealey Plaza and have a team of skilled body alterationists on hand if three or four of Oswald's co-workers have decided to watch the motorcade from the sixth floor (as three did from the fifth floor). They would have gone to all that trouble for nothing?

And how do they let the conspirators in the Dal-Tex building, the Storm Drain, behind the grassy knoll, and on the roof of the Criminal Courts building know to abort the mission at the last minute?


Hank

LOL.  :thumbs1xx:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Anthony Marsh on September 25, 2012, 09:17:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not cherry pickin. I reposted SA Kelly's statement to show that there were at least two who recalled Oswald saying that he had lunch with Jarman and the "short negro".

He said a black guy named Junior. Jarman is the only one who fit the description.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 26, 2012, 05:48:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gary,

Perhaps, you've held your breath for too long too many times and your grey matter has suffered as a result. 

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6954.msg188884.html#msg188884 (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6954.msg188884.html#msg188884)  :hmmm2:

Nope, you're just a little dense.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 26, 2012, 06:55:33 PM
Here's the link to Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley's mention of Oswald eating with the colored boys:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm)

Here's the link to DPD Captain Fritz's mention of two negroes coming in while Oswald was eating lunch:

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes3.htm (http://www.jfk-info.com/notes3.htm)

James Bookhout of the FBI has the same version, Oswald ate lunch alone but two black men went through the room at some point:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 27, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's the link to Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley's mention of Oswald eating with the colored boys:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm)

Here's the link to DPD Captain Fritz's mention of two negroes coming in while Oswald was eating lunch:

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes3.htm (http://www.jfk-info.com/notes3.htm)

James Bookhout of the FBI has the same version, Oswald ate lunch alone but two black men went through the room at some point:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm)


So Frtiz's note say two negros came in. He saw Norman and Jarman come in. Not they came in the lunchroom. He might have said while was in the domino room i saw them come in......meaning the building, which they did do. Oswald said he was eating lunch when this happened. Bookout's version is different in he says they walk through. The assumption is thay they walked through the lunchroom. It has only one entrance, so how do you walk through? This has been interpreted by some that Oswald claimed he had lunch with them. Clearly misinterpreting Friz's notes.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 27, 2012, 10:55:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So Frtiz's note say two negros came in. He saw Norman and Jarman come in. Not they came in the lunchroom. He might have said while was in the domino room i saw them come in......meaning the building, which they did do. Oswald said he was eating lunch when this happened. Bookout's version is different in he says they walk through. The assumption is thay they walked through the lunchroom. It has only one entrance, so how do you walk through? This has been interpreted by some that Oswald claimed he had lunch with them. Clearly misinterpreting Friz's notes.
 

Colin,

You are doing your damnedest to try to deny the obvious. When Oswald claimed that the two came in , he obviously meant in the lunchroom.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tony Fratini on September 27, 2012, 12:01:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 

Colin,

You are doing your damnedest to try to deny the obvious. When Oswald claimed that the two came in , he obviously meant in the lunchroom.


Tim,

all you have is the cryptic notes of Fritz. Remember, Fritz usually wrote up his reports often days after questioning a suspect. From the windows in the Domino room, LHO would have easily seen Jarman and Norman come into the back of the TSBD. This was around 12.20.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img155/9148/slide1nj.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/155/slide1nj.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

(http://imageshack.us/a/img40/8440/slide2au.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/slide2au.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on September 27, 2012, 12:30:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are doing your damnedest to try to deny the obvious. When Oswald claimed that the two came in , he obviously meant in the lunchroom.


Really?.... And you are not trying your damnedest to deny the most logical explanation?..... You don't know what LHO said precisely and you are only guessing what he meant.

Or do you have some solid information that nobody else is aware of?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 27, 2012, 01:02:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 

Colin,

You are doing your damnedest to try to deny the obvious. When Oswald claimed that the two came in , he obviously meant in the lunchroom.


Tim, what was the question asked of Oswald? Was it something like "where did you eat your lunch?". Was his answer "in the lunchroom" Then "did you eat your lunch with anyone?" Answer "no, I ate alone".

Was the follow up, "did you see anyone when you ate your lunch?" Answer "well I saw 2 colored boys walk by while I was there"

Was he asked if they might have seen him?

This is now morphed into Oswald claimed he ate lunch with Norman and Jarman. Nice. Belin would be proud.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 27, 2012, 03:54:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, what was the question asked of Oswald? Was it something like "where did you eat your lunch?". Was his answer "in the lunchroom" Then "did you eat your lunch with anyone?" Answer "no, I ate alone".

Was the follow up, "did you see anyone when you ate your lunch?" Answer "well I saw 2 colored boys walk by while I was there"

Was he asked if they might have seen him?

This is now morphed into Oswald claimed he ate lunch with Norman and Jarman. Nice. Belin would be proud.

I think the outlier is the one statement that Oswald ate with Norman and Jarman.
But I don't think Oswald's claims of being there are all that strong -- after all, Norman and Jarman both denied seeing him.

And Oswald stated in custody he spoke with Shelley after the assassination, and based on that conversation, the determination was made that no more work would probably get done that day, so Oswald decided to go back to the roominghouse.

However, Shelley denied any such conversation, and there's scant time to squeeze in such a conversation, and have Oswald take a bus, and cab to get back to the roominghouse.

So I don't think Oswald's claims of where he had lunch --  and when -- have much credibility.

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 27, 2012, 04:04:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now the real fun begins.  Thanks for this.  I gave you speculation, yes.  Well then, let's set the record straight.  Please provide the signed statement Oswald gave to Fritz, or the videotape where he states what you say he said.  After all, we don't want to speculate, do we?

Sorry, but it was shown he described the two men he saw in the lunchroom.  I'm not playing your silly game.


Quote
Prove it.  After all, speculation is out now, according to you, so if you're going to call me a liar, prove it.  If you can't prove it, then you have no justification for your statement.  And by extension of your logic you have stated many times (remember how, according to you, Oswald is innocent because of the 26 volumes?  Meaning, the entire body of the WC's work?) - if you cannot satisfactorily prove that I have, indeed, lied, then your entire body of work must indeed be called into question.

I have shown you have lied as you deny the evidence in this case repeatedly.  You have a horrible double standard.  YOU want a mountain of evidence to show LHO did NOT do what was claimed of him, but OTOH, you believe he did what was claimed of him with NO supporting evidence!

This is NOT how our justice system works.  YOU want the defense side to have the BURDEN OF PROOF. 

Quote
So, prove to all reading I've lied.

That is easy to see if anyone bothers to read your posts.

Quote
You have contended to me that Oswald's sighting of Jarman and Norman is corroborated by Arnold's sighting.

Wrong.  My statement was that Arnold's sighting corroborated the FACT he was where he said he was by placing him in a position to have seen Norman and Jarman.

I NEVER said what you just wrote.

I could use the "L" word again, but won't.

Quote
Now, you're saying that "These were two SEPARATE events at two DIFFERENT times. "  - so which one is it?  Separate events at separate times don't corroborate each other.

Separate events that CORROBORATE the each other.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Quote
For someone who's complained about me stalking them, you sure seem to zoom in on my posts a lot.  If you contribute 10 times what I do, as you suggest, why do you even care about my posts?

I don't "care" about your posts, but I won't let falsehoods go unchecked.

Quote
Thanks for the vote of confidence.  I appreciate it.  :thumbs1xx:

More delusion by John Murray.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 27, 2012, 04:09:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the outlier is the one statement that Oswald ate with Norman and Jarman.
But I don't think Oswald's claims of being there are all that strong -- after all, Norman and Jarman both denied seeing him.

And Oswald stated in custody he spoke with Shelley after the assassination, and based on that conversation, the determination was made that no more work would probably get done that day, so Oswald decided to go back to the roominghouse.

However, Shelley denied any such conversation, and there's scant time to squeeze in such a conversation, and have Oswald take a bus, and cab to get back to the roominghouse.

So I don't think Oswald's claims of where he had lunch --  and when -- have much credibility.

Hank

But I'm sure all the WC's claims with NO supporting evidence behind them do have credibility for you, huh?  By the way, what about Ms. Arnold's sighting and the mechanical door?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 27, 2012, 09:00:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But I'm sure all the WC's claims with NO supporting evidence behind them do have credibility for you, huh?  By the way, what about Ms. Arnold's sighting and the mechanical door?

By the way, Rob... the "mechanical door" was on the second floor, not the fifth.     :hammerhead:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 27, 2012, 09:03:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
By the way, Rob... the "mechanical door" was on the second floor, not the fifth.     :hammerhead:

No kidding, and you are still RUNNING from discussing it!  I wonder why?

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 27, 2012, 09:08:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No kidding, and you are still RUNNING from discussing it!  I wonder why?

 :rofl:

I was discussing the events on the fifth floor when you decided to enter the conversation by bringing up your "mechanical door".  I just wanted to be sure that you were aware that the door was on the second floor, not the fifth.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 28, 2012, 12:44:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But I'm sure all the WC's claims with NO supporting evidence behind them do have credibility for you, huh?  By the way, what about Ms. Arnold's sighting and the mechanical door?



Hi Rob,

Let's backtrack a step and take it a step at a time.

I don't see any evidence that Oswald and Shelley conversed after the assassination. Do you know of any?

If not, then Oswald lied in custody about that point. Do you agree or disagree with this point?

We can get to the story about the two black guys thereafter. Once we have a handle on whether Oswald said anything in custody that appears to be untrue.

Thanks,

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 28, 2012, 12:45:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry, but it was shown he described the two men he saw in the lunchroom.  I'm not playing your silly game.


I have shown you have lied as you deny the evidence in this case repeatedly.  You have a horrible double standard.  YOU want a mountain of evidence to show LHO did NOT do what was claimed of him, but OTOH, you believe he did what was claimed of him with NO supporting evidence!

This is NOT how our justice system works.  YOU want the defense side to have the BURDEN OF PROOF. 

That is easy to see if anyone bothers to read your posts.

Wrong.  My statement was that Arnold's sighting corroborated the FACT he was where he said he was by placing him in a position to have seen Norman and Jarman.

I NEVER said what you just wrote.

I could use the "L" word again, but won't.

Separate events that CORROBORATE the each other.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

I don't "care" about your posts, but I won't let falsehoods go unchecked.

More delusion by John Murray.



My retort of the day to you, and as per my commitment, no more.

Thank you for proving my simple point...you either can not or will not prove your constant allegations of my "lies".  Which proves to all here that you are indeed a hack who uses nothing but bluster and arrogance to "prove" your points.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 28, 2012, 02:34:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Rob,

Let's backtrack a step and take it a step at a time.

I don't see any evidence that Oswald and Shelley conversed after the assassination. Do you know of any?

If not, then Oswald lied in custody about that point. Do you agree or disagree with this point?

We can get to the story about the two black guys thereafter. Once we have a handle on whether Oswald said anything in custody that appears to be untrue.

Thanks,

Hank

I was gonna ask why you bother responding to caprio, but I see where you're goin.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 28, 2012, 11:44:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the outlier is the one statement that Oswald ate with Norman and Jarman.
But I don't think Oswald's claims of being there are all that strong -- after all, Norman and Jarman both denied seeing him.

And Oswald stated in custody he spoke with Shelley after the assassination, and based on that conversation, the determination was made that no more work would probably get done that day, so Oswald decided to go back to the roominghouse.

However, Shelley denied any such conversation, and there's scant time to squeeze in such a conversation, and have Oswald take a bus, and cab to get back to the roominghouse.

So I don't think Oswald's claims of where he had lunch --  and when -- have much credibility.

Hank

Why do you guys make stuff up? Do you have a comprehension problem? Do you go to the primary source?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 28, 2012, 04:14:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I was discussing the events on the fifth floor when you decided to enter the conversation by bringing up your "mechanical door".  I just wanted to be sure that you were aware that the door was on the second floor, not the fifth.

Why do you NOT want to discuss the mechanical door Bill? Can't you have two discussions at the same time?

We both know it was on the second floor so let's discuss it, ok?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 28, 2012, 04:19:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Rob,

Let's backtrack a step and take it a step at a time.

I don't see any evidence that Oswald and Shelley conversed after the assassination. Do you know of any?

If not, then Oswald lied in custody about that point. Do you agree or disagree with this point?

We can get to the story about the two black guys thereafter. Once we have a handle on whether Oswald said anything in custody that appears to be untrue.

Thanks,

Hank


Hi Hank,

I never said LHO and Shelley discussed anything after the assassination.  John Murray says Frazier is cleared all because Shelley said he was on the front steps with him when the shots were fired, but this claim is NOT corroborated by anything else.

Meanwhile, LHO's statement of eating lunch in the first floor lunchroom is supported by the FACT he described two men that were either eating lunch in there at the same time or were passing through there when he was eating his lunch.  We can then add the sighting by Ms. Arnold as she said she saw LHO too.

We don't know for sure what LHO said or did not say since Fritz claimed NOT to record it or take notes.  Of course we see he lied about NOT taking notes later on.

I am NOT going by what LHO said or did NOT say for my point by the way.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 28, 2012, 04:20:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My retort of the day to you, and as per my commitment, no more.

Thank you for proving my simple point...you either can not or will not prove your constant allegations of my "lies".  Which proves to all here that you are indeed a hack who uses nothing but bluster and arrogance to "prove" your points.

John, you are simply in denial as anyone who can read can see your lies.

I can cite/quote the evidence, but YOU can't.  That is plain for all to see.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 28, 2012, 04:21:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I was gonna ask why you bother responding to caprio, but I see where you're goin.

Why wouldn't he respond to me?  The ONLY people who don't are the ones that can't cite/quote any evidence to support their claims.

You would fall into that category.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 28, 2012, 04:22:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you guys make stuff up? Do you have a comprehension problem? Do you go to the primary source?

Exactly Colin. 

For the record I never stated what Hank is claiming.  I guess he is trying to lead me somewhere.  We shall see.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 28, 2012, 07:50:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John, you are simply in denial as anyone who can read can see your lies.

I can cite/quote the evidence, but YOU can't.  That is plain for all to see.



You've not cited any evidence to me.  Not once.  You've tried to paint me into corners time and again, but have never showed me anything save for your illogical story of Wesley Frazier, which isn't evidence, it's far more opinion than anything tangible.  And you're just a typical naysayer that has no real opinion of what happened that day.  You just want to dig into a story and disprove it, which I'm sure would make you a wonderful reporter.  You don't need facts, just sources, and you don't need to solve anything, just tear it down. 

So there's my Caprio moment for the day.  See you tomorrow, when you accuse me again of lies and identity theft rather than actually saying anything.   And btw...when it comes to your posts, the accusations are the only thing that is plain for all to see.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on September 28, 2012, 08:28:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You've not cited any evidence to me.  Not once.  You've tried to paint me into corners time and again, but have never showed me anything save for your illogical story of Wesley Frazier, which isn't evidence, it's far more opinion than anything tangible.  And you're just a typical naysayer that has no real opinion of what happened that day.  You just want to dig into a story and disprove it, which I'm sure would make you a wonderful reporter.  You don't need facts, just sources, and you don't need to solve anything, just tear it down. 

So there's my Caprio moment for the day.  See you tomorrow, when you accuse me again of lies and identity theft rather than actually saying anything.   And btw...when it comes to your posts, the accusations are the only thing that is plain for all to see.

John,

You can fib all you want, but everyone knows the truth.  YOU can't cite/quote evidence.  Frazier was given a stress test for goodness sakes so obviously someone thought he was a good suspect, and given his background who can blame them? He was cleared only because they had their patsy in place and they would have WC defenders like you in the future to hang LHO with NO evidence for them.

You can try and make it all about me all you want, but the truth is it is all ABOUT YOU and your inability to cite/quote the evidence.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on September 29, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John,

You can fib all you want, but everyone knows the truth.  YOU can't cite/quote evidence.  Frazier was given a stress test for goodness sakes so obviously someone thought he was a good suspect, and given his background who can blame them? He was cleared only because they had their patsy in place and they would have WC defenders like you in the future to hang LHO with NO evidence for them.

You can try and make it all about me all you want, but the truth is it is all ABOUT YOU and your inability to cite/quote the evidence.

I love this.  Rob Caprio makes post after post accusing the authorities and the Warren Commission of only being interested in the patsy, Saint Lee of the Oswalds.  But, when the authorities actually take the time to cover all of the bases by questioning someone other than the patsy, the man who drove the assassin to the assassination site, Rob Caprio makes the stupid statement that "obviously someone thought he was a good suspect" and was cleared "only because they had their patsy in place".

This goes to show that Rob Caprio will find fault with the authorities regardless of whether they questioned others or if they didn't.

What a joke this guy is.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Daniel Grillo on September 29, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I love this.  Rob Caprio makes post after post accusing the authorities and the Warren Commission of only being interested in the patsy, Saint Lee of the Oswalds.  But, when the authorities actually take the time to cover all of the bases by questioning someone other than the patsy, the man who drove the assassin to the assassination site, Rob Caprio makes the stupid statement that "obviously someone thought he was a good suspect" and was cleared "only because they had their patsy in place".

This goes to show that Rob Caprio will find fault with the authorities regardless of whether they questioned others or if they didn't.

What a joke this guy is.

 :thumbsup2:

He keeps stressing this NO NO NO NO NO evidence BS, but then pulls Frazier as a "better" suspect out of his nose. Where is the evidence that Fazier did anything but give a co-worker a ride that day? There is NO evidence that Frazier is a good suspect. You can't CITE any. It's just batshit insane crazy talk.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 29, 2012, 07:16:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the outlier is the one statement that Oswald ate with Norman and Jarman.
But I don't think Oswald's claims of being there are all that strong -- after all, Norman and Jarman both denied seeing him.

And Oswald stated in custody he spoke with Shelley after the assassination, and based on that conversation, the determination was made that no more work would probably get done that day, so Oswald decided to go back to the roominghouse.

However, Shelley denied any such conversation, and there's scant time to squeeze in such a conversation, and have Oswald take a bus, and cab to get back to the roominghouse.

So I don't think Oswald's claims of where he had lunch --  and when -- have much credibility.

Hank


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you guys make stuff up? Do you have a comprehension problem? Do you go to the primary source?

You bold-faced the part with Shelley, so I assume you think I'm making that up. However, James Bookhout's memorandum for the record says precisely that.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm)

Fritz's notes also allude to that conversation:

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm (http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm)

Two other memos allude to Oswald being outside without mentioning Shelley:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm)
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm)

But those might simply have included less detail (especially since one of them is a memo by Fritz, and his notes mention that detail).

What, in the bold-faced sentence above, do you think I got wrong (and why)?

Hank

PS: Why jump immediately to 'make stuff up?' and 'comprehension problem' accusations? Couldn't human error explain my error - if indeed there was an error - without the rhetoric? Not sure what the attack mode is supposed to provoke. But the point above, as I stated it, is true and backed up by two primary sources.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 29, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I love this.  Rob Caprio makes post after post accusing the authorities and the Warren Commission of only being interested in the patsy, Saint Lee of the Oswalds.  But, when the authorities actually take the time to cover all of the bases by questioning someone other than the patsy, the man who drove the assassin to the assassination site, Rob Caprio makes the stupid statement that "obviously someone thought he was a good suspect" and was cleared "only because they had their patsy in place".

This goes to show that Rob Caprio will find fault with the authorities regardless of whether they questioned others or if they didn't.

What a joke this guy is.

And let's not forget they didn't hone in on Lee after the Tippit shooting either. They first went after a suspect in the library, establishing beyond any doubt that at that point they did not know who the shooter was, wasn't focused on Oswald to the exclusion of other suspects, and only went to the theatre once they call a call from Julia Postal pointing them to a suspect in the theatre. Once they got to the theatre, the suspect who was acting suspiciously earlier had to be pointed out to them by Johnny Brewer.

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 29, 2012, 07:44:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Rob,

Let's backtrack a step and take it a step at a time.

I don't see any evidence that Oswald and Shelley conversed after the assassination. Do you know of any?

If not, then Oswald lied in custody about that point. Do you agree or disagree with this point?

We can get to the story about the two black guys thereafter. Once we have a handle on whether Oswald said anything in custody that appears to be untrue.

Thanks,

Hank


Bump for Rob.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 29, 2012, 07:51:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Hank,

I never said LHO and Shelley discussed anything after the assassination.  John Murray says Frazier is cleared all because Shelley said he was on the front steps with him when the shots were fired, but this claim is NOT corroborated by anything else.

Meanwhile, LHO's statement of eating lunch in the first floor lunchroom is supported by the FACT he described two men that were either eating lunch in there at the same time or were passing through there when he was eating his lunch.  We can then add the sighting by Ms. Arnold as she said she saw LHO too.

We don't know for sure what LHO said or did not say since Fritz claimed NOT to record it or take notes.  Of course we see he lied about NOT taking notes later on.

I am NOT going by what LHO said or did NOT say for my point by the way.

Now I'm confused. I thought your argument was Oswald's mention - in custody - of seeing two black men in the lunchroom establishes he was in the lunchroom before (and during) the assassination. However, if you're not going by what Oswald said or didn't say, I'm not certain how you can get him in that lunchroom during the shooting, as Jarman and Norman did not say they saw him, and Carolyn Arnold supposedly didn't mention that detail until 15 years after the assassination. So I'm confused as to how you intend to put Oswald on the first floor during the shooting without relying on his statement.

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 29, 2012, 10:39:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
many knew of Oswald and Hidell before and after the shooting
And where to find him .

Hilarious. Right, "they" knew he was in the TSBD, then on the street, then on a bus, then a cab, then on the street, and then in the theatre.
Did he have a chip implanted under his skin so they could track his movements?
Respectfully, how'd "they" know where to find him?

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 29, 2012, 10:47:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And let's not forget they didn't hone in on Lee after the Tippit shooting either. They first went after a suspect in the library, establishing beyond any doubt that at that point they did not know who the shooter was, wasn't focused on Oswald to the exclusion of other suspects, and only went to the theatre once they call a call from Julia Postal pointing them to a suspect in the theatre. Once they got to the theatre, the suspect who was acting suspiciously earlier had to be pointed out to them by Johnny Brewer.

Hank

Who was the FBI agent at the Texas Theater during the arrest?

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hosty20lho20capable.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 29, 2012, 10:52:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who was the FBI agent at the Texas Theater during the arrest?

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hosty20lho20capable.jpg)

Where is the reference is an FBI agent at the Texas Theater during the arrest? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 29, 2012, 11:09:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where is the reference is an FBI agent at the Texas Theater during the arrest? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0350-001.gif (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0350-001.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/LHO20arresst.jpg)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 29, 2012, 11:40:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0350-001.gif (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0350-001.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/LHO20arresst.jpg)

Hilarious. Now, why did you ask if you already knew? If you have a point to make, make it already.

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Tim Nickerson on September 29, 2012, 11:41:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0350-001.gif (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0350-001.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/LHO20arresst.jpg)

Why didn't you post that in the first place? According to that, FBI Agent Bob Barrett was at the Texas Theater during the arrest. So what?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on September 29, 2012, 11:55:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hilarious. Now, why did you ask if you already knew? If you have a point to make, make it already.

Hank

Apparently you're as clueless as Nickerson.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on September 30, 2012, 02:08:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You bold-faced the part with Shelley, so I assume you think I'm making that up. However, James Bookhout's memorandum for the record says precisely that.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm)

Fritz's notes also allude to that conversation:

http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm (http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm)

Two other memos allude to Oswald being outside without mentioning Shelley:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm)
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm)

But those might simply have included less detail (especially since one of them is a memo by Fritz, and his notes mention that detail).

What, in the bold-faced sentence above, do you think I got wrong (and why)?

Hank

PS: Why jump immediately to 'make stuff up?' and 'comprehension problem' accusations? Couldn't human error explain my error - if indeed there was an error - without the rhetoric? Not sure what the attack mode is supposed to provoke. But the point above, as I stated it, is true and backed up by two primary sources.

According to the links you provided it was claimed that under interrogation Oswald stated he went outside with Bill Shelley. The second point is that he left work because he heard something said by Shelley. My point is that you have combined these into part of a conversation between the two men. This is an assumption that there was a two way interaction between Oswald and Shelley that is not substantiated.

As you are human I'm suggesting this is either an error or deliberate manipulation of the information, only you know which. The first would be comprehension of the available information in that you have made an unsubstantiated inference the second means "you made it up".
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on September 30, 2012, 06:56:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now I'm confused. I thought your argument was Oswald's mention - in custody - of seeing two black men in the lunchroom establishes he was in the lunchroom before (and during) the assassination. However, if you're not going by what Oswald said or didn't say, I'm not certain how you can get him in that lunchroom during the shooting, as Jarman and Norman did not say they saw him, and Carolyn Arnold supposedly didn't mention that detail until 15 years after the assassination. So I'm confused as to how you intend to put Oswald on the first floor during the shooting without relying on his statement.

Hank

Welcome to the Wide World of Caprio.   Wait until he tells you how the 26 volumes of the WC is the evidence that "exonerates" Oswald.  And Daniel Grillo's statement: He keeps stressing this NO NO NO NO NO evidence BS, but then pulls Frazier as a "better" suspect out of his nose. Where is the evidence that Fazier did anything but give a co-worker a ride that day? There is NO evidence that Frazier is a good suspect. You can't CITE any. It's just batshit insane crazy talk. - is absolutely on the money with him.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on September 30, 2012, 07:10:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to the links you provided it was claimed that under interrogation Oswald stated he went outside with Bill Shelley. The second point is that he left work because he heard something said by Shelley. My point is that you have combined these into part of a conversation between the two men. This is an assumption that there was a two way interaction between Oswald and Shelley that is not substantiated.

As you are human I'm suggesting this is either an error or deliberate manipulation of the information, only you know which. The first would be comprehension of the available information in that you have made an unsubstantiated inference the second means "you made it up".
So Hank is now combining interrogation notes to create a conversation he doesn't believe happened???  Bad Hank!!! :rofl:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 30, 2012, 07:27:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paul??

Phyllis?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 30, 2012, 07:29:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to the links you provided it was claimed that under interrogation Oswald stated he went outside with Bill Shelley. The second point is that he left work because he heard something said by Shelley. My point is that you have combined these into part of a conversation between the two men. This is an assumption that there was a two way interaction between Oswald and Shelley that is not substantiated.

As you are human I'm suggesting this is either an error or deliberate manipulation of the information, only you know which. The first would be comprehension of the available information in that you have made an unsubstantiated inference the second means "you made it up".

I made no assertion that said conversation took place. Rather, I thought I was quite clear this was something Oswald asserted in custody that was NOT confirmed by Shelley. Please try to avoid mis-interpreting my points again by reading them in their entirety. And I made no claim that he left work because he heard something said by Shelley. I made it quite clear, I thought, that Oswald claimed this in custody, but there was no actual conversation between the two. So it appears you either made an unsubstantiated inference or you made it up. Please tell us which it was.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, what was the question asked of Oswald? Was it something like "where did you eat your lunch?". Was his answer "in the lunchroom" Then "did you eat your lunch with anyone?" Answer "no, I ate alone".

Was the follow up, "did you see anyone when you ate your lunch?" Answer "well I saw 2 colored boys walk by while I was there"

Was he asked if they might have seen him?

This is now morphed into Oswald claimed he ate lunch with Norman and Jarman. Nice. Belin would be proud.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the outlier is the one statement that Oswald ate with Norman and Jarman.
But I don't think Oswald's claims of being there are all that strong -- after all, Norman and Jarman both denied seeing him.

And Oswald stated in custody he spoke with Shelley after the assassination, and based on that conversation, the determination was made that no more work would probably get done that day, so Oswald decided to go back to the roominghouse.

However, Shelley denied any such conversation, and there's scant time to squeeze in such a conversation, and have Oswald take a bus, and cab to get back to the roominghouse.

So I don't think Oswald's claims of where he had lunch --  and when -- have much credibility.

Hank


So back to my poiint here - Did Oswald make up the conversation with Shelley? You appear to think he did. So do I.

But if he made up that one, how much credence should we give to another claim he made that is equally unsubstatiated?
Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 30, 2012, 07:31:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apparently you're as clueless as Nickerson.

Apparently I am. At least about your intended point. As I said, why ask if you already knew?

If you have a point to make, make it.

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on September 30, 2012, 07:35:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So Hank is now combining interrogation notes to create a conversation he doesn't believe happened???  Bad Hank!!! :rofl:

lol.  Please read the below in its entirety and tell me you think that's anywhere close to what I said. I think it's quite clear I think Oswald spun that tale in custody, a tale I don't believe happened.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the outlier is the one statement that Oswald ate with Norman and Jarman.
But I don't think Oswald's claims of being there are all that strong -- after all, Norman and Jarman both denied seeing him.

And Oswald stated in custody he spoke with Shelley after the assassination, and based on that conversation, the determination was made that no more work would probably get done that day, so Oswald decided to go back to the roominghouse.

However, Shelley denied any such conversation, and there's scant time to squeeze in such a conversation, and have Oswald take a bus, and cab to get back to the roominghouse.

So I don't think Oswald's claims of where he had lunch --  and when -- have much credibility.

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on October 01, 2012, 04:55:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I made no assertion that said conversation took place. Rather, I thought I was quite clear this was something Oswald asserted in custody that was NOT confirmed by Shelley. Please try to avoid mis-interpreting my points again by reading them in their entirety. And I made no claim that he left work because he heard something said by Shelley. I made it quite clear, I thought, that Oswald claimed this in custody, but there was no actual conversation between the two. So it appears you either made an unsubstantiated inference or you made it up. Please tell us which it was.


So back to my poiint here - Did Oswald make up the conversation with Shelley? You appear to think he did. So do I.

But if he made up that one, how much credence should we give to another claim he made that is equally unsubstatiated?
Hank

You claimed that under interrogation Oswald stated he had a conversation with Shelley. From the notes it appears that Oswald said he merely heard the remarks. This is my point. You then use this embellished claim to infer his claim to have seen Jarman and Norman "walk through" when he claimed to be in the domino room.

I do not believe Oswald saw Shelley after the shots. Shelly's movements would preclude this. I do not believe he heard anything from Shelley as all evidence indicates Shelley was not "out front" in the time Oswald left.

The official story is Oswald left via the front steps at a time when many of his workmates were around the steps. Why he chose to mention observing Shelley under interrogation when he could not have observed him makes no sense to me. Why not pick Lovelady, who certainly was there? Shelley was certainly "out front" until just after the shots, maybe Oswald saw him there prior to the motorcade passing and assumed he remained there. Maybe he left via the back entrance as Frazier indicated in his interview with Gary Mack.

You are using a claim by Oswald of something that could not have happened after the event (Shelley) to dispel a claim he made before (observing Jarman and Norman) that is possible.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 03:53:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I love this.  Rob Caprio makes post after post accusing the authorities and the Warren Commission of only being interested in the patsy, Saint Lee of the Oswalds.

Where did I accuse the WC? I said they had their patsy in place meaning the conspirators.  I then said WC defenders would protect their lie in the years to come.  YOU have once again NOT truthfully repeated what I said.

Shocker!

Quote
But, when the authorities actually take the time to cover all of the bases by questioning someone other than the patsy, the man who drove the assassin to the assassination site, Rob Caprio makes the stupid statement that "obviously someone thought he was a good suspect" and was cleared "only because they had their patsy in place".

He was considered a suspect Bill, otherwise, how do you explain the stress test given to him?  Do they do this for fun?

Quote
This goes to show that Rob Caprio will find fault with the authorities regardless of whether they questioned others or if they didn't.

What a joke this guy is.

The only "joke" on this board is a man who states he forms his beliefs on ASSUMPTIONS AND UNSUPPORTED ACCUSATIONS and that would be YOU Bill!
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 03:57:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:thumbsup2:

He keeps stressing this NO NO NO NO NO evidence BS, but then pulls Frazier as a "better" suspect out of his nose. Where is the evidence that Fazier did anything but give a co-worker a ride that day? There is NO evidence that Frazier is a good suspect. You can't CITE any. It's just batshit insane crazy talk.

The evidence is in the posts I have done on Frazier, you know, the ones you IGNORE Mr. Grillo.  He also owned a .303 Enfield rifle and this exact type of rifle was mentioned in the early media reports.  Is this just another coincidence?

You are fibbing Mr. Grillo as I have shown the odds of him just winding up in place to give LHO a ride and claim he saw "curtain rods" on the morning of the assassination are astronomical.  Furthermore, a young man with a old car was seen at the shooting range and he is the ONLY person in this case that fits that description since LHO could NOT drive and did NOT have a car.

The shooter of JDT was described as a "boy" by a witness and we  know Frazier at 19 would fit this much better than an older looking LHO at 24.

Keep denying Mr. Grillo.  That is all you can do.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And let's not forget they didn't hone in on Lee after the Tippit shooting either. They first went after a suspect in the library, establishing beyond any doubt that at that point they did not know who the shooter was, wasn't focused on Oswald to the exclusion of other suspects, and only went to the theatre once they call a call from Julia Postal pointing them to a suspect in the theatre. Once they got to the theatre, the suspect who was acting suspiciously earlier had to be pointed out to them by Johnny Brewer.

Hank

This is pure fantasy and baloney.  They were looking for a very specific man, and thus, they could decide on the spot they had the "wrong man".

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 03:59:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bump for Rob.



I answered this one so you need to go find it.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 04:05:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now I'm confused. I thought your argument was Oswald's mention - in custody - of seeing two black men in the lunchroom establishes he was in the lunchroom before (and during) the assassination.

You are probably lumping two different things together.  LHO was shown to be where he said he was as he described two men who were either there or passed through there when he was there.  He was proven to be right, so how could he do this IF he was up on the sixth floor as the WC said?

Quote
However, if you're not going by what Oswald said or didn't say, I'm not certain how you can get him in that lunchroom during the shooting, as Jarman and Norman did not say they saw him, and Carolyn Arnold supposedly didn't mention that detail until 15 years after the assassination.

It was checked out and Norman and Jarman were there as he said.  IF you have a problem with this take it up with the DPD.

As for your comment about Ms. Arnold, you are wrong as she was shown to have made statements to the FBI shortly after the shooting.  I cited them as Harold Weisberg got them through his FOIA actions.  The FBI REPEATEDLY changed the time and her words.

Quote
So I'm confused as to how you intend to put Oswald on the first floor during the shooting without relying on his statement.

Hank

I can do it with the mechanical door all by itself for one, but I don't have to as Ms. Arnold's words do this too.  Also, you can try as you might but you won't be able to do away with his description of two men that turned out to be there.

I would be confused too on how to deal with this evidence myself if my goal was to make LHO guilty all by himself since it does NOT point in that direction.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paul??

LOL! 

Hank has started out nice, but he is becoming a little more nasty with each post. 

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 04:11:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Welcome to the Wide World of Caprio.

My world is about the evidence and folks like Murray have NO time for that.  He prefers to MAKE STUFF UP instead.

Quote
Wait until he tells you how the 26 volumes of the WC is the evidence that "exonerates" Oswald.

It does and that is why you and the other LNers stay far away from it.

By the way, does this sound like something someone who believes in a conspiracy would say? It sure doesn't to me, but Murray wants us to believe he is a "fence-sitter"! LOL!

Quote
And Daniel Grillo's statement: He keeps stressing this NO NO NO NO NO evidence BS, but then pulls Frazier as a "better" suspect out of his nose. Where is the evidence that Fazier did anything but give a co-worker a ride that day? There is NO evidence that Frazier is a good suspect. You can't CITE any. It's just batshit insane crazy talk. - is absolutely on the money with him.

It is a falsehood and of course you agree with falsehoods given to us by the WC and its defenders, don't you LNer?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on October 01, 2012, 04:22:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence is in the posts I have done on Frazier, you know, the ones you IGNORE Mr. Grillo.  He also owned a .303 Enfield rifle and this exact type of rifle was mentioned in the early media reports.  Is this just another coincidence?

You are fibbing Mr. Grillo as I have shown the odds of him just winding up in place to give LHO a ride and claim he saw "curtain rods" on the morning of the assassination are astronomical.  Furthermore, a young man with a old car was seen at the shooting range and he is the ONLY person in this case that fits that description since LHO could NOT drive and did NOT have a car.

The shooter of JDT was described as a "boy" by a witness and we  know Frazier at 19 would fit this much better than an older looking LHO at 24.

Keep denying Mr. Grillo.  That is all you can do.



Are you saying Frazier assassinated JFK and shot Tippit?  That's reckless and irresponsible defamation even from a nut.  Someone should forward this to Frazier so that he can sue you.  Of course you don't have the guts to state it outright.   It's just your "opinion" - right? 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on October 01, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you saying Frazier assassinated JFK and shot Tippit?  That's reckless and irresponsible defamation even from a nut.  Someone should forward this to Frazier so that he can sue you.  Of course you don't have the guts to state it outright.   It's just your "opinion" - right? 

Yeah...he likes to claim he cites evidence all the time, although its never led him to form any type of theory to share with the world.  Oh, and he's not going to say Frazier did it, because that would involve the actual forming of a theory he'd have to defend.  And when backed into a corner, he turns on the "liar" and "LN" comments.  lol.....he's such a predictable farce.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on October 01, 2012, 04:54:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah...he likes to claim he cites evidence all the time, although its never led him to form any type of theory to share with the world.  Oh, and he's not going to say Frazier did it, because that would involve the actual forming of a theory he'd have to defend.  And when backed into a corner, he turns on the "liar" and "LN" comments.  lol.....he's such a predictable farce.

True.  Rob is clearly implying that Frazier was the assassin and shot Tippit.  There is no other way to read his post.  He is gutless enough to imply as much, but will never say it straight out.  If I were operating this forum, I would be concerned about Rob using it to defame individuals who are still alive and have every right to sue him and anyone associated with the publication of his defamatory claims.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 07:42:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you saying Frazier assassinated JFK and shot Tippit?  That's reckless and irresponsible defamation even from a nut.  Someone should forward this to Frazier so that he can sue you.  Of course you don't have the guts to state it outright.   It's just your "opinion" - right? 

I am saying he was and should be a suspect.  I NEVER said he shot anyone.  The DEFAMATION is on your side and I could sue you, but that is why you guys use FAKE NAMES so no one can, right?

I love how he asks me IF I am saying something in a form of a QUESTION, and then without me even responding to that question he just goes ahead and CLAIMS I AM and then says I should be sued for SOMETHING I NEVER SAID! 

You are the big phony accusing an innocent man Dick, NOT me.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah...he likes to claim he cites evidence all the time, although its never led him to form any type of theory to share with the world.  Oh, and he's not going to say Frazier did it, because that would involve the actual forming of a theory he'd have to defend.  And when backed into a corner, he turns on the "liar" and "LN" comments.  lol.....he's such a predictable farce.

I find it funny how riled up these LNers are getting over Frazier, don't you?  Is there more to this story? 

Why would I want to discuss a theory with you John when YOU have shown you are NOT interested in the evidence in this case at all!

Can you say WHAT A WASTE OF TIME that would be?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 07:50:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
True.  Rob is clearly implying that Frazier was the assassin and shot Tippit.  There is no other way to read his post.

Don't put words into my mouth you stinking con man with a phony name in all likelihood. 

Sorry, I have tried to be civil at the requests of others, but when you read junk like this I ask again, why bother?  These losers are NOT here for the truth, heck, they are NOT even here discuss the case for the most part.

Move along con man and stop putting words into other peoples' mouths.

Quote
He is gutless enough to imply as much, but will never say it straight out.

I have said he makes a better suspect than LHO! Is that not enough for you?  I am NOT saying he shot anyone per se, but he is quite suspicious and he did own a rifle that was described early on.  Someone else could have used it though.  As for JDT, you are a LYING PIECE OF GARBAGE as I never tied Frazier to JDT's shooting.

Screw being nice with these lying losers.

Quote
If I were operating this forum, I would be concerned about Rob using it to defame individuals who are still alive and have every right to sue him and anyone associated with the publication of his defamatory claims.

And then we get to his REAL MOTIVE for TOTALLY LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID as he again is terrified of me and what I say so he is trying a new way to get me banned! 

IF I ran this forum you WOULD BE GONE for FLAT-OUT LYING about what other posters have said.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on October 01, 2012, 08:25:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't put words into my mouth you stinking con man with a phony name in all likelihood. 

Sorry, I have tried to be civil at the requests of others, but when you read junk like this I ask again, why bother?  These losers are NOT here for the truth, heck, they are NOT even here discuss the case for the most part.

Move along con man and stop putting words into other peoples' mouths.

I have said he makes a better suspect than LHO! Is that not enough for you?  I am NOT saying he shot anyone per se, but he is quite suspicious and he did own a rifle that was described early on.  Someone else could have used it though.  As for JDT, you are a LYING PIECE OF GARBAGE as I never tied Frazier to JDT's shooting.

Screw being nice with these lying losers.

And then we get to his REAL MOTIVE for TOTALLY LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID as he again is terrified of me and what I say so he is trying a new way to get me banned! 

IF I ran this forum you WOULD BE GONE for FLAT-OUT LYING about what other posters have said.



What a gutless wonder you are Caprio.  You can't control being a kook, but man up a little.  If you are going to defame an innocent man with baseless speculation at least come out and say it.  Don't be a coward and beat around the bush.   And again with the false name claims?  I thought that was prohibited on this forum - yet you make it every single time when you start to panic.  Do you really believe that Ron Smith and I are the same person?  I'll make a deal with you.  Report your claim to Duncan.  If we are the same person, he can ban us.  If not, you are banned forever.  Accept?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 01, 2012, 09:38:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What a gutless wonder you are Caprio.

What a blowhard con man you are Smith!  I mean, can we get any more general than Smith?

Quote
You can't control being a kook, but man up a little.

I use my real name.  I can cite/quote the evidence the WC gave me.  The ONLY kook I see is you!

Quote
If you are going to defame an innocent man with baseless speculation at least come out and say it.

You defame an innocent man everyday, and yet, you are NOT worried about being sued in the least! Why is that?

You have NO way of knowing Frazier is innocent just as I don't know if he is guilty.  You are just putting words into my mouth and that is what all con men do!

Quote
Don't be a coward and beat around the bush.   And again with the false name claims?

What claim?  "Paul May" said you were the same person as Ron Smith, NOT me.

Quote
I thought that was prohibited on this forum - yet you make it every single time when you start to panic.

It can't be prohibited since Duncan admitted there are people using fake names here!  Furthermore, I am NOT panicking since YOU have to put words into my mouth to even have a remote chance of winning.  Are you the new attack dog?

Quote
Do you really believe that Ron Smith and I are the same person?

Go discuss it with "Paul May" since he said you were.  I really don't care.

Quote
I'll make a deal with you.  Report your claim to Duncan.  If we are the same person, he can ban us.  If not, you are banned forever.

LOL!  Good one since Duncan let's LNers use fake names!  I'll bet there isn't one CTer using a fake name on here.

Quote
Accept?

As I just said, I couldn't care less about you or your nonsense.  IF we can't honestly say our thoughts on here no matter who they mention then Duncan needs to shut this board down.

I am NOT accusing despite your best efforts in lying to make it sound like that.  You LNers are terrified of me and your ONLY goal is to get me banned.  Why is that IF you speak the truth?

Banning others is NOT needed IF you support the truth.  YOUR tactics are those of a lying con man.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on October 01, 2012, 10:28:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am saying he was and should be a suspect.  I NEVER said he shot anyone.  The DEFAMATION is on your side and I could sue you, but that is why you guys use FAKE NAMES so no one can, right?

I love how he asks me IF I am saying something in a form of a QUESTION, and then without me even responding to that question he just goes ahead and CLAIMS I AM and then says I should be sued for SOMETHING I NEVER SAID! 

You are the big phony accusing an innocent man Dick, NOT me.



This is your typical non-committal hogwash that you spew out and then try to dress up as "evidence".  You started an entire THREAD campaigning for Frazier to be a suspect, going through piles of silliness, and dressed up the importance of the stress test he underwent that day, and now you're waffling.  So if Frazier should only be a suspect, does this mean that you're also going to acknowledge Oswald as at least a suspect?  After all, if you're not going to commit to Frazier as your prime suspect, then there at least should be room to include Oswald as "a" suspect.  But of course, no chance of that, as you've said hundreds of times that he never shot anyone that day.

So absolutes, I guess, are the private domain of Caprio, to dole out only as he sees fit.

And the gall of you to accuse Richard of "accusing an innocent man" is the height of hypocrisy.  You've questioned the identity of practically everyone here who disagrees with you on just about anything, and YOU have the audacity to call Richard a "big phony accusing an innocent man".  Meh.  You're not even smart enough to keep from walking into the mindless drivel you leave behind in your own posts.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on October 02, 2012, 12:07:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What a blowhard con man you are Smith!  I mean, can we get any more general than Smith?

It can't be prohibited since Duncan admitted there are people using fake names here!  Furthermore, I am NOT panicking since YOU have to put words into my mouth to even have a remote chance of winning.  Are you the new attack dog?


LOL!  Good one since Duncan let's LNers use fake names!  I'll bet there isn't one CTer using a fake name on here.

As I just said, I couldn't care less about you or your nonsense.  IF we can't honestly say our thoughts on here no matter who they mention then Duncan needs to shut this board down.

I am NOT accusing despite your best efforts in lying to make it sound like that.  You LNers are terrified of me and your ONLY goal is to get me banned.  Why is that IF you speak the truth?

Banning others is NOT needed IF you support the truth.  YOUR tactics are those of a lying con man.



 Again, if you think Ron and I are the same person report it to Duncan.  If it is true, then he can ban me for life.  If it is false, he can ban you.  Put up or stop making that false claim.   
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on October 02, 2012, 01:41:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again, if you think Ron and I are the same person report it to Duncan.  If it is true, then he can ban me for life.  If it is false, he can ban you.  Put up or stop making that false claim.   

Wasting your time, Richard.  He only reads what he wants to, and he doesn't want to respond to a challenge.  And, he'll just keep accusing you, joke and hypocrite that he constantly proves he is.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lauren Edward on October 02, 2012, 03:13:21 AM
Frazier WAS a suspect. It's why he was questioned by he police. It's why he was given a stress test (and failing it is not an indicator of guilt. It shows he was stressed. The man is accussed of being an accessory to killing the President. Ill guarantee you anyone in those circumstances would be stressed) The police investigated him as a suspect. Since he had an alibi and the only thing he was 'guilty' of was giving a workmate a lift to work, he was dropped as a suspect. Simple.

To continue as a suspect you must have actual evidence showing you were involved. Theresa's none for Fraiser.

I don't understand CTers. If the police don't investigate someone they are ignoring the evidence. If they DO then they're ignoring the evidence. It's the real kooks who want to exonorate the obvious guilty party and want to defame innocent men who were unlucky enough to offer a lift to a Presdential assassin.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on October 02, 2012, 04:45:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Frazier WAS a suspect. It's why he was questioned by he police. It's why he was given a stress test (and failing it is not an indicator of guilt. It shows he was stressed. The man is accussed of being an accessory to killing the President. Ill guarantee you anyone in those circumstances would be stressed) The police investigated him as a suspect. Since he had an alibi and the only thing he was 'guilty' of was giving a workmate a lift to work, he was dropped as a suspect. Simple.

To continue as a suspect you must have actual evidence showing you were involved. Theresa's none for Fraiser.

I don't understand CTers. If the police don't investigate someone they are ignoring the evidence. If they DO then they're ignoring the evidence. It's the real kooks who want to exonorate the obvious guilty party and want to defame innocent men who were unlucky enough to offer a lift to a Presdential assassin.



Theresa's none for Fraiser.

Who is Theresa?..... and who is Fraiser? If it is Dr. Crane... what does he have to do with the JFK assassination?  :brolley1:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lauren Edward on October 02, 2012, 05:37:47 AM
I apologize for typing errors. The past couple of posts are from my iPhone which has an annoying habit of correcting words wrong. Clearl my previous post had nothing else wrong with it if one can only attack a couple of miscorrected words.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 02, 2012, 09:11:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence is in the posts I have done on Frazier, you know, the ones you IGNORE Mr. Grillo.  He also owned a .303 Enfield rifle and this exact type of rifle was mentioned in the early media reports.  Is this just another coincidence?

You are fibbing Mr. Grillo as I have shown the odds of him just winding up in place to give LHO a ride and claim he saw "curtain rods" on the morning of the assassination are astronomical.  Furthermore, a young man with a old car was seen at the shooting range and he is the ONLY person in this case that fits that description since LHO could NOT drive and did NOT have a car.

The shooter of JDT was described as a "boy" by a witness and we  know Frazier at 19 would fit this much better than an older looking LHO at 24.

Keep denying Mr. Grillo.  That is all you can do.


Quote
You are fibbing Mr. Grillo as I have shown the odds of him just winding up in place to give LHO a ride and claim he saw "curtain rods" on the morning of the assassination are astronomical.

 :hammerhead:

When did Frazier claim that he saw curtain rods?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 02, 2012, 09:16:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence is in the posts I have done on Frazier, you know, the ones you IGNORE Mr. Grillo.  He also owned a .303 Enfield rifle and this exact type of rifle was mentioned in the early media reports.  Is this just another coincidence?

You are fibbing Mr. Grillo as I have shown the odds of him just winding up in place to give LHO a ride and claim he saw "curtain rods" on the morning of the assassination are astronomical.  Furthermore, a young man with a old car was seen at the shooting range and he is the ONLY person in this case that fits that description since LHO could NOT drive and did NOT have a car.

The shooter of JDT was described as a "boy" by a witness and we  know Frazier at 19 would fit this much better than an older looking LHO at 24.

Keep denying Mr. Grillo.  That is all you can do.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you saying Frazier assassinated JFK and shot Tippit?  That's reckless and irresponsible defamation even from a nut.  Someone should forward this to Frazier so that he can sue you.  Of course you don't have the guts to state it outright.   It's just your "opinion" - right? 

Richard, as usual, you are absolutely correct.  Actually, I think Wes Frazier should go to Summerville, South Carolina and punch Rob Caprio in the mouth.  Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 02, 2012, 09:21:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
IF I ran this forum you WOULD BE GONE for FLAT-OUT LYING about what other posters have said.

Do you mean something like this (below)?  Eleven days with no response.  Of course, how could you possibly respond?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Already have.  YOU think Marines are better than the average soldier as you supported them in their contention they were NOT soldiers.  They are.  More elite perhaps, but still soldiers.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No.  Quote me.  Go back through my posts and find where I supposedly said what you're mistakenly claiming I said.  Of course, you won't do this.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on October 02, 2012, 01:33:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I apologize for typing errors. The past couple of posts are from my iPhone which has an annoying habit of correcting words wrong. Clearl my previous post had nothing else wrong with it if one can only attack a couple of miscorrected words.


Don't be paranoid, Lauren.... I did not attack you at all.... It was just a bit of fun at your expense.....
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Lauren Edward on October 02, 2012, 01:58:53 PM
Quote
Don't be paranoid, Lauren.... I did not attack you at all.... It was just a bit of fun at your expense.....

LOL to the paranoid bit (seriously, it is funny. Sad I have to say that!)

But still, my point is proven even with my silly errors.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on October 02, 2012, 03:49:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You claimed that under interrogation Oswald stated he had a conversation with Shelley. From the notes it appears that Oswald said he merely heard the remarks. This is my point. You then use this embellished claim to infer his claim to have seen Jarman and Norman "walk through" when he claimed to be in the domino room.

I do not believe Oswald saw Shelley after the shots. Shelly's movements would preclude this. I do not believe he heard anything from Shelley as all evidence indicates Shelley was not "out front" in the time Oswald left.

So you believe Oswald made up hearing Shelley's remarks after the assassination, it appears. I concur. That was my point. The Shelley story didn't happen as Oswald told it. Oswald's professed reason for leaving work early isn't true, as he could not have had a conversation with Shelley (my version) nor overheard Shelley (your version) say anything about no more work for the day.


Quote
The official story is Oswald left via the front steps at a time when many of his workmates were around the steps. Why he chose to mention observing Shelley under interrogation when he could not have observed him makes no sense to me. Why not pick Lovelady, who certainly was there? Shelley was certainly "out front" until just after the shots, maybe Oswald saw him there prior to the motorcade passing and assumed he remained there. Maybe he left via the back entrance as Frazier indicated in his interview with Gary Mack.

You are using a claim by Oswald of something that could not have happened after the event (Shelley) to dispel a claim he made before (observing Jarman and Norman) that is possible.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. As you are admitting, Oswald told some things in custody that weren't true. Just because Oswald said it, and it could be true, however, does not mean it is, based on the fact that Oswald's claim about Shelley was untrue -- there is no reason to assume that Oswald told the truth about the Norman and Jarman encounter.

Thank you for admitting Oswald lied in custody.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on October 02, 2012, 04:12:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is pure fantasy and baloney.  They were looking for a very specific man, and thus, they could decide on the spot they had the "wrong man".

You have claimed this, but haven't established it. As I pointed out, once they interogated the young white male seen running into the library, they determined rather quickly he wasn't the guy who shot Tippit, ergo he was the wrong man.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0222a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0222a.htm)
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on October 02, 2012, 10:47:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you believe Oswald made up hearing Shelley's remarks after the assassination, it appears. I concur. That was my point. The Shelley story didn't happen as Oswald told it. Oswald's professed reason for leaving work early isn't true, as he could not have had a conversation with Shelley (my version) nor overheard Shelley (your version) say anything about no more work for the day.


Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. As you are admitting, Oswald told some things in custody that weren't true. Just because Oswald said it, and it could be true, however, does not mean it is, based on the fact that Oswald's claim about Shelley was untrue -- there is no reason to assume that Oswald told the truth about the Norman and Jarman encounter.

Thank you for admitting Oswald lied in custody.


Under interrogation, Oswald told some lies and some truth. Each statement should be taken on its merits.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on October 03, 2012, 07:26:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Under interrogation, Oswald told some lies and some truth. Each statement should be taken on its merits.

I am not doubting nor disputing that, but one should keep in mind that the person has lied about some things, when evaluating whether some other statements are true.

In other words, the fact that the person has lied should tip the scales, in my opinion, in favor of a lie, unless there is strong corroborating evidence otherwise.

That is why I wrote above "Just because Oswald said it, and it could be true, however, does not mean it is, based on the fact that Oswald's claim about Shelley was untrue -- there is no reason to assume that Oswald told the truth about the Norman and Jarman encounter."

Do you disagree?

Hank
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Colin Crow on October 03, 2012, 11:50:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not doubting nor disputing that, but one should keep in mind that the person has lied about some things, when evaluating whether some other statements are true.

In other words, the fact that the person has lied should tip the scales, in my opinion, in favor of a lie, unless there is strong corroborating evidence otherwise.

That is why I wrote above "Just because Oswald said it, and it could be true, however, does not mean it is, based on the fact that Oswald's claim about Shelley was untrue -- there is no reason to assume that Oswald told the truth about the Norman and Jarman encounter."

Do you disagree?

Hank

What was the question put to Oswald? What was his reply?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Richard Smith on October 04, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For that matter, how do we know Oswald said anything at all? There are no tape recordings of his interrogation, nor did a stenographer keep records. For all we know, there may have been no interrogation at all!

How do we know that Lincoln ever delivered the Gettysburg address?  It wasn't taped.  Very silly.  Deal in reality.  Oswald was talking his head off.  That was the entire point.  That imbecile wanted to tell the world what he thought.  Not unlike many of the kooks on this board.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on October 04, 2012, 01:44:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

How do we know that Lincoln ever delivered the Gettysburg address?  It wasn't taped.  Very silly.  Deal in reality.  Oswald was talking his head off.  That was the entire point.  That imbecile wanted to tell the world what he thought.  Not unlike many of the kooks on this board.


for a minute i was actually impressed by your ability to reason, but now you're back to making no sense at all.....

If Oswald was indeed talking his head off to tell the world, wouldn't he have insisted that some sort of recording of his actual words would be made?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on October 04, 2012, 01:57:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not doubting nor disputing that, but one should keep in mind that the person has lied about some things, when evaluating whether some other statements are true.

In other words, the fact that the person has lied should tip the scales, in my opinion, in favor of a lie, unless there is strong corroborating evidence otherwise.

That is why I wrote above "Just because Oswald said it, and it could be true, however, does not mean it is, based on the fact that Oswald's claim about Shelley was untrue -- there is no reason to assume that Oswald told the truth about the Norman and Jarman encounter."

Do you disagree?

Hank

The various so-called accounts of Ozzie's interrogation are piecemeal and contradict each other.

We know what he said, in numerous soundbytes of his comments to the press etc, while he was being

escorted to interrogations, line-ups and press conferences.

*He repeatedly asked for legal counsel.
*He was unsure of the charges against him.
*He denied any acts of violence.
*He claimed he was just a "patsy".
*He repeatedly asked for legal counsel.
*He complained about the unfairness of the line-ups.
*He complained about his sanitary conditions.
*He repeatedly asked for legal counsel.

 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Ron Smith on October 04, 2012, 02:18:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The various so-called accounts of Ozzie's interrogation are piecemeal and contradict each other.

We know what he said, in numerous soundbytes of his comments to the press etc, while he was being

escorted to interrogations, line-ups and press conferences.

*He repeatedly asked for legal counsel.
*He was unsure of the charges against him.
*He denied any acts of violence.
*He claimed he was just a "patsy".
*He repeatedly asked for legal counsel.
*He complained about the unfairness of the line-ups.
*He complained about his sanitary conditions.
*He repeatedly asked for legal counsel.

 
And all that means...................what??
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Roger Collins on October 04, 2012, 02:21:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 And all that means...................what??


No wonder you are a LNr... this stuff is way above your head...
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Gary Craig on October 04, 2012, 06:40:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And all that means...................what??

The short bus dropped you at the wrong forum.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 06:51:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your typical non-committal hogwash that you spew out and then try to dress up as "evidence".  You started an entire THREAD campaigning for Frazier to be a suspect, going through piles of silliness, and dressed up the importance of the stress test he underwent that day, and now you're waffling.  So if Frazier should only be a suspect, does this mean that you're also going to acknowledge Oswald as at least a suspect?  After all, if you're not going to commit to Frazier as your prime suspect, then there at least should be room to include Oswald as "a" suspect.  But of course, no chance of that, as you've said hundreds of times that he never shot anyone that day.

I didn't campaign for him to be a suspect you liar, I simply said he is a better suspect than LHO.  That is NOT hard either since you have ZERO evidence showing LHO shot anyone!

Quote
So absolutes, I guess, are the private domain of Caprio, to dole out only as he sees fit.

Murray, you are silly and ridiculous and totally incapable of dealing with the evidence.  YOU are an old retread with a new name IMO.

Quote
And the gall of you to accuse Richard of "accusing an innocent man" is the height of hypocrisy.  You've questioned the identity of practically everyone here who disagrees with you on just about anything, and YOU have the audacity to call Richard a "big phony accusing an innocent man".  Meh.  You're not even smart enough to keep from walking into the mindless drivel you leave behind in your own posts.

LHO is an INNOCENT man you lousy FANATICAL AUTHORITARIAN!  See, in the eyes of the law everyone is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and that never happened to LHO!  So every time you accuse him of killing JFK and JDT you are defaming him and you should be sued, but we see how the cover-up has taken care of this problem, haven't we?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 06:53:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again, if you think Ron and I are the same person report it to Duncan.  If it is true, then he can ban me for life.  If it is false, he can ban you.  Put up or stop making that false claim.   

Again, go blame "Paul May" as he said you were the same person, NOT me.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 06:54:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wasting your time, Richard.  He only reads what he wants to, and he doesn't want to respond to a challenge.  And, he'll just keep accusing you, joke and hypocrite that he constantly proves he is.

Why would I respond or defend a comment made by "Paul May?"  Just how dumb are you Murray?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 07:01:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Frazier WAS a suspect. It's why he was questioned by he police. It's why he was given a stress test (and failing it is not an indicator of guilt. It shows he was stressed. The man is accussed of being an accessory to killing the President. Ill guarantee you anyone in those circumstances would be stressed) The police investigated him as a suspect. Since he had an alibi and the only thing he was 'guilty' of was giving a workmate a lift to work, he was dropped as a suspect. Simple.

To continue as a suspect you must have actual evidence showing you were involved. Theresa's none for Fraiser.

So him owning a rifle that was described by early media reports as being involved is NOT further evidence?  Witnesses said a young man with an old car came to their shooting range for practice and both of these things fit Frazier, meanwhile, there is ZERO evidence of LHO practicing with a rifle as claimed.  Frazier's whole tale of a trip and moving in with his sister who just happened to live within a 1/2 block of the Paine's is very suspicious too to most people. He also had NO alibi for the time of the shooting (save Murray's feeble attempt to use a claim by Shelley) and he too left the building for a few hours after the shooting.

By the way, there is ZERO evidence showing LHO shot anyone, and yet, you keep on accusing him.  Why is that ok with LHO, but NOT for anyone else in your mind?

Quote
I don't understand CTers. If the police don't investigate someone they are ignoring the evidence. If they DO then they're ignoring the evidence. It's the real kooks who want to exonorate the obvious guilty party and want to defame innocent men who were unlucky enough to offer a lift to a Presdential assassin.

You DISHONOR the president's memory by lying about what happened that day.  YOUR continual disregard for the 26 volumes of evidence is duly noted. I guess the "seeing the light" for these LNers is when they are told to DISREGARD the evidence in this case and just focus on the claims of the WCR!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 07:07:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 :hammerhead:

When did Frazier claim that he saw curtain rods?

Bill is playing semantical games again I see!  I guess this cannot be equated to him "seeing" curtain rods in Bill's warped mind.

Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."

I wonder why the WC took his word for this claim of his when he did NOT see what was in the package (if there was any package at all)?

Bill shoots himself in the foot again!

 :hammerhead:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 07:10:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Richard, as usual, you are absolutely correct.  Actually, I think Wes Frazier should go to Summerville, South Carolina and punch Rob Caprio in the mouth.  Just my opinion.

I wonder how Bill thinks he knows where I live?  Could it be he was told or it is because he sees an ISP address for me as he moderates one of the boards I have been on?  Hmmm.

I am starting to wonder who Bill really is?

By the way, one can use ISP's and NOT live in the area Bill.  Just how slow are you?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you mean something like this (below)?  Eleven days with no response.  Of course, how could you possibly respond?



Bill, your words are that Marines are NOT soldiers and the reason for this is because they think they are "BETTER THAN THAT", thus, you are demeaning all soldiers with this comment.

I did NOT put words into your mouth, but rather highlighted YOUR OWN words for all to see.

Marines are soldiers.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 07:14:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have claimed this, but haven't established it. As I pointed out, once they interogated the young white male seen running into the library, they determined rather quickly he wasn't the guy who shot Tippit, ergo he was the wrong man.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0222a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0222a.htm)

This claim of yours does NOT override the fact there was a suspect TRAPPED in the parking lot behind the Texaco station and NOT one cop could be kept to find him! 

All your words CANNOT change this FACT!

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on October 04, 2012, 08:45:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For that matter, how do we know Oswald said anything at all? There are no tape recordings of his interrogation, nor did a stenographer keep records. For all we know, there may have been no interrogation at all!

Illogical and beyond belief for the following reasons:

1. Oswald was a suspect in the murder of a police officer and the President. You think they put him in custody and didn't ask him a single question over the two days he was in the DPD custody? Hilarious.
2. Numerous people - from many different agencies - executed statements stating they took part in the interrogations or sat in on the interrogations of Oswald. These people were from the DPD, the FBI, the Secret Service, the U.S.Postal Service, and the Sheriff's Office (if you believe Roger Craig's story). Those people's statements disagree in some details, but agree in their overall scope. That is to be expected if the interrogations actually happened.
3. If they are going to make up Oswald's answers, why didn't they make up an admission he owned the rifle? And an admission he shot Tippit? And an admission he brought the rifle to the TSBD in a large paper sack? Instead, you are suggesting that FBI, DPD, SS, etc. all got together and make up claims that Oswald *denied everything*? What's the point of that? It certainly wasn't to frame him, was it?

Your suggestion is hilarious.

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Hank Sienzant on October 04, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This claim of yours does NOT override the fact there was a suspect TRAPPED in the parking lot behind the Texaco station and NOT one cop could be kept to find him! 

All your words CANNOT change this FACT!



There was no suspect trapped there.
Your witness said he thought it was a possibility.
But he also admitted the suspect could have gotten away.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 04, 2012, 09:32:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was no suspect trapped there.

So you are calling Reynolds a liar.  Didn't Reynolds get shot later on?  He sure did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Warren Reynolds?

General WALKER. I do know Warren Reynolds.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet him?

General WALKER. My first contact with Warren Reynolds was by telephone, I would say sometime in the area of 8 or 10 days after he was shot through the temple. I thought I had the date of that. or the press release, but I didn't seem to bring it with me. But you probably have that date.

It doesn't make much difference. I would say sometime I saw a notice in the paper when it came out to the effect that Warren Reynolds had been shot in the head and a Latin type was seen running away.

I left on a trip and came back to the house, and I was curious about Warren Reynolds and I asked somebody in the house to call and see about Reynolds, and was told to call the hospital.

I found out that day finally after calling out to his place of business, found out he was out walking around that afternoon. I think we found out he had just been released from the hospital that day. I would say that was about 10 days from the time he was fired at.

I wonder why he was shot when he saw "nothing" as you claim?
 
Quote
Your witness said he thought it was a possibility.
But he also admitted the suspect could have gotten away.

It was still worth the effort to look!  YOU are sinking fast.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 05, 2012, 09:36:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill is playing semantical games again I see!  I guess this cannot be equated to him "seeing" curtain rods in Bill's warped mind.

Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."

I wonder why the WC took his word for this claim of his when he did NOT see what was in the package (if there was any package at all)?

Bill shoots himself in the foot again!

 :hammerhead:


Quote
Bill shoots himself in the foot again!

Take a moment to explain how so.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 05, 2012, 09:40:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wonder how Bill thinks he knows where I live?  Could it be he was told or it is because he sees an ISP address for me as he moderates one of the boards I have been on?  Hmmm.

I am starting to wonder who Bill really is?

By the way, one can use ISP's and NOT live in the area Bill.  Just how slow are you?

This has nothing to do with IP addresses.  It also has nothing to do with ANYONE telling me anything about you.  You're obviously not as smart as you think you are.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 05, 2012, 09:44:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bill, your words are that Marines are NOT soldiers and the reason for this is because they think they are "BETTER THAN THAT", thus, you are demeaning all soldiers with this comment.

I did NOT put words into your mouth, but rather highlighted YOUR OWN words for all to see.

Marines are soldiers.

No.  Marines are not Soldiers.    :cop:   Because Marines do not like to be called Soldiers does not mean that I am saying that they are better than Soldiers.  Honestly, Rob... how do you not understand this?  What I am saying is that you are a dumb ass and you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I have never said that Marines are better than Soldiers.  You are claiming I said it but you can't support your stupid claim.  That is because you're telling a lie.  Typical, really.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on October 05, 2012, 12:32:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I didn't campaign for him to be a suspect you liar, I simply said he is a better suspect than LHO.  That is NOT hard either since you have ZERO evidence showing LHO shot anyone!

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6910.0 (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6910.0)

Nah...of course you didn't campaign.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Murray, you are silly and ridiculous and totally incapable of dealing with the evidence.  YOU are an old retread with a new name IMO.

LHO is an INNOCENT man you lousy FANATICAL AUTHORITARIAN!  See, in the eyes of the law everyone is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and that never happened to LHO!  So every time you accuse him of killing JFK and JDT you are defaming him and you should be sued, but we see how the cover-up has taken care of this problem, haven't we?

My my...a fanatical authoritarian!  What big words you use.  And of course he was innocent until proven guilty.  But then again, the cover up got to him before he could be proven innocent or guilty, didn't it?  Y'know, Jack Ruby?  Explain why Ruby pulled that trigger, Rob.  I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 05, 2012, 04:34:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was no suspect trapped there.

So you claim, but we have a witness who felt there was.  I will take his word OVER YOURS anyday.

Quote
Your witness said he thought it was a possibility.

And since a jacket was found there it was a VERY GOOD one and should have been investigated.  Why does a man running into a library take precedence again?

Quote
But he also admitted the suspect could have gotten away.

Could have, but didn't UNTIL all the cops were removed.  How timely that call was, huh?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 05, 2012, 04:37:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Take a moment to explain how so.

Like Allegedly "Ben Holmes" you suffer from an issue of not understanding what quotation marks mean! 

Based on your most recent comments the WC should NOT have believed anything Frazier said, but they did. How come?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 05, 2012, 04:39:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This has nothing to do with IP addresses.  It also has nothing to do with ANYONE telling me anything about you.  You're obviously not as smart as you think you are.

Then pray tell, how do you think you know where I live then?

I remember old Mark Valenti thought this too.  Is that just another coincidence?


 :hmmm2:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 05, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No.  Marines are not Soldiers.    :cop:   Because Marines do not like to be called Soldiers does not mean that I am saying that they are better than Soldiers.  Honestly, Rob... how do you not understand this?  What I am saying is that you are a dumb ass and you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

If you would slow down and think through what you are saying you would see that is EXACTLY what you are saying.  Why else would Marines NOT like to be called soldiers?  There can ONLY be one reason --- because they think they are better than the average soldier.  Thus, they, and you, are demeaning the average soldier by claiming they are NOT soldiers.  They are.  They are part of the Navy and intended to be ship bound SOLDIERS for the Navy.  Since the average naval sailor receives very little training in small arms and combat exercises outside of the ship they are NOT qualified to be landed and fight in a soldierly way! Thus, the Marines were born. 

Quote
I have never said that Marines are better than Soldiers.  You are claiming I said it but you can't support your stupid claim.  That is because you're telling a lie.  Typical, really.

You just admitted to saying it again in this very post you liar!

"Because Marines do not like to be called Soldiers..."

You are stating this as a FACT and thus, the only conclusion a person can come to is that Marines think they are better than the average soldier since they don't want to be called one!  People have NO problem being called something they agree with or are comfortable with, but they do have a problem with being called something they feel they are better than!

You hang yourself everytime!  It is rather funny.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 05, 2012, 04:47:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6910.0 (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6910.0)

Nah...of course you didn't campaign.

My my...a fanatical authoritarian!  What big words you use.  And of course he was innocent until proven guilty.  But then again, the cover up got to him before he could be proven innocent or guilty, didn't it?  Y'know, Jack Ruby?  Explain why Ruby pulled that trigger, Rob.  I'm all ears.

Murray is just another LNer who wants to lie and deny our judicial system.  Since LHO was NEVER tried he is STILL INNOCENT, but folks like Murray want to DEFAME him and claim he is a double-murderer with NO evidence to show he is!

Then you are supposed to have "reasonable and civil discussions" with people like him?  Please.

 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 06, 2012, 07:01:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you would slow down and think through what you are saying you would see that is EXACTLY what you are saying.  Why else would Marines NOT like to be called soldiers?  There can ONLY be one reason --- because they think they are better than the average soldier.  Thus, they, and you, are demeaning the average soldier by claiming they are NOT soldiers.  They are.  They are part of the Navy and intended to be ship bound SOLDIERS for the Navy.  Since the average naval sailor receives very little training in small arms and combat exercises outside of the ship they are NOT qualified to be landed and fight in a soldierly way! Thus, the Marines were born. 

You just admitted to saying it again in this very post you liar!

"Because Marines do not like to be called Soldiers..."

You are stating this as a FACT and thus, the only conclusion a person can come to is that Marines think they are better than the average soldier since they don't want to be called one!  People have NO problem being called something they agree with or are comfortable with, but they do have a problem with being called something they feel they are better than!

You hang yourself everytime!  It is rather funny.

Why do you mistakenly believe that because I say that Marines do not like to be called Soldiers, it means that I am saying that Marines are better than Soldiers?  I mean seriously, what do they put in the water down there in Summerville?
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 06, 2012, 07:19:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Atta boy, Bill, keep the forum cluttered with a lot of inconsequential crap. That way, we won't have to discuss things like JFK having a large gaping hole in the right rear part of his head.

Caprio is misquoting me.  He is assigning statements to me that I did not make.  He may be doing this on purpose.  On the other hand, he may just be that damn stupid.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on October 06, 2012, 02:14:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Murray is just another LNer who wants to lie and deny our judicial system.  Since LHO was NEVER tried he is STILL INNOCENT, but folks like Murray want to DEFAME him and claim he is a double-murderer with NO evidence to show he is!

Then you are supposed to have "reasonable and civil discussions" with people like him?  Please.

 

Thanks for the useful diatribe.  It contributes a lot. BTW, while you're discoursing about "reasonable and civil discussions" - I note you failed to answer the question.  Explain why Ruby pulled the trigger.  Being that you have researched the assassination for the last 20 years, you must have at least some opinion regarding Ruby's assassination of Oswald.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 06, 2012, 09:55:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, who cares? People misquote me all the time. Let's talk about the real important things in the case.

I'm ready whenever you are.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 08, 2012, 05:03:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you mistakenly believe that because I say that Marines do not like to be called Soldiers, it means that I am saying that Marines are better than Soldiers?  I mean seriously, what do they put in the water down there in Summerville?

You are lying.  I am saying based on your CLAIM OF FACT that they don't like to be called soldiers means they think they are better than soldiers.

Why can't you follow your own words Bill?

YOU remind me of "Ben Holmes" so much, and it should be noted for all here, "Ben" claimed to be a Marine for 10 years so is Bill speaking out of experience after all?

Is that how they teach you to understand English in Cincinnati?  Or is it Caleeeeefornia as "Ben" claims to be from?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 08, 2012, 05:05:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Caprio is misquoting me.  He is assigning statements to me that I did not make.  He may be doing this on purpose.  On the other hand, he may just be that damn stupid.

You have repeatedly said Marines DON'T like to be called soldiers as IF it were a fact!  How can I be "misquoting" you to go by that?

Liar, aren't you?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 08, 2012, 05:06:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for the useful diatribe.  It contributes a lot. BTW, while you're discoursing about "reasonable and civil discussions" - I note you failed to answer the question.  Explain why Ruby pulled the trigger.  Being that you have researched the assassination for the last 20 years, you must have at least some opinion regarding Ruby's assassination of Oswald.

Of course I do, but why would I waste the time discussing it with you when YOU lie and deny the evidence in this case?

What a waste of time that would be, huh?

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Bill Brown on October 09, 2012, 03:12:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are lying.  I am saying based on your CLAIM OF FACT that they don't like to be called soldiers means they think they are better than soldiers.

Why can't you follow your own words Bill?

YOU remind me of "Ben Holmes" so much, and it should be noted for all here, "Ben" claimed to be a Marine for 10 years so is Bill speaking out of experience after all?

Is that how they teach you to understand English in Cincinnati?  Or is it Caleeeeefornia as "Ben" claims to be from?

You're finally catching on.  Took ya long enough.  Marines do not like to be called Soldiers.  Yes, Marines think they are better than Soldiers.  No, I am not saying that Marines are better than Soldiers.  Obviously, this would have to be judged on an individual basis.

I'm not even going to address the rest of your stupid post.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: John Murray on October 09, 2012, 03:27:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course I do, but why would I waste the time discussing it with you when YOU lie and deny the evidence in this case?

What a waste of time that would be, huh?



I notice you won't share your "opinion" with anyone here, either.  Of course, by virtue of your typically spineless response, that means EVERYONE here must "lie and deny the evidence".

I'm sure it's lonely in the paranoia room. 

So by not posting your "opinion", I can just carry on with my assumption and opinion that Ruby shot Oswald to silence him from saying anything about his involvement in the JFK assassination.  Unless you have a better theory that you're willing to publish.  I know you're not fond of taking a position that you actually have to defend, so I'll understand if you wimp out as per usual.
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 11, 2012, 05:11:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're finally catching on.  Took ya long enough.  Marines do not like to be called Soldiers.  Yes, Marines think they are better than Soldiers.  No, I am not saying that Marines are better than Soldiers.  Obviously, this would have to be judged on an individual basis.

I'm not even going to address the rest of your stupid post.

I caught onto your LIE the first time you said it!  Just because Marines "don't like to be called soldiers" DOES NOT MAKE THEM ANYTHING ELSE!

YOU are lying and as usual you got caught!

 :crying:
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Rob Caprio on October 11, 2012, 05:14:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I notice you won't share your "opinion" with anyone here, either.  Of course, by virtue of your typically spineless response, that means EVERYONE here must "lie and deny the evidence".

I don't have to share my opinion with you troll as I rather stick to the evidence.  You OTOH, RUN from the evidence at all costs since it does NOT support your faith.

Quote
I'm sure it's lonely in the paranoia room.

YOU would know since you are in it, right? 

Quote
So by not posting your "opinion", I can just carry on with my assumption and opinion that Ruby shot Oswald to silence him from saying anything about his involvement in the JFK assassination.  Unless you have a better theory that you're willing to publish.  I know you're not fond of taking a position that you actually have to defend, so I'll understand if you wimp out as per usual.

I have no problem with LHO being involved liar, but he did NOT shoot anyone as YOU claim. 

Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Mike Orr on October 01, 2014, 11:23:25 PM
When it comes to framing a " Patsy " , you need to have a fingerprint from Malcolm Wallace on the 6th floor while it was said that Malcolm Wallace was in California on 11-22-63 . Lee Harvey Oswald shot nobody on 11-22-1963 and I think we all know that ....... I think it is pretty hard to shoot JFK from the breakroom . There never was any kind of Roll Call that day . It was brought to the attention of Roy Truly that Oswald was not there in the TSBD . Oswald was not the only person missing from the TSBD shortly after the assassination . Oswald said he was a Patsy and he might have been the only person telling the truth that day . We can't really trace the rifle to Oswald .
 
Title: Re: Framing a patsy
Post by: Paul Ernst on October 02, 2014, 01:51:28 AM
Marines:

First in last out.... say enough.

Semper Fy.


(http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q742/PD1PHE/always-a-marine_zps5732fa48.jpg) (http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/PD1PHE/media/always-a-marine_zps5732fa48.jpg.html)