Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Then why are you here?

Ah, the "why are you here?" ploy! I see this at least ten times a week on the FOX News comments, when someone dares to criticize the one-sided inanity of many FOX articles. "Then why are you here, you non-MAGA maggot?"

Putting myself under oath, an honest answer would be something like "sheer boredom" and "amusing myself as my own best audience."

However, in my own little way I feel that I am contributing to that hall of mirrors called "JFKA studies." Some of my contributions, I believe, are borderline worthwhile. Not many, but sometimes I get lucky.

Am I required to still be grieving JFK and hating Oswald in order to participate on a JFKA forum? That would be a weird Term of Service, not unlike those one finds on many Christian forums:

1. Participants are reminded that this is a JFK assassination forum. For many, this is a deeply sensitive subject and their grief remains fresh. Similarly, their hatred of Oswald remains intense and equally fresh. While fawning worship of JFK's memory and foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Oswald is not a condition of participation, sensitivity is required and will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. If you do not agree that JFK was the greatest American who ever lived and that Oswald is an evil monster who would have been aborted before birth if only you had a time machine, perhaps this is not the forum for you. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not deemed True JFKA Believers and may participate only on the Unorthodox JFKA Beliefs section of the forum.
12
Whether or not it would have made sense for him to get a second PO box to receive the rifle, the fact is he didn't so that becomes a moot point. There is ample evidence he ordered the rifle from Klein's, ample evidence he received it, ample evidence he fired it at Walker, and ample evidence he used it to kill JFK.

Oswald's note to Marina indicated he thought there was a real possibility he would not be coming back after killing Walker. He gave her specific instructions as to what to do if he did not.

The curious thing is why he missed Walker at such short range. I've read the suggestion Walker might have leaned over just as Oswald fired, ala The Day of the Jackal. I think the answer might lie in the fact it was such a short shot. The Carcano's fixed sights are zeroed for 200 meters which means at that range it would shoot high if Oswald didn't make an adjustment in his aim point. The scope was adjustable but if Oswald didn't adjust it, the same problem would have occurred. It's all academic. Oswald missed and likely would never have been identified as the assailant had he not killed JFK.

I thought it deflected off the window frame?
13
Having one trial for both murders raises the possibility of one bombshell moment derailing the prosecution of both murders, like when OJ tried on the gloves. It was a stupid stunt by the prosecution that backfired terribly but had they had a separate trial for both murders, they could have avoided that blunder in a second trial. They could have also brought in expert testimony to explain why the leather gloves might have shrunk after being soaked with blood and then dried. Of course they weren't going to try OJ in separate trials. I can't think of any other case where someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was tried separately for each one. Apparently neither can you.

Keep digging because that hole is just getting deeper. The OJ trial was two murders at the same time, at the same scene, with the same weapon. The evidence in each case, including the bloody gloves, was exactly the same.

Perhaps you are not aware, but the prosecution in a criminal case is subject to rather strong ethical restrictions. The bloody gloves were an important piece of evidence in BOTH murders. The prosecution could not have failed to disclose them to the defense or omitted them from the second trial; if the prosecution had not introduced them, the defense would. What you call a "stupid stunt" by the prosecution was actually requested by the judge; Marcia Clark violently opposed the "stunt," but Christopher Darden went ahead both because the judge had requested it and Darden knew the defense would do it if he didn't. In any event, your notion that the gloves could have been omitted at a second trial (e.g., for the murder of Goldman) is just non-lawyerly nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

In your non-lawyerly way, you have identified why there would have been two trials with Tippit and JFK. In your scenario, the bloody gloves destroyed the prosecution's case in both murders. But it also cuts the other way: The potential prejudice to Oswald would have been the jury making a connection from the Tippit murder to the JFK murder, even though the evidence and witnesses in those cases would have been entirely different: "We think he killed Tippit; ergo, he must have killed JFK" - precisely the invalid connection that Bugliosi made in the mock trial.

I am having "Sandy Larsen flashbacks." Attempting to engage in a lawyerly discussion with a Perry Mason fan who thinks 20 episodes have made him a lawyer is something of a surreal experience. Give it up; you're making a fool of yourself.
14

Let’s consider the revolver since he ordered it about six weeks before he ordered the rifle. It does seem reasonable that if he intended to use the revolver to shoot Walker, he most likely wouldn’t expect to get away with it because using a revolver would typically need to be at a relatively close range with other people being present. Under those conditions using a separate P.O. Box makes less sense.

However, it seems to me that by March 12, 1963 LHO had probably devised his plan to shoot at Walker with the rifle at night from behind the backyard fence and his expectations of getting away with it would have been more reasonable. In fact it appears that he planned to do just that (get away with it). And he apparently delighted in learning from the news accounts that the DPD apparently didn’t even consider that anyone would try to make an escape from the scene via public transportation. Under these conditions, using a separate P.O. Box would seem to me to make more sense. He wouldn’t need to maintain the P.O. Box any longer than it took to obtain his rifle. So the expense would have been minimal and prudent in my opinion.

Whether or not it would have made sense for him to get a second PO box to receive the rifle, the fact is he didn't so that becomes a moot point. There is ample evidence he ordered the rifle from Klein's, ample evidence he received it, ample evidence he fired it at Walker, and ample evidence he used it to kill JFK.

Oswald's note to Marina indicated he thought there was a real possibility he would not be coming back after killing Walker. He gave her specific instructions as to what to do if he did not.

The curious thing is why he missed Walker at such short range. I've read the suggestion Walker might have leaned over just as Oswald fired, ala The Day of the Jackal. I think the answer might lie in the fact it was such a short shot. The Carcano's fixed sights are zeroed for 200 meters which means at that range it would shoot high if Oswald didn't make an adjustment in his aim point. The scope was adjustable but if Oswald didn't adjust it, the same problem would have occurred. It's all academic. Oswald missed and likely would never have been identified as the assailant had he not killed JFK.
15
LP-

Tom Graves has posted info that points to de Mohrenschildt at one point being a suspected KGB or Iron Curtain asset.

De M. also claimed to be a de facto CIA asset.

It is interesting that the De M.'s just happened to visit the Oswald's the day after (or soon-enough after that it was the topic de jour) the Walker shooting.

Indeed, an epistemological crossroads: Who we gonna believe, the Resident Loony who thiinks the Gerber Baby and Phyllis Diller were KGB assets or the author of an intensely researched micro-study of de Mohrenschildt's life? While I've always thought the Gerber Baby had a Marxist gleam in her little eye, I'm going with the author.

I also love how we morph from "CIA agent" to "CIA asset" to "de facto CIA asset." What is a de facto CIA asset? These are the kind of obscure phrases and supposed connections from which too much CT lore is woven. As I've said, I could weave a pretty darn suspicious "Lance narrative" from five or so undeniable facts of my own life and family history that were, in fact, of absolutely zero consequence.

De Mohrenschildt's relationship with the CIA was basically the same as Clay Shaw's: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10103-10149.pdf. In later years, when his story about Oswald changed, he was a deeply troubled man. (Much as I hate to cite Wikipoodia, this is accurate: "On November 9, 1976, Jeanne had de Mohrenschildt committed to a mental institution in Texas for three months, and listed in a notarized affidavit four previous suicide attempts while he was in the Dallas area. In the affidavit, she stated that de Mohrenschildt suffered from depression, heard voices, saw visions, and believed that the CIA and the Jewish Mafia were persecuting him. However, he was released at the end of the year.")
16
Hello? I was responding to YOUR speculation that it would have "made more sense" for Oswald to check the classifieds back in March.

Short memory?

And I was responding to your suggestion Oswald could have checked the classifieds in November. This was your red herring issue, not mine. I try to focus on important stuff, like the evidence. I don't get sidetracked on the silly stuff.
17
This literally makes no sense. If there is one trial, there are TWO PROSECUTIONS and TWO VERDICTS within that trial. If there are two trials, the first one is OVER and the second one BEGINS. There is utterly no difference in the two procedures except that in the latter two juries are involved. Your statements about "a mulligan" and "double jeopardy" are literally nonsense. If the prosecution loses the trial of the Tippit murder, that case is over - there is no "mulligan" when the trial of the murder of JFK commences. The evidence and witnesses will be entirely different. OF COURSE double jeopardy would not apply - they are SEPARATE TRIALS for DIFFERENT MURDERS. I have no idea what you are talking about and am confident you don't either.

Having one trial for both murders raises the possibility of one bombshell moment derailing the prosecution of both murders, like when OJ tried on the gloves. It was a stupid stunt by the prosecution that backfired terribly but had they had a separate trial for both murders, they could have avoided that blunder in a second trial. They could have also brought in expert testimony to explain why the leather gloves might have shrunk after being soaked with blood and then dried. Of course they weren't going to try OJ in separate trials. I can't think of any other case where someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was tried separately for each one. Apparently neither can you.
18
I was 13 years, 8 months, so perhaps I have a more mature perspective. I never felt the slightest connection to JFK, positive or negative. Nor do I hate Oswald any more than I hate John Wilkes Booth or the obscure assassins of Garfield and Mckinley. What was supposedly taken from us, other than JFK himself? Is charisma a big loss? LBJ to me was about as uncharismatic as they get, but he was far more qualified to be President. Am I still supposed to be grieving something? I truly don't get what, in 2026, the "JFK angst" is all about.

Then why are you here?
19
Interview With Parkland Hospital Surgeon Malcolm Perry

20
LP-

Tom Graves has posted info that points to de Mohrenschildt at one point being a suspected KGB or Iron Curtain asset.

De M. also claimed to be a de facto CIA asset.

It is interesting that the De M.'s just happened to visit the Oswald's the day after (or soon-enough after that it was the topic de jour) the Walker shooting.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10