JFK Assassination Forum

The Trask book can be viewed online here (you'll need a free account to fully access it): https://archive.org/details/thatdayindallast0000tras_k3b5/page/28/mode/2up

Here's the photo from page 29. It's white flowers.



And zoomed x 300:

Thanks Steve.





JohnM

I didn't avoid the image evidence. I told you that I could see the pareidolic "face" at 29:30. Alas for you, neither I nor pretty much anyone else who has looked at this pareidolic face thinks it looks like our beloved Lamb Chop. Actually, at first blush I thought the image posted by Jack White looked more like Lamb Chop than your pareidolic flower face, It took me about 30 seconds to realize "Wait a minute, that's the purse of a woman on the sidewalk."

Bugiloisi (BOO! HISS!) says the following in his endnotes in Reclaiming History (BOO! HISS!):

Jean Hill took a lot of ribbing for telling reporters in a national TV interview shortly after the shooting that President and Mrs. Kennedy were looking at a little white dog on the seat between them as the car came abreast of Hill’s position. In later years, conspiracy theorists tried to restore her credibility by claiming that photographs taken at Love Field show that Mrs. Kennedy had been given a white, stuffed-toy version of the famous Sheri Lewis TV puppet, Lamb Chop. The claim, however, was based on poor-quality images posted on the Internet. High-quality images show that what critics thought was a Lamb Chop toy was, in fact, a bouquet of white asters. (Trask, That Day in Dallas , p.29).

I don't have the Trask book, but if you can find it take a look at page 29 and see if it clears up this non-mystery for you.

The Trask book can be viewed online here (you'll need a free account to fully access it): https://archive.org/details/thatdayindallast0000tras_k3b5/page/28/mode/2up

Here's the photo from page 29. It's white flowers.



And zoomed x 300:

The people who think LBJ was behind the JFKA are no wackier than those who suspect the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Soviets, the Cubans or anyone else. There is no evidence to implicate anyone except LHO.

Some - Robert Morrow - are, some aren't. Wackiness is in the eye of the beholder, but Robert is wacky by any standard.

In my opinion the WC was tasked with toeing the LN line and fulfilled its mission. There was a definite mandate and agenda not to reach a conclusion pointing to the obvious suspects given Oswald's background: the Soviets and/or Cubans. A cui bono analysis would have included all those you listed (and more) precisely because so many individuals and organizations despised JFK and stood to benefit from his death. Indeed, it's quite an astonishing list. The WC legitimately started with Oswald since the Dealey Plaza evidence obviously pointed to him, yet the WC could articulate no clear motive. The WC then did some level of cursory analysis concerning Oswald's possible connections to conspirators and found none. Generations of researchers have been dissatisfied with the WC's and HSCA's analyses and continued the quest. Cui bono points so strongly to LBJ and Marcello that it sometimes seems almost impossible they weren't involved. But the cui bono inquiry simply says "Yes, they had a hell of a motive and should be looked at closely." The WC certainly didn't do this, so I have no problem with CT researchers digging more deeply. As to what they have produced so far, I would say there is no credible or compelling evidence. But this is very common in routine criminal cases as well; the cui bono inquiry may lead nowhere and the perpetrator who is finally arrested turns out never to have been on anyone's radar screen until he slipped up. That was my only point with LBJ: cui bono would say "Take a hard, close look at this guy."

That's not how criminal investigators identify suspects. They look at the available evidence and figure out who that evidence indicates committed the crime.  They don't start out with who had a motive. That's a bassackwards approach. The purpose of an investigation is to whittle down the number of suspects. Looking at who had a motive will increase the number of suspects. There were far many more people who had motive to kill JFK than there were people who took part in the crime. When one takes an evidence base approach, they end up with only one suspect.

You seem almost compelled to attempt kneejerk oneupsmanship on every thread. Your statement is simply wrong. I spent 20 of my 40 years as a lawyer working in offices that did little but criminal prosecution. The cui bono inquiry is often one of the initial stages in crime analysis and one of the most critical. Cui bono "is a foundational principle in crime analysis used to identify potential suspects and motives by determining who gains from a criminal act." Often, as in the Nancy Guthrie case, the evidence leads nowhere. Sometimes there is no meaningful evidence. Cui bono is a tool to identify those who had a motive, which the investigative process can then whittle down. For those not inclined to accept the LN verdict, cui bono would put LBJ and probably Carlos Marcello at the top of the list, even if neither actually had anything to do with the JFKA. As I said, with LBJ there is really no credible evidence, but this does not mean that a cui bono inquiry is illegitimate.

As far as I can tell, Lamb Chop is the classic Royell factoid. It has no provenance whatsoever. It is based solely on someone attempting to rehabilitate Jean Hill and finding a pareidolic Lamb Chop in the photos of Jackie holding flowers at Love Field. As far as I can determine, no one ever suggested that Jackie had actually been handed a Lamb Chop at Love Field or had one in the limousine (why would she have been handed one? would the Secret Service have allowed this?). Like the supposed getaway car, it is strictly a matter of photographic misinterpretation by some Royell predecessor. Pathetic that this is actually being discussed. Wake me up when it hits 68,000 views.