JFK Assassination Forum

called for peaceful protest? once again you're FoS:

“We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

“If the liberal Democrats take the Senate and the White House — and they’re not taking this White House — we’re going to fight like hell, I’ll tell you right now,”

Nice job of taking the quote out of context. Here's a video of what he actually said:


You seem to think that the word "fighting" always means physically. Of course that is ludicrous. You can fight through legal and peaceful means and that is what Trump was advocating for.  He did nothing more than to call on Republicans in Congress to do what the Democrats tried to do following the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections which the Republicans won. He wanted them to refuse to certify the electoral college results and he was no more successful in his efforts than the Dems had been in their 3 previous presidential election defeats.

President 'Pedo' put his VPs life in danger then watched it like a sporting event while his staff and family begged him to stop it.
[/quote]

LP--

I guess you missed this:



Sawyer confirmed to the WC the contents of the memo, and even answered why there was no clothing description. 

How did you miss such an obvious part of the WC testimony?

So you base your beliefs on two women who saw their husbands shot right before their eyes and you think they are going to remember the details of the event clearly. That's actually funny.

Why do you insist traumatic incidents turn people into vegetables. By this line of thought everyone would be like fainting goats. More likely it would have been seared into their memories.

 Jackie, Nelly, JBC, corroborated each other's testimonies in addition to the shell info, ballistic info and 70+ eyewitnesses.

An early missed shot is basically a child ran down the side walk.

Eyewitness testimony is a problem but not the earwitnesses? Really? 

You have the two shots right, but like a baby sucking their thumb, you seem to need an unsupported third shot that no one in Dealey Plaza was aware of ever having taken pace including the guy filming the motorcade.

 

This episode illustrates why I have little faith in eyewitness accounts. Minutes apart Baker said Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket over some type of white shirt, then Reid said he was wearing a white t-shirt with no jacket or shirt over it.

Is it astounding unreliability "minutes apart" or is it something more mysterious or even sinister? If two eyewitnesses describe an Airbus and a Huey, is witness unreliability a plausible explanation? Lest we forget, these accounts are bookended by Truly saying a white t-shirt with nothing in his hands and Bledsoe saying a brown shirt with a hole in the elbow. "Witness unreliability" is always an easy way out, but sometimes it just isn't plausible. I don't see it as plausible here. One plausible explanation is that Reid fabricated her account, but this would not eliminate Truly. Surely, we would expect Baker to remember the encounter more clearly than Truly. Just one of them genuine Harvey and Lee mysteries, it seems to me (Lee was in the white t-shirt, in case you're keeping score).

But wait, my fellow CTers: I put on my tinfoil thinking cap while outside feeding my menagerie of feral kitties and had the following epiphany. WHAT IF Reid was not off on WHAT she saw but WHEN she saw it? What if she saw Oswald, coke in hand and clad in the white t-shirt he typically wore while working, exiting the lunchroom BEFORE the JFKA! She either conflated the time or fabricated to make the encounter after the JFKA! Pure speculation, except that it might bolster Oswald's alibi and would solve the evidential mystery as to why Baker and Reid seemingly saw two differently clad Oswalds. Nice, no? You're welcome.

LP--

I thought Speer made a very large leap and assumption: That DPD Inspector Sawyer, a veteran officer, promoted to Inspector (and the DPD had civil service exams for hiring and promotion), made fundamental errors in calling in a lone witness statement.

I dismiss Speer's concerns as sheer speculation, lacking gravitas. 

Hancock is correct as far as he goes. Yes, the eyewitness reporting to Sawyer should have noted the clothes of the man running out of the TSBD carrying a rifle. A cop might have, knowing that is ID-101. An ordinary witness might have seen the rifle and more or less focused on that.

That the Sawyer witness description roughly matched LHO, or any white-ish male between 5'6" and 6' in those non-fatso is normal days, does not worry me. So LHO's confederate was roughly same height and build.

You ask a tougher question, "So where did the Winchester slugs (likely .308) go?"

I will say this: Four DPD cops and detectives signed statements that they found a steel-jacketed slug at the Walker residence. When the FBI got the slug, it turned into a copper-jacketed slug, without the markings the DPD officers said they put on the slug.

CE-399's history is also curious.

The FBI may have leaned on the LN narrative a little too hard at times.

But wait: We don't know what Sawyer really said, do we? What you have posted is a January 1964 memo describing a telephone call from Malley to Shanklin describing what Batchelor told Drain about what Sawyer supposedly said an "unidentified individual" had told him.

In Sawyer's WC testimony, he said nothing about being told about a man running out the back with a rifle and seemed pretty vague and confused as to who had told him what: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Sawyer.pdf.

So now, even though Belin asked Sawyer several open-ended questions ("Anything else you remember?") we must build into the equation that the WC "got to Sawyer" and made sure he didn't mention the man running out the back with a rifle.