JFK Assassination Forum

Question for Martin W.:

From your own personal point-of-view (i.e., as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald) .... do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?

Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.

as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald

I have no definitive opinion about Oswald's guilt or innocence. In fact I couldn't care less either way. The man has been dead for 60+ years and nothing we do or say will bring him back to life. If you show me the evidence (not assumptions and speculations) that clearly shows his guilt, I will have no problem accepting that guilt, but so long that evidence is not presented he gets the benefit of the doubt.

do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post? 

If you have to use massive amounts of assumptions to connect the dots, it can never result in a "reasonable and sensible" scenario.

The thing is that I am not trying to come up with a scenario. On my side there is no wild speculation, tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.
I try to look at the evidence objectively and try to make sense of it.

Take the paper bag issue. Yes, there is a heavy duty paper bag with a partial print of Oswald on it. That bag must have been made at the TSBD but Troy Eugene West, who stated that he just about constantly (I'm paraphrazing) stayed where his work was (i.e. at the wrapping table), was absolutely clear about the fact that he had never seen Oswald anywhere near the wrapping machine area. Buell Frazier was asked it Oswald carried any package with him during the trip to Irving and his answer was: No.

Obviously Frazier could have been wrong and simply not have seen a folded up bag, and somebody must have made the heavy duty bag, but it would be a mere assumption that it was Oswald. There is no evidence that shows that the heavy duty bag ever left the TSBD and a bag made at the TSBD and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald worked provides very little evidence of anything.

Then we turn to Frazier, who saw the package Oswald was carrying and describes it as a crickly brown paper sack. He also says that Oswald carried it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. And while being given a polygraph he is shown the heavy duty bag, without more than likely being aware of or understanding it's significance, and he instantly denies it is the bag he saw. Lt Day clearly believes him, because he starts to theorize about the possibility that Oswald concealed the rifle in the heavy duty bag which he then concealed in the flimsy paper sack Frazier had described. After talking to Detective Lewis, FBI agent Vincent Drain concluded that he heavy paper bag was not a gun case.

So, let's look at the bag it self. It was allegedly found folded up in the corner of the sniper's nest, but there is no in situ photograph to prove that. Even worse, several officers claim to have found the bag, but, as far as I know, it was never determined who actually found it. Yet another example of a piece of evidence that has no governance. Nevertheless, the officers speculated from the first moment that this must be the bag that was used to bring the rifle into the building. Never mind that the interior of the bag shows no scars or markings that one would expect to be there if a broken down rifle was concealed and transported in that bag. And it gets worse. They say a partial print of Oswald's cup of his right hand was found on the bag. If so, it is a bag that was made and found in the TSBD at a location where Oswald worked. What is missing from the bag are prints that would reasonably be expected to be left when the bag was folded up after the rifle allegedly was removed unfolded and when the bag was unfolded by some officer. Not to mention when the bag was lifted from the back seat of Frazier's car. No such prints were found. There was only a partial print of Oswald and perhaps one a finger, and that strikes nobody as at least strange? Especially John Corbett makes a big deal of fibers found in the bag that - according to him - matched the blanket that the rifle was stored in. There are a multitude of problems with that claim. First of all, when Montgomery carried the bag out of the TSBD he did so holding the opening of the bag at the bottom, which makes it possible or perhaps even likely that whatever was in the bag (if anything) would have fallen out. Secondly, there are at least three evidence photos showing the blanket and the bag lying next to each other allowing for a strong possibility of cross contamination, destroying any probative value the fiber evidence could have had.

That's what the evidence actually tells us, so in comes the WC and the LNs. The WC deals with it by simply ignoring it and concluding, without a shred of evidence, that Frazier was mistaken and Oswald did carry the heavy duty bag found at the TSBD. The LNs go even further. They claim that Frazier was wrong about they way Oswald carried the bag and the description of the bag. They say that the flimsy paper sack was never found, but they can't even prove that there was ever a search for it. Apart from that, Oswald brought the bag into the TSBD at 8:00 AM and Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM. That gave him 4,5 hours to dispose of the bag, if that's what he did.

I personally believe, but I can't prove it (words you seldom see a LN write), that the bag was noting more than a prop. So, it's absolutely possible that Oswald at some point quickly left the TSBD and dumped the package in a dumpster. Alternative, it could be that the package contained something that he had agreed to bring with him for some unknown third party to whom he gave the package to. The latter scenario obviously implies the involvement of at least one other person, but as I said, there is no evidence for it.

Nowhere in what I have written there is "fantasy, tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses" and where there is speculation I call it exactly that. 

I'm not a great believer in planted evidence theories, but manipulated and misrepresented evidence is Henry Wade's days can most certainly not be ruled out.

Having said that, here's my question for you, David. Based on all the factual information given above, how do you get to concluding that the heavy duty bag was nevertheless the bag Oswald carried?

CE399 was the first bullet that struck JFK when he was between the lamp post and Thornton sign. I put it at or just before z193, after which JFK is seen to turn forward.

The Z-film puts it about 1.5 seconds later. I'm going with that.

 This bullet passed through JFK’s neck without encountering anything capable of changing its direction.  Where it went after that is a matter of placing both men in positions seen in the zfilm at z190-193 and seeing where a straight line points. It could not have passed to the far right side of Connnally at that point. So the only possibility would seem to be that it caused a wound to JBC on his left side.
It was on a downward slope at z190:

JBC's right side was directly in line with the exit wound in JFK's throat. You make the same mistake the CTs do in assuming JBC was seated directly in front of JFK. It would require a magic bullet for the bullet exiting JFK's throat to hit JBC on his left side.

It doesn’t look like it would have struck the dashboard.

At z285 Connally is already falling back and Greer is turned around, which he said he did at the time of the second shot. I suggest the shot was at z271-272.  His forward motion/recoil begins at z271-272.  The hair on JFK’s right side flies up at z273-276 (Hickey observed this on the second shot).
The thigh wound did not occur on the second shot. JBC never felt the thigh wound.

You keep trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. None of this fits the visual evidence of the Z-film.

Question for Martin W.:

From your own personal point-of-view (i.e., as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald) .... do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?

Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.

  Nutters fail everyday with an "irrefutable mountain of evidence" that "points to him."

No, it's what a post looks like that was written by someone (John Corbett) who actually knows how to properly and sensibly assess and evaluate the evidence in the JFK case.

Incredibly, though, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that ALL OF THIS WEALTH OF EVIDENCE can actually exist in the JFK and Tippit murder cases and yet still end up with Lee Oswald being innocent of shooting anyone on 11/22/63.

But reasonable and sensible people who live here in the World of Reality just can't stretch their imaginations nearly that far. Because people like John Corbett and I prefer to remain in this universe of reality instead of wandering into the CT world of fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Isn't it remarkable that even the biggest fool considers himself to be a reasonable and sensible person.

Corbett is making a big issue of the fact that Oswald went to Irving on Thursday instead of Friday, but he hasn't got a clue what was going through Oswald's mind.
He hasn't got a shred of evidence to show there was a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. He merely assumes there was.
He has a heavy duty bag with a partial print on it, made and found at the TSBD but he can not prove that bag ever left the TSBD or was carried by Oswald holding a rifle. He merely assumes it was.
He ignores the fact that the best witness who saw the bag passed a polygraph while dismissing the heavy duty bag as the one he saw. What he did see was a flimpsy bag that Oswald carried in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.

So, without a shred of evidence he jumps to conclusions while dismissing the testimony of a witness that contradicts him.

And then you have the audacity to claim he is "properly and sensibly assessing and evaluating the evidence". Pathetic!

Oswald's strange behaviour.

Oswald was first seen by Linnie Mae Randle walking straight to Buell's car and placing a package made of a "heavy type of wrapping paper" on the back seat of Frazier's car. This is incriminating for a start, why would Oswald go straight to Frazier's car and hide the package, if it was just his lunch and as he said he kept it with him in the front seat on the way to the Depository, he would simply hold his light lunch as he waited for Frazier.
And besides it's rude to access someone's property without them being there or without permission, Frazier was doing Oswald a favour, a favour which Oswald didn't even contribute a single penny for the gas used. What a scumbag!

Mr. BALL - I see. Did he pay for any part of the trip, buy your gasoline?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.



And as for the ridiculous notion that Randle couldn't see Oswald from her elevated position because of the garage wall, well that's just absurd because the garage wall was made of slats with open areas, so if anybody wants to believe that Randle couldn't see through open air then you're to far gone to reason with.



Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor but I just know he put it in the back.

Frazier corroborates Randle's recollection when he saw the what was obviously an unwieldly package on the back seat of his car.

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."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Oswald's lies

As we see above, Frazier saw the package on the back seat. But according to Fritz, Oswald had the package with him in the front seat, so who to believe, Frazier or the double murderer Oswald??

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him where he had the sack---his lunch, and he said he had it in the front seat with him.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he put any sack in the back seat?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he did not.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

And this was corroborated by the Postal Inspector, who had nothing to do with the Dallas Police and if you believe that they both got together to make up stories then as I said, you are too far gone to reason with!

Mr. HOLMES.
---------
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

Then the contents of the bag was raised, Frazier said Oswald told him it was curtain rods, but Fritz said Oswald told him he had his lunch. Again who to believe Frazier or the double murderer Oswald??

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ.
--------------
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Corroborated by Holmes!

Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."

Frazier recalls that Oswald always brought his lunch in a little paper sack, except for the 22nd. The day Oswald assassinated the President!

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.
Mr. BALL - Would he bring it in a paper sack or what kind of a container?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; like a little paper sack you get out of a grocery store, you have seen these little old sacks that you could buy, sandwich bag, sack.

Conclusion

Oswald didn't want to stand around holding his packaged rifle so immediately accessed Frazier's car to hide it.
Oswald lied about where he stashed his rifle on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Oswald lied about having his lunch with him on the front seat.
Oswald lied about Curtain rods.
Oswald lied about his lunch.

Whenever the rifle or it's packaging came up during the interrogation, Oswald lied! He also lied about ordering, purchasing and possessing the rifle, he lied about living at Neely street(the location of the backyard photos) and he lied about the backyard photos.





JohnM