Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320  (Read 543 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« on: August 09, 2018, 03:41:09 AM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

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

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.

No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

One would think IF the assassination occurred as the WC said then the LNers would welcome the opportunity to discuss and refute the posts in this series, but they seem more determined to have the posts stopped. I think that this shows that the WC's version of events is not correct.

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

The Warren Commission (WC) would claim Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) with a surplus Italian Mannclicher-Carcano (M-C) rifle that was dubbed the “Humanitarian Rifle” during World War II (WW II) when there is evidence he had access to a better rifle before the assassination.

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

I have touched on the story of Robert Taylor before, but limited that post to Commission Exhibit (CE) 2977; however, there is more evidence covering his story of a man selling him a U.S. surplus rifle that was a much better rifle than the M-C in question. Taylor said that man was LHO.

The WC barely touched on this issue in their Report (WCR) as they limited the whole affair to a paragraph. Here is what they wrote about the event.


Quote on

Another allegation relating to the possible ownership of a second rifle by Oswald comes from Robert Adrian Taylor, a mechanic at a service station in Irving. Some 3 weeks after the assassination, Taylor reported to the FBI that he thought that, in March or April of 1963, a man he believed to be Oswald had been a passenger in an automobile that had stopped at his station for repairs; since neither the driver nor the passenger had sufficient funds for the repair work, the person believed to be Oswald sold a U.S. Army rifle to Mr. Taylor, using the proceeds to pay for the repairs. However, a second employee at the service station, who recalled the incident, believed that, despite a slight resemblance, the passenger was not Oswald. Upon reflection, Taylor himself that he is very doubtful that the man was Oswald. (WCR, p. 318)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

As we have seen before in CE 2977 the rifle in question was a Springfield Bolt Action .30.06 caliber type and a much better weapon the alleged murder weapon. Also, when the man said he would sell it to Taylor for $12.00 the other man, the driver, said, “You’re not going to let it go for that. You paid $35.00 for it”, but the passenger (said to be LHO by Taylor) told him they needed the money. Now, if LHO planned on shooting someone like General Edwin Walker around that time, why would he sell the rifle to Taylor?

We recently saw that another employee of the service station, Mr. G.E. Smith, had told the FBI (Commission Document (CD) 205) that Taylor was of the opinion that the man who sold him the rifle was LHO. There was another employee of the service station, Curtis Crowder, that was interviewed by the FBI on December 18, 1963, regarding this incident. By the time of the interview Crowder was no longer working at the Shell Service Station in question as he said he had resigned his job there in April 1963.

[Note: There seems to be a pattern of people leaving jobs shortly after incidents like this that supposedly tied to LHO in some manner. i.e. Officer Norvell in relation to the Walker shooting and the alleged finding of CE 573.]

In CE 2975 we see Crowder say the following to the FBI.


Quote on

Crowder advised that one of the individuals involved resembled Lee Harvey Oswald however he is quite sure that the man was not Oswald…He reiterated that the man who sold the rifle to Taylor did resemble the picture he saw of Oswald however would state that it was not Oswald. (CE 2975, p. 456)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

We see that Curtis Crowder was of the opinion that the man who sold the rifle to Taylor was NOT LHO. The aforementioned G.E. [Glenn Emmett] Smith would testify before the WC about this issue and other issues. It is quite ironic, and typical, that the WC would call Smith, but show no interest in taking testimony from Taylor. Smith was called before the WC on April 1, 1964, and he would tell of an incident about “two or three months before” where the FBI came to show Taylor a photograph.

Mr. LIEBELER. He showed both of you the picture?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Taylor told you after the FBI agent left that the picture that the FBI agent showed you was a picture of the man from whom Taylor had purchased the rifle, is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. He told the FBI man that. He didn't tell me that after he left, but he definitely told him that in my presence. I heard him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any discussions with Taylor after the FBI agent left about this question?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The photograph the FBI showed Taylor and Smith was of LHO as we see this in his testimony.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want you to tell me what you know about it.

Mr. SMITH. There was an FBI man called out and talked to us, and I heard Mr. Taylor tell him between customers now, I was just catching little words, and not enough to make very much sense, but I did hear him tell that he had traded a rifle or bought a rifle or something from Oswald.

Now I didn't know Oswald. He showed us his picture, but I didn't know him. He had been through there but I didn't recognize him.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI showed you Oswald's picture?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

This means Taylor made a POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of LHO as being the man who sold him the rifle from a photograph shown to him by the FBI. It is not surprising that the WC left this part out of their paragraph, huh? If he identified LHO from the photograph, why would he say later he was “doubtful the man was Oswald?” Does this make any sense to you?

Smith would say the comment attributed to him in CD 205 was NOT correct either.


Mr. LIEBELER. Don't you remember that you told the FBI agent that you had heard conversation that Taylor had purchased a rifle from some customer, and that that customer was thought by Taylor to be Lee Harvey Oswald? Didn't you tell that to the FBI agent?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; absolutely not. I am absolutely positive.

Mr. LIEBELER. The first time you ever heard anything about this rifle that Taylor was supposed to have purchased was when the FBI agent was interviewing Taylor, isn't that your statement?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

So why did the FBI write this in their report dated December 14, 1963, then?

Quote on

 Mr. [G.E.] Smith advised that he had heard a conversation at the station to the effect that Robert Taylor, the mechanic, purchased a rifle from a customer, and that Taylor is of the opinion the customer was Lee Harvey Oswald.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

We again see the FBI attributing something to a witness who said they did NOT say it. Mr. Smith was asked about Taylor’s reliability and truthfulness by the WC.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever formed any opinion as to Taylor's truthfulness or his reliability?

Mr. SMITH. I think he is truthful, and I think he is reliable.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think he would tell the FBI agent that he got a rifle from this fellow if he didn't in fact get a rifle from this fellow?

Mr. SMITH. I don't. I sure don't.

So given these two things, 1) Taylor identifying the photograph of LHO as the man who sold him the rifle, and 2) Smith vouching for his reliability and truthfulness the WC was in a real quandry here so they did what they did a lot when faced with a dilemna—they wrote something that had NO basis in fact. What they really did was take his comment about a SECOND visit by a man and used that for the FIRST visit that involved the rifle sale. This is from CE 2977.

Quote on

He stated there is a possibility the man he believes to be Oswald came into the station several weeks to a month later AFTER he had purchased the rifle from him and he was, at that time, a passenger in another automobile this time driven by a woman…Concerning this woman and male passenger whom he thought to be the man from whom he had purchased the rifle, Taylor said he is VERY DOUBTFUL that this was ACTUALLY Lee Harvey Oswald because, on reflection, he recalls the person from whom he purchased this rifle promised to give him two boxes of ammunition for the rifle. He said he is almost sure that, if Oswald had been this person in the station at that time he would have remembered him because of the promised ammunition. (CE 2977, p. 459 (p. 3 of report)) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

This was deceptive writing by the WC meant to mislead us as they took the comments regarding a visit weeks  or a month later and made it sound like it applied to the first visit where the rifle was purchased. Thus, the comment about Taylor being “doubtful” about it being LHO had NOTHING to do with the rifle sale, but rather about the man he saw later on.

The WC lied instead of having the FBI investigate the rifle Taylor purchased from this man who he said was LHO and trace it like they supposedly did for the M-C. This never happened though. Instead, we were mislead by the WC.

This leaves us with questions left unanswered. Where did LHO get this U.S. Army rifle to sell to Taylor in the first place? Was it part of the gun trafficking that LHO was said to be investigating while working with the FBI and ATF? IF not, where did he get $35.00 ($263.00 today) to purchase it? And then have the luxury of selling it for only $12.00 ($90.00 today) and thus taking a $23.00 ($173.00 today) loss on it? Finally, if LHO had plans on shooting people with the rifle like General Walker and President Kennedy as claimed by the WC, why did he sell it to use a crappy rifle like the M-C for these tasks?

I think we again see evidence that sinks the WC’s conclusion (in this case LIE), and thus, they are sunk again.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 03:49:55 AM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« on: August 09, 2018, 03:41:09 AM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2018, 03:51:35 AM »
That's it, you've hit your limit, time to slow down big boy.

JohnM

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2018, 04:20:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's it, you've hit your limit, time to slow down big boy.

JohnM

I already know that. Why are you afraid of the evidence?

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2018, 04:25:50 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already know that. Why are you afraid of the evidence?

Sorry, I was exhausted after reading your lengthy disclaimer.

JohnM

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2018, 02:47:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry, I was exhausted after reading your lengthy disclaimer.

JohnM

Answer - the evidence gets in the way of your untruths. End of story.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2018, 02:47:33 PM »


Online Dillon Rankine

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2018, 03:07:40 PM »
In a nutshell, you think that human memory is so accurate as to perfectly remember the face of one in probably hundreds of men who sold weapons to this man months after the fact because someone vouches for him.

I get that actual real evidence isn’t your thing, Rob, but there have been legions of cognitive scientists researching facial recognition for decades now. Maybe go read an introduction to their work before arguing deeply mysterious cover-ups on the basis of some randomer’s ad hoc reckon.

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2018, 03:19:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In a nutshell, you think that human memory is so accurate as to perfectly remember the face of one in probably hundreds of men who sold weapons to this man months after the fact because someone vouches for him.

I get that actual real evidence isn’t your thing, Rob, but there have been legions of cognitive scientists researching facial recognition for decades now. Maybe go read an introduction to their work before arguing deeply mysterious cover-ups on the basis of some randomer’s ad hoc reckon.

Sure, but when the memory names LHO as the guilty one then you have no problem with it. Right? Taylor was not alone in recognizing LHO in a situation that did not support the official version. Your star witness, Marina Oswald, said that LHO was working undercover to bust a gun running ring. Was she a liar?

Online Dillon Rankine

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2018, 03:59:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sure, but when the memory names LHO as the guilty one then you have no problem with it. Right? Taylor was not alone in recognizing LHO in a situation that did not support the official version. Your star witness, Marina Oswald, said that LHO was working undercover to bust a gun running ring. Was she a liar?

My star witness? I don’t recall saying or believing LHO definitely did it alone. Taylor et al’s ‘memory of Oswald’ is evidence of nothing and anybody who builds their case for the WCR on eyewitness evidence is just as in error.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2018, 03:59:27 PM »


Online Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2018, 04:07:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Answer - the evidence gets in the way of your untruths. End of story.

It's your interpretation of the evidence that gets in the way of the truth.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2495
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2018, 05:59:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already know that. Why are you afraid of the evidence?

LN kooks hate any detailed examination of the evidence.  They want to cling to their "mountains of evidence" myth.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #320
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2018, 05:59:18 PM »