Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63  (Read 9019 times)

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #88 on: May 10, 2023, 11:45:37 PM »
Advertisement
J. Edgar Hoover: "The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong."

J. Edgar Hoover: "The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction..."

So, we have J. Edgar Hoover in his own voice and words admitting that the evidence and case against Lee Harvey Oswald is "not very strong" and "isn't strong enough" to get a conviction.
 
The evidence against Oswald should have been overwhelming if he was indeed the lone assassin, but here we have Hoover in a private moment admitting there is no strong evidence against Oswald to even convict him.
During the conversation, Hoover hots that FBI had yet to complete fingerprint analysis or ballistic analysis of CE399 or the bullet fragments found on SS100x's floor. The latter of these were what would tie the rifle to the assassination, and (as Hoover noted) the FBI had already tied the rifle to Oswald. That connection made the case much stronger.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #88 on: May 10, 2023, 11:45:37 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #89 on: May 14, 2023, 05:05:29 PM »
During the conversation, Hoover hots that FBI had yet to complete fingerprint analysis or ballistic analysis of CE399 or the bullet fragments found on SS100x's floor. The latter of these were what would tie the rifle to the assassination, and (as Hoover noted) the FBI had already tied the rifle to Oswald. That connection made the case much stronger.

Only a simpleton, and a fool, would believe this BS.....

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #90 on: May 14, 2023, 10:11:02 PM »
During the conversation, Hoover hots that FBI had yet to complete fingerprint analysis or ballistic analysis of CE399 or the bullet fragments found on SS100x's floor. The latter of these were what would tie the rifle to the assassination, and (as Hoover noted) the FBI had already tied the rifle to Oswald. That connection made the case much stronger.

Except there were no fingerprints on the rifle to connect it to anything. At least not in the first 24 hours after the murder, when the FBI lab in Washington examined the weapon and did not even find a trace of a  possibly lifted print.

And ballistic analysis of the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was equally useless, as there is (1) no way to establish that CE399 was ever in Parkland Hospital or (2) fired by the MC rifle on 11/22/63.

The same goes for the bullet fragments that allegedly were found in the Presidential limo at the Secret Service garage, before Frazier and his men got there to examine the car. Frazier was given bullet fragments and told they came from the car. They apparently were collected by two men who didn't have a clue what they were doing and took no pictures of the items in situ and basically just tampered with evidence.

And finally, the only way Oswald is tied to the MC rifle is by the flawed opinion of an FBI expert who claimed that Oswald wrote the order note for Kleins' in Chicago which, in the bigger scheme of things, proves absolutely nothing even if it was true.

Amateur hour all over the place.... and that's what you rely on?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #90 on: May 14, 2023, 10:11:02 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #91 on: June 01, 2023, 11:01:14 PM »
And finally, the only way Oswald is tied to the MC rifle is by the flawed opinion of an FBI expert who claimed that Oswald wrote the order note for Kleins' in Chicago which, in the bigger scheme of things, proves absolutely nothing even if it was true.

The envelope was addressed to Oswald's PO Box. Ouch!

Also, besides Oswald himself who would want to distance himself from the rifle purchase by using an alias, why would any conspirator add an extra redundant step of using an alias? It's simply logical to just forge Oswald's real name and avoid any unnecessary complications. I can't recall in any criminal case in Earth's History that a conspirator would set up their patsy with a name that wasn't their actual patsy's name and then have to rely on some "flawed" opinion? Does that even make sense?



JohnM

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #92 on: June 02, 2023, 12:05:17 AM »
The envelope was addressed to Oswald's PO Box. Ouch!

Also, besides Oswald himself who would want to distance himself from the rifle purchase by using an alias, why would any conspirator add an extra redundant step of using an alias? It's simply logical to just forge Oswald's real name and avoid any unnecessary complications. I can't recall in any criminal case in Earth's History that a conspirator would set up their patsy with a name that wasn't their actual patsy's name and then have to rely on some "flawed" opinion? Does that even make sense?



JohnM

The envelope was addressed to Oswald's PO Box. Ouch!

What exactly does this make anyway near conclusive?

Also, besides Oswald himself who would want to distance himself from the rifle purchase by using an alias,

Oswald carrying a fake Hidell ID, used to order the revolver and rifle, while committing the crimes, means he wanted to distance himself from the weapons used? Are you for real?

why would any conspirator add an extra redundant step of using an alias?

Well, this is just a wild guess of course, but perhaps they did it to frame Oswald? Could that be?

It's simply logical to just forge Oswald's real name and avoid any unnecessary complications.

What complications would that be?

I can't recall in any criminal case in Earth's History that a conspirator would set up their patsy with a name that wasn't their actual patsy's name and then have to rely on some "flawed" opinion? Does that even make sense?


Yes, when the investigation is being controlled by the conspirators. Is that so difficult to understand? Maybe it's just a brilliant move, that most people simply don't have the brain capacity to process.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #92 on: June 02, 2023, 12:05:17 AM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #93 on: June 02, 2023, 12:17:21 AM »

Oswald carrying a fake Hidell ID,


Nice, so you agree that Oswald was carrying the fake Hidell identification. That's progress!

JohnM

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2023, 08:09:27 AM »
Nice, so you agree that Oswald was carrying the fake Hidell identification. That's progress!

JohnM

You shouldn't comment on something you don't understand. It's the narrative that Oswald carried a fake Hidell ID.
My comment showed that even the narrative contradicted your silly claim that Oswald "would want to distance himself from the rifle purchase by using an alias".

Next time try to reach a little bit higher level of discussion instead of just making childish comments.

Btw, it's duly noted that you are unable to respond to the rest of my post.   Thumb1:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2023, 08:09:27 AM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Re: Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63
« Reply #95 on: June 02, 2023, 10:14:33 AM »
You shouldn't comment on something you don't understand. It's the narrative that Oswald carried a fake Hidell ID.
My comment showed that even the narrative contradicted your silly claim that Oswald "would want to distance himself from the rifle purchase by using an alias".

Next time try to reach a little bit higher level of discussion instead of just making childish comments.

Btw, it's duly noted that you are unable to respond to the rest of my post.   Thumb1:

Quote
It's the narrative that Oswald carried a fake Hidell ID.

It's a fact, the Hidell identification was in Oswald's wallet.

Quote
My comment showed that even the narrative contradicted your silly claim that Oswald "would want to distance himself from the rifle purchase by using an alias".

Slow down Cowboy, Oswald bought the rifle in March just before he attempted to murder General Walker and clearly Oswald used the Hidell alias to hide his true identity for that attempt. Oswald carrying the Hidell identification eight months later could have been for a multitude of reasons.

Quote
Btw, it's duly noted that you are unable to respond to the rest of my post.

The rest was just gibberish and your usual insults, which btw are getting more aggressive as the years pass. Lighten up, there's more to life than being perpetually angry.

JohnM