A question about Oswald

[Martin Weidmann]

Sounds like reasonable doubt. There’s a reason for those standards.

Not “better analyzed”, just much weaker criteria. Photos with no provenance stashed in a briefcase for 30 years and no disclosure on how many points matched or where they were.

Well said. Lowering the standards for evidence is prevalent in every aspect of the LN case.
I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.

[Walt Cakebread]

Well said. Lowering the standards for evidence is prevalent in every aspect of the LN case.
I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.

I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.

You're so right.....  And the perpetrators knew that, and that's why they could not allow to let Lee Oswald live.

Even after they had murdered him they realized that the American people needed to be convinced that Lee Oswald was simple a lone nut who killed John Kennedy for no reason...... And that's the reason LBJ created the Warren Commission.    It's a pity that so many researchers fall back on the lies that were created by the DPD and Hoover's FBI and propped up by the Warren Commission.

[Jerry Organ]

Sounds like reasonable doubt. There’s a reason for those standards.

Not “better analyzed”, just much weaker criteria. Photos with no provenance stashed in a briefcase for 30 years and no disclosure on how many points matched or where they were.

By "no provenance", you mean some scenario like no one stood guard at "Rusty" Livingstone's house for 30 years to prevent the photos being planted, or "Rusty" (who was the DPD's photo-developer) fabricated the trigger-guard photos before he sealed the briefcase.

The provenance is about as good as it gets within normal reason. The briefcase was in "Rusty's" possession for all that time. He didn't even know the potential of what was in the case; his nephew Gary Savage brought the material forward. Too bad for your hero-patsy Oswald that whenever evidence that's better-quality shows up or when forensic techniques (ballistic testing; 3D trajectory analysis) improve with science done by professionals, it always reinforces the LN scenario.

[Martin Weidmann]

By "no provenance", you mean some scenario like no one stood guard at "Rusty" Livingstone's house for 30 years to prevent the photos being planted, or "Rusty" (who was the DPD's photo-developer) fabricated the trigger-guard photos before he sealed the briefcase.

The provenance is about as good as it gets within normal reason. The briefcase was in "Rusty's" possession for all that time. He didn't even know the potential of what was in the case; his nephew Gary Savage brought the material forward. Too bad for your hero-patsy Oswald that whenever evidence that's better-quality shows up or when forensic techniques (ballistic testing; 3D trajectory analysis) improve with science done by professionals, it always reinforces the LN scenario.

The briefcase was in "Rusty's" possession for all that time. He didn't even know the potential of what was in the case; his nephew Gary Savage brought the material forward.

Do you understand the contradiction of what you have written here?

[Jarrett Smith]

I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.

You're so right.....  And the perpetrators knew that, and that's why they could not allow to let Lee Oswald live.

Even after they had murdered him they realized that the American people needed to be convinced that Lee Oswald was simple a lone nut who killed John Kennedy for no reason...... And that's the reason LBJ created the Warren Commission.    It's a pity that so many researchers fall back on the lies that were created by the DPD and Hoover's FBI and propped up by the Warren Commission.

Actually they were the mafia and had Ruby murder him. At the beginning the Government was afraid it could be an international plot so it's reasonable what they did to calm the waters.

[John Iacoletti]

By "no provenance", you mean some scenario like no one stood guard at "Rusty" Livingstone's house for 30 years to prevent the photos being planted, or "Rusty" (who was the DPD's photo-developer) fabricated the trigger-guard photos before he sealed the briefcase.

The provenance is about as good as it gets within normal reason. The briefcase was in "Rusty's" possession for all that time. He didn't even know the potential of what was in the case; his nephew Gary Savage brought the material forward. Too bad for your hero-patsy Oswald that whenever evidence that's better-quality shows up or when forensic techniques (ballistic testing; 3D trajectory analysis) improve with science done by professionals, it always reinforces the LN scenario.

What a load of BS. There was no new “technique” here. It was the same kind of fingerprint analysis the FBI did in 1964.

And who said the briefcase was sealed for 30 years, and how would you know? How would you or anybody else know where those photos came from?

Oh yeah — cop said so.