What Booth Said After He Killed Lincoln

[Richard Smith]

Literally no one argues that Booth didn’t kill Lincoln. Refer to my previous post for an explanation of why that is.

In contrast, even people who believed Lee Oswald was guilty suspected that there was a conspiracy. Including Lyndon Johnson, who requested the Warren Commission. If people with inside knowledge of the event like President Johnson and Robert Kennedy Sr suspected a conspiracy, it’s perfectly reasonable for anyone else to suspect a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination.

Of course Booth killed Lincoln.  That is the point.  If the same standard of proof were applied to that case as in the JFK context, however, there would be "doubt."  No one can show that Booth pulled the trigger.  No one can link Booth to the murder weapon.  No one can link the bullet to the gun found at the scene.  No one knows for sure who found the gun (chain of custody).  Some witness were off as to description of Booth.  He "worked" in the theatre.  So his presence is not evidence of guilt.  No one can know his motive with certainty.  There can only be "speculation" and "assumptions."  And on and on.  The point is that the standard applied by CTers to Oswald is absurd. 

[Jon Banks]

Of course Booth killed Lincoln.  That is the point.  If the same standard of proof were applied to that case as in the JFK context, however, there would be "doubt."  No one can show that Booth pulled the trigger.  No one can link Booth to the murder weapon.  No one can link the bullet to the gun found at the scene.  No one knows for sure who found the gun (chain of custody).  Some witness were off as to description of Booth.  He "worked" in the theatre.  So his presence is not evidence of guilt.  No one can know his motive with certainty.  There can only be "speculation" and "assumptions."  And on and on.  The point is that the standard applied by CTers to Oswald is absurd.

With all due respect, you’re full of BS on this 

There’s no doubt about Booth’s motive and his co-conspirators were caught.

In contrast, we can only speculate about Oswald’s motive and/or whether or not there was a conspiracy. There’s not enough hard evidence to resolve all the remaining questions about the JFK assassination.

[Richard Smith]

With all due respect, you’re full of BS on this 

There’s no doubt about Booth’s motive and his co-conspirators were caught.

In contrast, we can only speculate about Oswald’s motive and/or whether or not there was a conspiracy. There’s not enough hard evidence to resolve all the remaining questions about the JFK assassination.

That's because you are not understanding the point. I'm not arguing that there is any doubt of Booth's guilt or motive.  He did it.  He hated Lincoln etc.  There is no doubt about it.  What I trying to demonstrate is that if you apply the looney standards CTers apply to Oswald in the JFK case to Booth's situation or to any fact in human history, you could claim there was doubt.  The irony is that CTers appear to agree that Booth is guilty of assassinating Lincoln based on the evidence in that case.  But, for some inexplicable reason, can't grasp that there is as much or even more evidence that links Oswald to the JFK assassination.  It's humorous.  I've rebutted all your evidence of Booth's guilt using the CTer JFK standards.  As a result, if I were a loon, I could claim that there is doubt even though we know he was guilty. 

[Jon Banks]

That's because you are not understanding the point. I'm not arguing that there is any doubt of Booth's guilt or motive.  He did it.  He hated Lincoln etc.  There is no doubt about it.  What I trying to demonstrate is that if you apply the looney standards CTers apply to Oswald in the JFK case to Booth's situation or to any fact in human history, you could claim there was doubt.  The irony is that CTers appear to agree that Booth is guilty of assassinating Lincoln based on the evidence in that case.  But, for some inexplicable reason, can't grasp that there is as much or even more evidence that links Oswald to the JFK assassination.  It's humorous.  I've rebutted all your evidence of Booth's guilt using the CTer JFK standards.  As a result, if I were a loon, I could claim that there is doubt even though we know he was guilty.

The standards of evidence in the JFK assassination are the same as any other murder case.

What you refuse to acknowledge or accept is that there are one  too many problems with evidence and witness statements in the Kennedy assassination. Most people understandably aren’t satisfied with the conclusion that Oswald acted alone due to the conflicts with the evidence and unresolved questions.

I personally don’t consider myself a “Conspiracy Theorist”. I’m skeptical of most conspiracy theories. But at the same time, I acknowledge that conspiracies do happen and based on the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, I believe it’s plausible that others were involved.

[Richard Smith]

The standards of evidence in the JFK assassination are the same as any other murder case.

What you refuse to acknowledge or accept is that there are one  too many problems with evidence and witness statements in the Kennedy assassination. Most people understandably aren’t satisfied with the conclusion that Oswald acted alone due to the conflicts with the evidence and unresolved questions.

I personally don’t consider myself a “Conspiracy Theorist”. I’m skeptical of most conspiracy theories. But at the same time, I acknowledge that conspiracies do happen and based on the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, I believe it’s plausible that others were involved.

Those "problems" only exist due to the laughable standard of proof applied by CTers to the JFK case.  That case was solved within a few hours of the crime being committed.  The evidence is rock solid.  There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.  Most CTers no longer even bother to try to explain what happened.  They instead try to create doubt by any means as to Oswald's guilt.  And failed even in that.  Imagine the outlandish alternative narrative that must have occurred for Oswald to be a patsy in this case.  Among other things he must have been in agreement with the conspirators to frame himself for the crime.  This is like Bigfoot.  True believers can never be unconvinced by facts or reason.

[Jon Banks]

Those "problems" only exist due to the laughable standard of proof applied by CTers to the JFK case.

The root of the conflicts with the evidence stem from either incompetent or malicious handling of the evidence by the Dallas PD followed by a bad autopsy conducted by the military, and destruction or suppression of evidence by other Federal government agencies.

It's possible that in spite of all the problems with the evidence, Oswald did act alone, but we'll never know for certain.

  That case was solved within a few hours of the crime being committed.  The evidence is rock solid.

That's absolutely wrong.

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." - Jesse Curry

 There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else. 

There's evidence that suggests others were involved but no conclusive proof.

It's perfectly reasonable to speculate about conspiracy given the many unresolved questions about the Kennedy assassination.

They instead try to create doubt by any means as to Oswald's guilt.  And failed even in that.  Imagine the outlandish alternative narrative that must have occurred for Oswald to be a patsy in this case.  Among other things he must have been in agreement with the conspirators to frame himself for the crime.  This is like Bigfoot.  True believers can never be unconvinced by facts or reason.

You get hung up on the question of Oswald's guilt. There are many Americans who believe Oswald was guilty but others were involved.

RFK Sr. and LBJ believed Oswald was guilty but others were involved.

[Richard Smith]

The root of the conflicts with the evidence stem from either incompetent or malicious handling of the evidence by the Dallas PD followed by a bad autopsy conducted by the military, and destruction or suppression of evidence by other Federal government agencies.

It's possible that in spite of all the problems with the evidence, Oswald did act alone, but we'll never know for certain.


That's absolutely wrong.

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." - Jesse Curry


There's evidence that suggests others were involved but no conclusive proof.

It's perfectly reasonable to speculate about conspiracy given the many unresolved questions about the Kennedy assassination.


You get hung up on the question of Oswald's guilt. There are many Americans who believe Oswald was guilty but others were involved.

RFK Sr. and LBJ believed Oswald was guilty but others were involved.

Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination.  That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor.  The floor from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window.  Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes.  That leaves only two ways to avoid concluding that Oswald was not the shooter.  1) He has a credible alibi.  He does not.  2) He can explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene.  He did not.  Instead he lied and denied he owned any rifle.  Instead he fled the scene and killed a police officer.  It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence than exists to prove his guilt.  It is stone cold.  Oswald was the assassin.  There is zero credible evidence that he was working with anyone.  Oswald was a strange guy.  There are some loony things in his background because of that like defecting to the USSR.  That is not evidence that he was involved with anyone.  Rather it is evidence that he was a few bricks short of a load.