S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll

[Royell Storing]

\

Of course we don't need to know why Oswald did it. It would be nice if we could figure it out but not necessary in order to prove that he did. Proving motive is not something that is required to convict a person for murder. All that is necessary is to prove that the accused committed the act. We have ample proof of Oswald's guilt.

Oswald didn't duck into the theater to watch a bad movie. He did that to escape detection from the police who were looking for a cop killer. If not for an alert Johnny Brewer, it might have worked. He could have sat through the double feature until dark and then left with the other patrons. Who knows where he would have gone after that. Who cares. It is a moot point.

You seem skeptical that Oswald would carry the rifle across the sixth floor and then hide it. What was he supposed to do with it? Walk out the front door carrying the rifle on his shoulder. He wasn't stupid. He would have known the rifle would eventually be found whether he left it in the sniper's nest or hid it between rows of boxes. Perhaps he thought, hiding it as he did might by him a little more time to escape. We don't need to read Oswald's mind or second guess every decision he made to know he was the assassin. We have ample proof of that.

The difference between you and me is that most of what I believe is based on rock solid evidence with a few loose ends that are left to speculation, such as Oswald's motive or what his plan was once he left the TSBD. My own belief, which is pure speculation, is he had no plan. I think he was surprised he got away from the TSBD, but that's something we can never know nor do we need to. On the other hand, EVERRYTHING you believe is based on speculation, and then only after you invent one cockamamie excuse after another to ignore each and every piece of evidence that screams to us that Oswald was the assassin.

The assassination of JFK is not a mystery and never has been. Within the first four hours, the DPD believed they had their man and in roughly 12 hours, they had accumulated enough evidence to formally charge him. Since that time, the case against Oswald has only gotten stronger. The only question that remained after that was whether he had one or more accomplices. Two government investigations and legions of amateur sleuths looking for evidence of such accomplices over six decades, no one has found any evidence to identify any accomplices. The JFK conspiracy hobby is an exercise in futility that has been striking out over and over again for 62 years. If you haven't found evidence in that time of any accomplices, what makes you think you ever will.

   "....we don't need to know....".
   Your own words taint everything you post with respect to Oswald. 

[John Corbett]

   "....we don't need to know....".
   Your own words taint everything you post with respect to Oswald.

Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.

You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.

[Royell Storing]

Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.

You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.

    "....we don't need to know......". Revealing and Sad at the same time.

[John Corbett]

    "....we don't need to know......". Revealing and Sad at the same time.

No, it is understanding the reality of the situation. There are things we can't possibly know but that doesn't mean we have to disregard what we do know. Since conspiracy hobbyists lost their grip on reality a long time ago, I'm not surprised you can't grasp that.

You express beliefs about things you couldn't possibly know, such as your belief that Oswald had somehow figured out something had gone wrong with the plot. You confuse belief with knowledge, but that seems to be a requirement for those who insist Oswald didn't fire the shots that killed JFK.

[Royell Storing]

   A lot of this uncertainty could have been avoided if Officer Baker had "patted down" Oswald inside the lunchroom. Baker was searching the building for an active shooter. He see's a man walking away from him, and he then just lets the guy go because the guy works there? If Baker had found that Phony ID on Oswald, and you believe that Oswald acted alone, then everything ends right then. This includes the Tippit shooting.

[John Corbett]

   A lot of this uncertainty could have been avoided if Officer Baker had "patted down" Oswald inside the lunchroom. Baker was searching the building for an active shooter. He see's a man walking away from him, and he then just lets the guy go because the guy works there? If Baker had found that Phony ID on Oswald, and you believe that Oswald acted alone, then everything ends right then. This includes the Tippit shooting.

So you acknowledge Oswald murdered Tippit. We are making progress.

"If" is one of the most useless words in the English language. It doesn't count for squat. It's easy to second guess Baker after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20. Baker was under the impression that the shots came from the roof and he was racing up the stairs to see if he could find that person before he came down. He saw someone on the second floor. His curiosity was aroused when he saw someone walking away from him. Once Truly vouched for him, Baker made the judgement call that he should continue up the stairs toward what he though was the source of the gunfire. When a cop pats down a suspect, it's usually to determine if the suspect has a weapon or contraband. With Truly vouching for Oswald, what reason would he have to check Oswald's ID. Truly had just old him he was an employee.

I'm sure Baker wishes he had detained Oswald longer after he found out he was the assassin and that he had killed Tippit. Baker had to act based on the information he had at the time and I don't fault him for letting Oswald go and returning to his trip up the stairway.

[Royell Storing]

So you acknowledge Oswald murdered Tippit. We are making progress.

"If" is one of the most useless words in the English language. It doesn't count for squat. It's easy to second guess Baker after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20. Baker was under the impression that the shots came from the roof and he was racing up the stairs to see if he could find that person before he came down. He saw someone on the second floor. His curiosity was aroused when he saw someone walking away from him. Once Truly vouched for him, Baker made the judgement call that he should continue up the stairs toward what he though was the source of the gunfire. When a cop pats down a suspect, it's usually to determine if the suspect has a weapon or contraband. With Truly vouching for Oswald, what reason would he have to check Oswald's ID. Truly had just old him he was an employee.

I'm sure Baker wishes he had detained Oswald longer after he found out he was the assassin and that he had killed Tippit. Baker had to act based on the information he had at the time and I don't fault him for letting Oswald go and returning to his trip up the stairway.

  Baker did Not "act". He did the opposite.
  This is not 2nd guessing. There is protocol for these situations.
  When a cop "pats" someone down, they automatically check their ID. If the person is Not carrying an ID, that's a problem. Especially in a situation involving an unknown "active" shooter(s).