How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[Tim Nickerson]

You previously posted - "There is ample evidence  that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
You've been asked to provide a single scrap of evidence that places Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.
Are you going to do that or not?

Oswald's rifle being the assassination weapon, together with the fact that he had no alibi for the time of the shooting, places him in the SN at 12:30pm. That's not even considering his fingerprints and palmprints being found there.

[John Corbett]

Well the problem for me was the very beginning when Fritz started to interrogate Oswald without a proper way to record his statements. His scribbling notes which he then embellishes later are questionable.

How does that invalidate all the evidence that Oswald was the assassin?

So although I see that   this guy Oswald certainly was acting kind of arrogant and smirking seemingly enjoying his publicity, and being a Marxist and a traitor to his USMC oath, thus I believe him fully capable of being the assassin, its the details of how evidence was acquired that are troublesome to me.

I just have reservations that this looney tune Oswald was not afforded his constitutional right to have attorney present before he was interrogated. Then the line up was obviously not fair. And then the  chain of custody is muddy especially for CE. 399.

You seem willing to believe Oswald. Oswald lied when he claimed he was being denied legal representation. The president of the Dallas bar association had the same concerns as you and asked to speak to Oswald. He told Oswald that he was not a criminal attorney but that he could get a qualified criminal attorney to represent him. Oswald turned down the offer, apparently still hoping New York communist lawyer John Abt would agree to represent him. Although the assassination predated the landmark Miranda ruling, the DPD was already following the practice that would become law by allowing accused suspects to have legal representation during questioning.

Oswald's complaints about the line up being unfair were unfounded. He drew attention to himself by visibily complaining so the problems were self inflicted.

So as much as I tend towards the simplest solution being probably the best one , in this case there is so much snafu going on that it introduces reasonable doubt for me at least.

The only snafu was allowing Ruby entrance to the parking garage. That was just an unfortunate series of circumstances. The DPD wanted to transport Oswald to the county lock-up in an armored car which was a sensible security measure. They discovered the armored car was too tall to enter the garage and decided to transport him in a regular station wagon. The cop who was guarding the ramp the armored car failed to clear stepped away from his post briefly to hold up traffic so the armored car could vacate the ramp. It was at the moment that Jack Ruby arrived and walked down the unguarded ramp.

As for reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt, there is absolutely none. If you have doubts about Oswald's guilt, there is nothing reasonable about them.

This is why my perspective is not hardcore CT but rather one which attempts to objectively verify for myself if the WC got it right. Some things are indisputable such as the MC rifle serial no. traced to a money order that leads to Oswald’s P.O. Box address. Other things however are not so definitive and in fact are of such level of snafu that it’s difficult to accept it was merely due to overlapping agency miscommunication.

The WC determined Oswald was the assassin and that there was no credible evidence he had any accomplices. That remains as true today as it was in 1964. Any doubts about Oswald's guilt or beliefs in conspiracy are based on conjured up evidence, not any real evidence.