Is it even possible?

[The Baron]

The Police at the time looked at Bury and rejected him, he was acquitted recently in a retrial, so why should we bother, he is not a suspect anymore, let alone a weak suspect.

But someone who was actually there, like Lechmere for example, who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, I say he should be investigated further.


The Baron

[John Wheat]

The Police at the time looked at Bury and rejected him, he was acquitted recently in a retrial, so why should we bother, he is not a suspect anymore, let alone a weak suspect.

But someone who was actually there, like Lechmere for example, who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, I say he should be investigated further.


The Baron

What you are saying isn't logical.

[A P Tomlinson]

The Police at the time looked at Bury and rejected him, he was acquitted recently in a retrial, so why should we bother, he is not a suspect anymore, let alone a weak suspect.

But someone who was actually there, like Lechmere for example, who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, I say he should be investigated further.


The Baron

He wasn't acquited at a retrial. Two groups of students held a mock debate and the "jury" of local residents sided with the hosts.

How much more investigation needs to be done into a man who has so far, (following YEARS of accusations and further investigation,) still not had ONE piece of credible evidence put forward that he ever murdered anyone let alone was a serial killer, before the cult just accept that its the end time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s about time that Cross is finally dismissed to the lower reaches of suspect lists to languish will Gull and Lewis Carroll and all of the other clearly innocent men. Can anything be more pathetic than the constant mantras that we here from various people…

’He was there’ - Just like every single person that discovered a serial killers victim and not one of them in the whole of serial killer history turned out to have been the killer. If Cross was the killer then we would have to accept that he was entirely unique in the annals of crime.

’Freshly killed..’ - A deliberately emotive phrase which demonstrates the dishonesty of those that keep pushing Cross. The condition of the corpse meant that Cross was no more likely to have been the killer that someone who killed her shortly before he arrived.

‘Spotted alone’ - Another deliberately emotive phrase specifically designed to make Cross appear suspicious. The reality is that Cross, after hearing Paul approach, acted entirely unlike a guilty man. A guilty man would have fled as he had the easiest of opportunities and entirely idea circumstances. He stands around, bloodied knife in pocket, waiting for someone that he knows nothing about. For all that he knew the man might have become hysterical and accused him of murder. Either way, he knew that he would have been heading for a police officer. He stayed because he had very, very obviously done nothing wrong.

‘In the dark’ - But light enough for Paul to have seen Cross standing in the middle of the road up ahead but nowhere near the body. However, how could a guilty Cross possibly have known that Paul hadn’t seen him move from the body to the middle of the road? Cross says that he never went near the body and Paul says that he saw him walking away from the body. Game over. Yeah right. Cross was very obviously telling the truth when he hadn’t been near to the body.

Cross was a transparently innocent man and to try and put him even in the same ball park as an actual violent-to-women, heavy drinking, knife murderer is nothing less than rank dishonesty and bias combined with an effort to annoy.

And here we have Bury dismissed as a suspect by someone that previously said this about him:

“This is Mind blowing!

Wasn't Bury a sexualy insane murderer?!

Isn't that a sexual mutilation in the full sense of the word?!

I favour Kosminski as a suspect, but how can anyone counter the argument that Bury Was Jack the Ripper?!”


It’s called changing your mind to suit the argument that you’re trying to provoke. I’d hate to be in the dock with certain people on the jury.

He was there….ah, he must be guilty…lock him up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If a certain person is so confident in the result of a Mock Trial then I can only assume he thinks that all Mock Trials are infallible, for consistencies sake, I assume that he accepts the verdict of the Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. They found him guilty. Which he was of course.

[The Rookie Detective]

If a certain person is so confident in the result of a Mock Trial then I can only assume he thinks that all Mock Trials are infallible, for consistencies sake, I assume that he accepts the verdict of the Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. They found him guilty. Which he was of course.

Although Oswald never fired the 3rd shot that obliterated Kennedy's head.

That was done accidently by the over zealous Secret Service agent who stood up in the car directly behind holding an automatic rifle; as evidenced by a photo taken moments after the fatal shooting which shows the agent holding said weapon.

The only question is; was the shot intentional or a mistake?

Considering that there were several agents who were hungover from the night before, it stands to reason that the gun went off accidentally.

So we have 2 shots fired by Oswald, followed by a 3rd shot from the Agent as he stood to intercept Oswald who had just fired 2 shots from the building behind him.

There's no mystery as to who killed JFK; it was one of his own personnel.

But there is zero evidence it was intentional and therefore almost certainly a tragic accident.


But that's for another thread of course


But going back to this particular topic; I believe that one day more evidence will come to light.

However, despite the chance of new evidence, the case will never be solved regardless of what may come to light over time

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m sorry RD but I’ve given up on JFK debate as it descends into conspiracist fantasy and I just can cope with the organised insanity of it all. A cottage industry of loonies. The Bonar Menninger theory about the Secret Service agent (Hickey I think his name was but it’s been too long to recall) is just nonsense from start to finish. Only one person fired the 3 shots. Lee Harvey Oswald, the transparently obvious killer of JFK. Totally guilty without a single, solitary shadow of a doubt.

That said…no more JFK for me. Hopefully one day the USA will stop torturing itself over this nonsense - we can see today the terrible harm that conspiracy theorists over there and everywhere tbh. They’ve just voted one in as President. The public are being scammed by people who simply ‘pile on’ with the conspiracy stuff for reasons of self-aggrandisement disguised as a pursuit of truth. Thanks to professional criminal propagandists like the insane crook Jim Garrison, the terminally dishonest Mark Lane, certifiable basket cases like Roger Craig, self publicising proven liars like Mary Moorman, fantasists like Robert Groden. Clowns like Jim Marrs. The list goes on and on and on.

It’s a disease RD. Don’t go down the rabbit-hole.

[Fiver]

Although Oswald never fired the 3rd shot that obliterated Kennedy's head.

That was done accidently by the over zealous Secret Service agent who stood up in the car directly behind holding an automatic rifle; as evidenced by a photo taken moments after the fatal shooting which shows the agent holding said weapon.e

It is impossible for Agent Hickey to have fired the shot that killed JFK. based on one of the Altgens photo.




JFK's arms are raised to his throat, so clearly this is after the first bullet hit JFK. Several of the Secret Service in the following car are shown looking back towards the Book Depository. One of them is standing in the back seat of that car, the back of his head visible over the right shoulder of Agent Clint Hill. That man is George Hickey, the man the theory says accidentally shot JFK when both cars accelerated.

But Hickey was clearly facing backward so there is no way he could have accidentally fired a shot behind his back to hit JFK.

[The Rookie Detective]

It is impossible for Agent Hickey to have fired the shot that killed JFK. based on one of the Altgens photo.




JFK's arms are raised to his throat, so clearly this is after the first bullet hit JFK. Several of the Secret Service in the following car are shown looking back towards the Book Depository. One of them is standing in the back seat of that car, the back of his head visible over the right shoulder of Agent Clint Hill. That man is George Hickey, the man the theory says accidentally shot JFK when both cars accelerated.

But Hickey was clearly facing backward so there is no way he could have accidentally fired a shot behind his back to hit JFK.

Ah, but this photo was taken BEFORE the fatal head shot (3rd shot)

There were 3 bullets fired in total.

The 2nd and 3rd shots hit Kennedy.

All 3 shots could not have been fired by Oswald alone.

The single bullet theory is physically impossible

The audible sound that was produced from the 3rd shot being fired; was distinctly different from the first 2 shots fired.

2 weapons.

2 shooters.

The agent seen carrying the rifle in the photo taken AFTER the fatal head shot was fired (as the car sped off) is the man who let off a round either by mistake as the vehicle accelerated, or on purpose.

There is no evidence to suggest it was done intentionally.


But this is not a JFK thread and so I can't comment any further out of respect for this thread.


Now, going back to the proper topic; I think that there may indeed exist somewhere a series of police files that have been hidden or filed incorrectly in some form of archive.
The evidence is out there waiting to be found.

But leading a man to water is the easy part; convincing them to drink, is another matter entirely.

[Fiver]

Ah, but this photo was taken BEFORE the fatal head shot (3rd shot).

That is my point. Before the fatal head shot, Agent Hickey was already standing and facing away from JFK's limo.