JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Edit. In my last post I typed that Ruby was ‘probably’ elsewhere. This was possibly auto-correct because it should have read ‘provably.’ I’m still adamant that I’m not getting into the minutiae of witnesses and trajectory’s and stuff like that. I’ll leave it to others. But I have no issue expanding on general points.

While I’m here


I don’t really understand why anyone doesn’t accept what I believe are some very obvious points about a suggested high level conspiracy like the one regularly proposed.

I’ll begin with something that we all can surely all agree on? The sheer magnitude of a proposed plan to assassinate the President of the United States and that no one could have had a moments doubt about the level of scrutiny that would have followed? Anyone at a higher level, whether the initiator or the planners or both, would have wanted a plan that was foolproof - or as close to it as was humanly possible. Just imagine for a second if someone like LBJ (often suggested as being involved) had been revealed as being in on it. Consider the ramifications, consider the headlines across the world “US Vice-President Involved In The President’s Assassination!” Can we honestly believe that anyone, politician, senior military man, high level CIA operatives etc) would allow for the remotest possibility of their name being associated with such an event as this? Yes, absolutely governments lie, plot, conspire and cover-up but they tend not to do it with all of the rigorous planning and intelligence of the Marx Brothers. Following on from this there are some, to me, very simple and very obvious points.

Firstly, as any plotter/conspirator/ political manipulator would tell you, in any conspiracy/cover-up it’s a case of the fewest possible number of people involved the better. We have all heard the phrase ‘need to know basis only.’ People make mistakes, people have loose tongues, they sit in bars drinking beer and then get irresistibly tempted to tell their best friend by swearing him to secrecy (and people never break such oaths…do they?) The number of people that would have had to have been ‘in on it’ in this alleged conspiracy is off the scale. So many that it’s impossible to get close to counting them (although I’m sure that someone has attempted to at some point) - Dallas police officers, secret service agents, witnesses, CIA, FBI, the military, doctors, radiographers, photographers, ambulance men, hospital porters, nurses, ballistics experts, politicians, lawyers to name just the main ones…all in on it. All keeping their secrets and playing their parts efficiently. Can anyone honestly accept this?

Secondly, we can surely also agree that even a wedding takes some planning with nothing left to luck. Those doing the planning sit and think of anything that might go wrong and try to reduce the chances of them occurring. They lose sleep over it. They might also chuck in a contingency plan or two to prepare for ‘what if’s’. Who would disagree that the assassination of the President is about 10 million times more serious than a wedding. This needed serious, intense planning to reduce the risks to a point as close to foolproof as possible. These are the kind of planners that plan invasions and regime changes. We can’t seriously believe that someone like LBJ or a senior CIA or FBI official would have signed off on a plan with about 500 ways that it could have gone to pieces if something perfectly everyday but unplanned for had occurred? Look at just a few examples of the luck required - that no co-worker walks in on Oswald on the 6th floor, that someone turns around and sees the gunman, that someone went to their car on the carpark and sees the gunman, that someone catches the Grassy Knoll gunman on film and leaves Dealey Plaza with it, that someone takes a photo of the 6th floor window while Oswald was there with his rifle. We could all come up with a sizeable list so why is this point…this glaring point…cast aside with a kind of ‘Ho-hum’ level of dismissal? I’ll repeat..this was a plan to kill the world’s most powerful man, in broad daylight, with still and moving cameras everywhere. And yet we get a ‘so what’ response, as if it was merely some kind of April Fool’s prank being planned. Ok, so we might get caught and outed…so what, it’s only the murder of the President after all. “Ya win some, ya lose some.”

Thirdly, why is it suggested that this was a plan originating at the highest levels by some of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world, military, CIA, special forces etc, and yet they choose someone who is nothing more than an average shot and who has no training or aptitude or previous experience of this kind of thing. Now, before people suggest an Oswald/CIA link (something unproven) there is still no suggestion that he was a mercenary, or sniper or an assassin. Please people, ask yourselves honestly, for this magnitude of job who in the world is going to choose Lee Harvey Oswald? Why the hell would anyone? These people could have their pick of mercenaries, disgruntled ex-military men, right wing CIA operatives, John Birch Society-types etc. Do we really believe that they would have been so desperate that they would have used a guy, a nobody, like Oswald? The suggestion really beggars belief. They just wouldn’t have. Not a chance. They would have found some mercenary/sniper, offered him a shed load of money, provided a top of the range rifle with all serial numbers and means of connecting it to the assassin removed. They’d have found him a room in a high building with an escape car waiting out back (there was no rule that Kennedy had to be killed in Dallas btw). Thirty seconds after Kennedy was dead he’d have been driven away in a waiting car (connected to no one) to a plane waiting somewhere. Gone for good with no trace with a suitcase full of money. (Or, as Bugliosi suggested, buried in the desert somewhere with a bullet through his brain) But no, we get Oswald wandering around Dallas like a headless chicken. On a bus, off a bus, in a taxi. He goes back to his room, picks up a pistol, kills Tippit, acts suspiciously near the cinema and gets caught inside. With our conspirators going happily about their business unconcerned that their ‘killer’ is now roaming around acting suspiciously, free to spill his guts to the police when he’s arrested. Why do some think that this isn’t a problem? Why do they equate its seriousness with the possibility of a wedding car breaking down or the cake having strawberry instead of raspberry jam in it? Oswald is even allowed to speak in front of the TV cameras! Could things be less believable?

And let’s remember the time. Look at the relationship with the Soviet Union. Bay of Pigs etc. The world in fear of nuclear conflict and these genius plotters pick a guy who defected to the Soviet Union! This is just a killer blow. How could they not have been ‘concerned’ to put it mildly. Oswald had already blabbed on TV about the Soviet Union so it couldn’t be hidden. So they would now have serious people, politicians etc suggesting that the Russians might have killed Kennedy. The plotters couldn’t have been unaware of this eventuality so why risk it when they had absolutely no reason to because they could have chosen an ‘assassin’ who wasn’t a defector? How can this be defended?

Remember, this is a guy who tried to kill Governor Walker, a guy who had to be locked in a room by Marina because he’d previously taken up his gun and was going to go out and shoot Nixon. This is a guy with anger issues who regularly hit Marina. A guy who moved from job to job. A guy who was a known liar? A guy who was described by people who knew him as the kind of guy who felt that he’d never received the rewards that his ‘talents’ deserved. What is it about this man that any member of cabal of high level plotters would have said “yes I agree, it has to be Oswald, only he can be trusted upon to carry this off.”

These are the things that need to be considered but what usually happens is that someone says “yes but what about the trajectory of the bullet that….blah, blah.” We all know that every single aspect of this case has at least 2 ‘explanations’ because people have spent 60 years trying to find ever more imaginative ways of casting doubt on everything. We see it in the ripper case of course but we have to multiply this by 500 in the assassination such is the complexity of the case and the massive number of people involved. This is why debate has gone on and on and on for 60 years of attempts to make every little discrepancy or error or difference of opinion appear as evidence of a plot. All that we have to do is to look at the bigger picture with common sense and it’s easy. Absolutely no one outside of a padded cell would have chosen Lee Harvey Oswald for anything, let alone the assassination of the world’s most powerful man. No one would have undertaken such a Keystone Cops plan which was totally reliant on luck. They apparently spent ages with false Oswald’s, Post Office boxes, false names, planted prints, faked photos, faked autopsy photos etc and yet they couldn’t manage having a car waiting to get their boy away from the scene. No way. Not a chance.




Oswald was a lone assassin.

[c.d.]

The sheer magnitude of a proposed plan to assassinate the President of the United States and that no one could have had a moments doubt about the level of scrutiny that would have followed? Anyone at a higher level, whether the initiator or the planners or both, would have wanted a plan that was foolproof - or as close to it as was humanly possible.

I agree with Herlock completely. There can be no slip ups, no loose threads from start to finish. If you are convicted of killing the president of the United States you will get hanged. No fine and/or lecture. No community service. You are getting hanged. Period.

What would it take to pull this off at this level? Let's hear from Edward G. Robinson from the classic movie Double Indemnity as to just how difficult it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m9qecEehqY&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqoItMpC-pHJB03kluhP080T&index=6

Now keep in mind this is just two people trying to murder a nondescript middle age businessman and fool an insurance company. Bump that up to what it would take to pull off killing the president of the United States.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

The moment LHO was shot in public, was the point when people realised that there's a thin line between retaliation and the need to silence.

Being in custody, there was no reason to kill LHO.

Whoever hired Ruby, made assurances that he would be immune from prosecution.

That's why his initial Death sentence was quashed after an appeal.

Why would there be a need to kill LHO if he had been a lone wolf; working alone in the planning and execution of the assassination of the president?

LHO was already in custody at the time.


In terms of the hit; LHO was there as a decoy

Ultimately, the only shot fired that really counts; was the final kill shot.

The kill shot didn't come from LHO.

The physics simply doesn't work.

And it's that scientific fact combined with LHO'S convenient murder, that should rule out the idea of LHO having been the only person involved with the murder of the president.

The idea that the assassination of the president would have taken a lot of people being involved, is misleading.

All you need is a client who's willing to pay for a particular outcome, and a professional asset to carry out the hit.

In fact, there's no way that a conspiracy involving scores of individuals would have been viable or possible to carry out. It Is certainly too risky.


However, with only a handful of people involved, it then becomes easier to man-manage and operate more covertly.

A client hires a sniper; a man who applies their professional services in the private sector; mercenaries/ex military etc... but also a decoy in LHO, and an insurance policy in Ruby once LHO has been inevitably apprehended.

So all we need is...

A client with the money to bankroll the hit (?)
A freelance sniper paid for the hit (?)
A decoy used to distract (LHO)
A silencer (Ruby)

That's 4 people

And only 3 men getting paid

And none of those 3 men would have known about each others involvement; with the exception of Ruby, who needed to have been aware of LHO.

LHO may have indeed thought he was working alone and the only shooter.

But he was too much of a flight risk, and so the person who payed for the hit, had to make sure a professional sniper was hired as an insurance policy.

For those who think that LHO acted alone, purely on the basis that a conspiracy to kill the president would have taken too many people... is missing the point somewhat.

The evidence at the scene suggests that there was more than one shooter.

Only 4 people needed to know about the planned assassination.

That's not a conspiracy, by any stretch of the imagination


The truth lies somewhere in the middle ground; as it usually does.

[cobalt]

HS has posted a lengthy reply series of thoughts that seems predicated on the idea that those who question the Warren Commission see Oswald as a 'patsy' on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hands. Surely if the term 'patsy' has the meaning I think it does, Oswald was telling the world he was NOT the man on the 6th floor with the rifle. There is more evidence to place him on the ground floor near the time of the shooting than there is to place him on the 6th floor.

So all the points HS makes about Oswald's lack of quality as a potential assassin are actually well founded. LHO wasn't the man who fired the killing shot(s) and was almost certainly not the gunman on the 6th floor. But Oswald's USSR connection was useful since many have pointed out a desire by US right wing figures to avenge the Bay of Pigs. Oswald's alleged visit to obtain a Cuban visa is part of this scheme.

Government conspiracies come in many forms and they operate in three time slots: the planning, the execution and the cover up. Although the assassination of JFK was cleverly arranged and carried out with great efficiency, the planned execution of LHO as the scapegoat was botched. Thus the cover up was necessarily clumsier than would have been ideal. But as we have seen with the recent US Presidential election, once a power shift is clearly announced there are very few prepared to oppose or even question it.

[FISHY1118]

The moment LHO was shot in public, was the point when people realised that there's a thin line between retaliation and the need to silence.

Being in custody, there was no reason to kill LHO.

Whoever hired Ruby, made assurances that he would be immune from prosecution.

That's why his initial Death sentence was quashed after an appeal.

Why would there be a need to kill LHO if he had been a lone wolf; working alone in the planning and execution of the assassination of the president?

LHO was already in custody at the time.


In terms of the hit; LHO was there as a decoy

Ultimately, the only shot fired that really counts; was the final kill shot.

The kill shot didn't come from LHO.

The physics simply doesn't work.

And it's that scientific fact combined with LHO'S convenient murder, that should rule out the idea of LHO having been the only person involved with the murder of the president.

The idea that the assassination of the president would have taken a lot of people being involved, is misleading.

All you need is a client who's willing to pay for a particular outcome, and a professional asset to carry out the hit.

In fact, there's no way that a conspiracy involving scores of individuals would have been viable or possible to carry out. It Is certainly too risky.


However, with only a handful of people involved, it then becomes easier to man-manage and operate more covertly.

A client hires a sniper; a man who applies their professional services in the private sector; mercenaries/ex military etc... but also a decoy in LHO, and an insurance policy in Ruby once LHO has been inevitably apprehended.

So all we need is...

A client with the money to bankroll the hit (?)
A freelance sniper paid for the hit (?)
A decoy used to distract (LHO)
A silencer (Ruby)

That's 4 people

And only 3 men getting paid

And none of those 3 men would have known about each others involvement; with the exception of Ruby, who needed to have been aware of LHO.

LHO may have indeed thought he was working alone and the only shooter.

But he was too much of a flight risk, and so the person who payed for the hit, had to make sure a professional sniper was hired as an insurance policy.

For those who think that LHO acted alone, purely on the basis that a conspiracy to kill the president would have taken too many people... is missing the point somewhat.

The evidence at the scene suggests that there was more than one shooter.

Only 4 people needed to know about the planned assassination.

That's not a conspiracy, by any stretch of the imagination


The truth lies somewhere in the middle ground; as it usually does.

Thanks Rookie , you saved me a similar post.

[FISHY1118]

The only conspiracy here is the Warren Commission.

[Fiver]

Thank you for your answer.

None of the items you list are legal evidence.

All of the things I listed are legal evidence.

“At trial” is the key phrase.
The body of John Kennedy was removed from Dallas before an autopsy was performed. Therefore, no murder happened legally in Texas, because the evidence has been tampered with by removing it from its jurisdiction. No body no crime.

How to tell me you've never read the Texas murder statutes without telling me that you've never read the Texas murder statutes. They don't even mention autopsies, let alone require one for a murder charge.

"No body no crime" is not a the law anywhere and never has been. Read about John Haigh in 1949.

The FBI forced the local police to send the gun bullets and rifle, all the evidence to be examined overnight in Washington DC then returned to Dallas the following morning. There is no valid chain of evidence. Just as the Warren commission is not a court room.

Transferring evidence between jurisdictions does not break the chain of evidence.

Remember what Hosty said when he flushed the Oswald note down the toilet, there will no trial. “…on Nov. 24, two to four hours after Oswald was pronounced dead, he said he was again called into Mr. Shanklin's office. Mr. Shanklin reached down into the lower right‐hand drawer of his desk and took out the memorandum and note in question and said “Oswald is dead now; there can be no trial,” Mr. Hosty testified.

After the assassination of Oswald in the Dallas police station, the autopsy is rewritten by Humes. ( this is possible only because no* trial.) But very much a key to understanding the conflict between The truthful Dallas doctors at Pakland Hospital and the Bethesda team. .

You are describing a ridiculously inept Conspiracy. If they were going to fake the autopsy, an absolutely essential part of the plan would be to have every doctor at Parkland be part of the Conspiracy. At Bethesda, Dr Humes wrote the autopsy report on November 23. He did not rewrite it after Oswald's death. The medical evidence from the autopsy has been investigated and conformed by the Ramsey Clark Panel (1968), the Rockefeller Commission (1975), and the HSCA (1979). That's another 30+ people that have to be part of the Conspiracy, bringing the total to 50+ for just the medical evidence.

Which is ridiculous.

[Fiver]

The FBI decided to misidentify a spy camera as a light meter. Dallas police had a photo of the camera on the blanket.

So, again you claim an utterly inept Conspiracy. The police inventory lists:
1 Stereo Realist Camera and Case
1 Small German camera and black case on chain and film
1 Russian .35 mm camera and brown case

If Oswald was a patsy, then there couldn’t have been anything incriminating on the film of any of the cameras.

If there was something incriminating on the missing camera then:
* Oswald must have been part of the Conspiracy.
* Oswald was an inept member of the Conspiracy for taking incriminating photos.
* Oswald was even more inept for not concealing incriminating evidence.
* The Conspirator sent to collect the rifle was inept for not removing the incriminating evidence.
* The Conspirator who took the camera was inept. The barely competent thing to do would be to take the film and leave the camera. The smart thing to do would be to replace the film with a new roll. Even taking the film out, exposing it, and putting it back would be less dumb than taking the camera.

That’s before we get into how would the Conspiracy know which of the three cameras to take.

Who’s running this Conspiracy – Moe, Larry, and Curly?

[Fiver]

When the Mexico City recordings were listen to, it was realized the Mexico City Oswald voice was not the Dallas Oswald’s voice. Tape is “misplaced” after a typed transcript created.

Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald saw a letter LHO mailed to the Soviet Embassy in November 9. In the letter he mentioned his trip to Mexico. If Oswald didn’t make the trip, then both women, as well as the Soviet government had to be part of the Conspiracy. We have both the typed final letter and the handwritten draft. The handwriting was authenticated, which requires even more Conspirators.

That’s before we consider that the Conspiracy gains nothing from faking an Oswald trip to Mexico.

Who’s running this Conspiracy – Moe, Larry, and Curly?

[Fiver]

The FBI manipulated press coverage. The first interview of the doctors at Parkman hospital published by the Dallas Times Herald where Dr Perry describes the throat wound as an entrance wound, was NOT published as written by staff writer, Connie Kritzberg. The editor of the paper was instructed to insert the following sentence by the FBI; a doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound. The reporter listed and quoted individual doctors in the surgery. FBI sentence doesnt to name the doctor since no doctor said this. Likely it was “Dr. Hoover”

The Dallas Times Herald article said "Dr. Perry added, "It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell. It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat." The article makes it clear that the two wounds that might be from the same bullet are "Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and the right rear side of the head."

Why would the FBI, or anyone else, for that matter, insert the idea that the head wound and the neck wound were from the same bullet? If they were manipulating the press, why would they leave in "The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an exit or tangential entrance wound. A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound." or " "There were two wounds. Whether they were directly related I do not know. It was an entrance wound in the neck." or "Dr. Clark replied. "The head wound could have been either an exit or a tangential entrance wound."

Perry repeated these statements in an ABC interview that evening, that the neck wound was a "small penetrating wound that appeared to be the entrance wound." and that the head wound was a quite large one that could have been either an exit wound or a tangential wound of the skull."

The so-called manipulation of the press requires inserting a sentence that contradicts the autopsy report and leaving in five sentences that contradict the autopsy report.

Who’s running this Conspiracy – Moe, Larry, and Curly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Oswald wasn’t the gunman on the 6th floor but it was the case that our plotters were simply arranging things so that he would get accused of being that very man, how could they possibly have known, or had any control over, who was actually on that 6th floor (or any other floor for that matter) at the time of the assassination? If a shooter, that was Oswald, had intended to from that 6th floor window (as part of a conspiracy) how could the plotters possibly have known that no other workers would have been present? Alternatively, if they had just left the rifle in place to give the impression that it had been fired from that window (by Oswald) we are left with the same question, how could they possibly have known that there would not have been workers on that floor to witness that no shots were actually fired from there? So we have our conspirators relying completely on luck yet again. Who would have done that even for something relatively trivial? And if their plan was for some unknown assassin to have fired from that window, with the blame being laid at Oswald’s door, and there were workers on that floor, can we really imagine our assassin having to move from floor to floor, rifle in hand, seeking a witness-free spot from which to assassinate the President? Whichever way we look at it we are left with a conspiracy to kill the worlds most powerful man reliant on huge chunks of favourable luck. This shouldn’t be an acceptable proposition for anyone? How can this keep receiving the ‘turning a blind eye’ treatment? So what other examples of luck are our conspirators reliant upon?

That Oswald was unsuccessful in his previous job applications.

That Roy Truly hadn’t placed him in the TSBD’s other building.

That Oswald’s co-workers hadn’t elected to watch the motorcade from the 6th floor.

That no supervisor/manager had seen him and prevented him from leaving the building.

That no one accessing their car in the car park behind the Knoll had seen the gunman.

That no railway employee behind the Knoll had seen the gunman.

That no one on the knoll turned around to see the alleged gunman.

That no one saw the gunman escaping via the carpark/railway yard.

That the alleged GK gunman didn’t miss the President leaving an inexplicable bullet trajectory.

Than no one caught the alleged GK gunman on camera or movie camera.

That Jackie Kennedy chose Bethesda Hospital from the three options available to her.

That the police managed to confiscate every single piece of ‘damning’ film or footage.

That none of the policeman arriving at the Knoll saw a gunman or any evidence of one.

That Oswald didn’t ‘blab’ to the police after his arrest.

That Oswald didn’t ‘blab’ on national television at the police station.

That Oswald asked for a sweater, delaying events just enough to allow Ruby to shoot him.

That Ruby wasn’t delayed too long at the Western Union office and so be unable to kill Oswald.


These are just a few more obvious examples of the kind of luck required by our alleged conspirators and many more examples could be listed given more time and effort though and yet they’re dismissed as if these conspirators had taken a devil may care attitude to the whole escapade. It almost adds a comedic element to the affair which seems to involve a mass blindness combined with various highly skilled examples of subject-changing. People are committed to this ‘far reaching’ conspiracy theory with the plotters being able to control everything but they don’t wish to confront the obvious fact that this was an utterly useless, incompetent plan. How can this glaring anomaly not bother people?

Average people simply don’t rely on luck when planning entirely trivial events. So how many thousands of times more relevant, important and true is the statement that powerful people with untold resources to hand don’t leave to luck an event of such a magnitude.

They simply wouldn’t have done.

[Fiver]

The number of people that would have had to have been ‘in on it’ in this alleged conspiracy is off the scale. So many that it’s impossible to get close to counting them (although I’m sure that someone has attempted to at some point) - Dallas police officers, secret service agents, witnesses, CIA, FBI, the military, doctors, radiographers, photographers, ambulance men, hospital porters, nurses, ballistics experts, politicians, lawyers to name just the main ones…all in on it. All keeping their secrets and playing their parts efficiently. Can anyone honestly accept this?

You missed a few - the Soviet government, Oswald's friends and neighbors, Oswald's wife, JFK's personal physician, and possibly Jackie Kennedy herself.

All of these hundreds of conspirators have a choice - risk execution to gain nothing or betray the Conspiracy to destroy your rivals and gain world fame as a hero.

Tough choice, isn't it?

[Fiver]

There's no way LHO got off 3 shots like that.

CBS News proved it could be done in 1967. Even Oliver Stone's laughably inaccurate JFK movie has the fictional Daltex shooter get off three shots in that time.

And that's the only place it makes sense to put a second shooter. Any shot from the front requires adding 50+ people to fake all of the forensic evidence and all of the photographic evidence.

There is also a scenario whereby the sniper hit the windscreen with his 1st shot, and then had just a few seconds to take the kill shot; the bullet passing at an angle just past the driver's right side. The bullet missing Mrs Kennedy by inches.

You point out another flaw of any front shot - it has to miss every bit of the limo and every one of the occupants in front of JFK while both the vehicle and the occupants are moving in unpredictable ways. There's at best a 1-in-100 chance that the assassin even has a clear shot from the front.

LHO was then dispatched accordingly.

But LHO wasn't dispatched accordingly. Any conspiracy with the resources to get dozens of people to fake evidence could afford to provide one man to:
* Leave Oswald dead in the sniper's nest of a "self-inflicted" shot from his own pistol.
* Or gun Oswald down on site "resisting" arrest.
* Or have a car drive Oswald to a safehouse where he would disappear forever.
* Or have a car drive Oswald to a shallow grave in the desert where he would disappear forever.

Instead, Oswald has no resources to help him escape. When captured, he is allowed to talk to the press multiple times. And isn't dispatched until nearly two days after his arrest.

[cobalt]

A state assassination obviously requires highly capable intelligence assets and military trained killers- and it's perfectly correct to point out that Oswald was neither of these. But even the 'experts' sometimes get it wrong despite their apparent planning. A good example would be the botched Mossad execution in Norway around 1973. Instead of shooting dead a member of the infamous 'Black September' attack at the Munich Olympics, their faulty intelligence saw them knock off an innocent Arab restaurant waiter at a bus stop. To compound this error the 'hit squad' was swiftly flagged down by a Norwegian police car for speeding and their identity soon established. So the ingenious Mossad, originators of the car bomb, the letter bomb, the telephone bomb and most recently the pager bomb can screw things up and many of their effective assassinations had the element of good fortune inbuilt. When that good fortune does not exist they have been known to abort assassination attempts.

Regarding the JKK assassination, no one has ever been able to replicate the shots allegedly fired from the TSBD on their FIRST attempt with that type of rifle. A few good marksmen have done better after some practice shots- but then none of them were shooting the POTUS and facing imminent arrest/execution so maybe that steadied their aim.

[Fiver]

LHO, in what fragments of his police statement have emerged, made a strong case for his being in the lunch room at around 12.20.

Everyone that LHO claimed was in the lunch room with him claimed to be somewhere else or that LHO was not in the lunchroom at that time.