JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

thank you. Like you I have many books in storage. I remembered something was interesting about about the P O Box but some of the details are not in front of me.

As you know Scott, the case is a minefield of detail. There’s no way that I would just have recalled the detail exactly. I was like you, something rung a bell, then I looked online.

I actually took the plunge and got rid of all of my assassination books (except one) for reasons of space so I have to look online for details. Although I did promise myself to avoid all assassination discussion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the Bethesda autopsy probed the back wound this could well be a civil conversation. They did not.
Dr Burkley's death certificate has the wound as high back and Gerald Ford made it lower neck. The autopsy photos are amateurish. Kennedy did not receive an autopsy worthy of the most important person in the world.
As I mention earlier. ( and no one responded so I now how you feel.)
Because the body was removed from Dallas, there is no assassination crime to prosecute without a body. NO evidence from the Bethesda autopsy that would be permissible in court.

The details of the autopsy from both sides have been discussed ad infinitum. There’s little doubt that the autopsy could have been done better but that was down to circumstances and not corruption. That Kennedy was shot from behind and nowhere else is a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I await your explanation. I have never seen an explanation. I did not say Oswald was not in Mexico City.
The HSCA looked at the WC and decided that Oswald traveled to Mexico.
Fiver had made the comment that Oswald was not a spy and I said which Oswald? and offered the picture of the Mexico City mystery man. The comment that it was a mistake is a weak argument. Why is Oswald not photographed. How is Oswald not seen. (a question we add about the Ripper.) How are you sure the stocky mystery man is not a spy? Do you have a name and address? Why would they release the picture? It is public for a reason.

How do I know that this stocky man isn’t an alien? He’s just a random stocky man entirely unconnected to the case. He has been latched onto by conspiracists as a convenient tool to weave a mystery around.

[C. F. Leon]

...

I actually took the plunge and got rid of all of my assassination books (except one) for reasons of space so I have to look online for details. Although I did promise myself to avoid all assassination discussion.

Just out of curiosity, Herlock, what was the book that you kept? Asking for Science, don't you know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't doubt for one moment that Oswald as the lone gunman was the convenient conclusion, but the team set up to investigate was never advised of this.

Hi Doc,

These conspirators could, apparently, set up a working commission involving 7 of the most respected men in the country (including a head that worshipped Kennedy) plus 27 people (from different backgrounds and of a range of political leanings) working under them that was intended only to arrive at a prescribed conclusion and to avoid all other conclusions, and yet, getting a man out of Dealey Plaza was simply beyond them.

Time and again we get this in this case. Blatant contradictions receive the blind eye, the deaf ear and the silent tongue. The simple fact is that a conspiracy makes no sense. It achieved nothing. It picked the worst dupe that they could have found. It involved half of the state. It was insanely complicated. It relied on luck. I know that I’ve said this before but it’s been a source of bafflement for years watching people scooting off down rabbit-holes whilst avoiding the blatantly obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just out of curiosity, Herlock, what was the book that you kept? Asking for Science, don't you know.

Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi. The best book ever written on the case by a mile. Conspiracists utterly loathe Bugliosi whilst praising charlatans like Garrison and Lane.

"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime."

Vincent T. Bugliosi

[Fiver]

So I see no importance at all in the fact that Oswald was the only successful presidential assassin to use a rifle.

There isn't. Nor was there any importance in most of Scott's list.

[Fiver]

Fiver had made the comment that Oswald was not a spy and I said which Oswald? and offered the picture of the Mexico City mystery man. The comment that it was a mistake is a weak argument.

The photo is a mistake whether you believe in a Conspiracy or not.

Which is more credible:
* Some bureaucrat sent the wrong photo.
* A Conspiracy of hundreds that was able to provide an Oswald look-alike for the JFK and Tippit shootings didn't send him to Mexico.

Why is Oswald not photographed. How is Oswald not seen.

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.

[Fiver]

In an other thread I am being challenged about how honorable and diligent the Warren Commission is. but according to you they make errors.

You're being challenged for assuming the Warren Commission are all part of the Conspiracy. Nobody is claiming they were all diligent or never made mistakes.

Waldman Exhibit 10 shows an itemized form dated 3-13-63 for a total deposit of $13,827.98. It also shows a summary labeled EXTRA COPY for a total deposit of $13,827.98 dated 2-13-63.

Clearly one of those dates is an error.

That leaves two options:
* A bank clerk miswrote 2-13-63 once, when the actual date was 3-13-63.
* A Conspiracy with the funds to forge huge amounts of evidence lacked anyone smart enough to realize that 2 was a smaller number than 3.

[cobalt]

We have in Lee Harvey Oswald the most obviously guilty murderer in history.

That is the type of juvenile assertion which indicates a desire to close down debate. LHO was interviewed without legal representation (which he requested) and with no accurate record kept of his answers during police questioning. He was never given the opportunity to defend himself in open court. Ergo, the case against him, however strong it may appear to some on the evidence available, is simply not sufficient to support that initial claim. If 'obviously guilty murderers' could be convicted on such evidence we must have been wasting an enormous amount of money on due legal process.

Yesterday I indulged in some psychobabble that mirrors much of what is aimed at LHO. I thought it would make a change to direct it at Oswald's detractors. Here is a predictable response I received.

1) Oswald was a wife abuser.
2) Oswald abused his mother.
3) Oswald threatened multiple relatives with a knife.
4) Oswald murdered a cop who was just doing his job.
5) Oswald was a coward who shot an unarmed man in the back.

The last two points are obviously a matter of contention although the emotive language betrays the prejudices of the reply. Point 4 could have read 'murdered an armed cop' and the fact he was 'just doing his job' is probably the reason most police officers are unfortunately shot. Tippit was just doing his job when he shot a man dead a few years previously. Point 5 claims JFK was 'unarmed' which, while technically correct, rather overlooks the fact of an armed posse of guards surrounding (rather ineffectively) his limousine.
Points 1-3 are an attempt to denigrate Oswald but the supporting evidence is anecdotal. They may be correct but fall short of the certainty I can offer when saying that 'J. Edgar Hoover was not a wife abuser.' Yet the Oswald haters consider their claim to amount to proof.

Whoever and why ever an assassin shot JFK there is one fact that is surely incontrovertible: the assassin was fully aware of the political significance of shooting the POTUS. Yet the Warren Commission seemed intent on ignoring this obvious truth, as do those who prefer to go down psychological rabbit holes or prefer to examine the entrails of autopsy reports. Whatever the motivation of the assassin(s) the murder of JFK was a political act and we should not be distracted from that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You say that points 4 and 5 are obviously matter of contention Cobalt. I disagree strongly. I believe that these two have been proven beyond all doubt and that it’s close to impossible to read the evidence against Oswald and even consider using the word innocent for a second. He was guilty. Absolutely 100%, rock solid, take-it-to-the-back clearly obviously guilty. There is no true crime that I’ve read about over the last 40 years or so of my life where I have been so utterly convinced of a persons guilt. And I believe that Oswald is guilty because of a mountain of evidence Cobalt. Real, solid evidence which cannot be dismissed with speculative fantasy simply to conform to the script that has been formed by the CT ‘community’ over the years.

How many cases can you name where such an endless tissue of excuses is given in an attempt to exonerate this blatantly guilt man? How many cases do we see where every single detail is excused by preposterous suggestions. Fingerprints - planted, palm print - planted, cartridges - planted, photographs - faked, documents - forged, x-rays - faked. It has about as much validity as someone suggesting “well it could have happened like that if Mr X could fly.” It’s the equivalent of sticking fingers in ears and shouting blah, blah, blah.

We know what kind of person Oswald was because the people that actually knew him have told us. That he was a wife beater is a matter of record. That he was a traitor is a matter of record. That he never provided properly for his children is a matter of record and yet you somehow manage to see something ‘admirable’ in this man. Noble, even. I see him for what he was. A lowlife that escaped justice. A categorically proven double-murderer.

Oswald attempted to kill Governor Walker. He had to be locked in a room to prevent him from shooting Nixon. He defected to the countries most dangerous enemy and promised to give away secrets to the Soviets. He killed President Kennedy and Officer Tippit. This man was a lowlife and yet people treat him like Lincoln.

….

No conspirators would have used Oswald. Not a single, solitary chance. They would have laughed out loud if someone had said “what about this guy?”

No conspirators would have come up with this pathetic Goon Show episode of a plot.

When trying to solve a crime all that can be done is to follow the evidence. As opposed to looking for the most complex/interesting/ agenda-suitable outcome.

[cobalt]

I accept that you disagree and am open to the possibility you maybe correct. It is not your opinion that I find problematic, it is the '100%' certainty of your opinion. This dogmatic approach detracts from your arguments in my opinion and betrays an underlying insecurity. To say something is 'a matter of record' is not the same as evidence, tested in an open court. Otherwise Elon Musk, as he cuts a swathe through bureaucratic niceties, could use your services in gutting the legal system.

Yesterday I stated that Oswald had been impersonated on three occasions and was told I was wrong. I will identify the three occasions best I can from memory. The first source was J. Edgar Hoover back in 1959 when Oswald had already decamped for Moscow and was exiled to Belarus. Hoover wrote a memo that to his displeasure, someone in the USA was using Oswald's name. The second occasion was connected to hiring a vehicle to transport weapons intended for Cuba. I have no memory of this source but presumably it came from FBI files. The last, and most interesting impersonation, comes from Mexico City obviously - a matter of weeks before the assassination. (This impersonation is distinct from the possible misidentification by Sylvia Odio, which in itself I think contradicts the Mexico City narrative.) According to J. Edgar Hoover, in a telephone conversation with the newly inaugurated LBJ, someone had been impersonating Oswald, specifically in an intercepted phone call to the Soviet Embassy.

J. Edgar Hoover was a professional liar as his job remit required him to be, but I don't think it is accurate to say that LHO was not being impersonated. According to the US state he was, albeit with the proviso in my earlier sentence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cobalt I would honestly go higher than 100% if it was mathematically possible. It’s simply impossible that Oswald was innocent. I could keep producing the massive list of evidence but it just gets dismissed. How much evidence does anyone need in any case.

Behaviour just before the murder - changed his day, refused to discuss Kennedy despite their regular political discussions, leaves his wedding ring, leaves $175, takes a large package to work, doesn’t walk into the building with Frazier as he did every other day, pretends to his coworkers that he’s ignorant of Kennedy’s visit.

Now, just consider the above (yes, I realise that you know the facts as well as I do) but how can that not be the action of a man who is up to something. Of a man who doesn’t expect to see his wife and children any time soon. And with that package and the fact of the 6th floor where he was working - how can Oswald be innocent? It’s like finding a man in a locked room with a dismembered corpse and a knife in his hand claiming his innocence. This is LHO acting about as guiltily as could possibly be.

Then - gun that was known to have been at the Paine’s found missing, that gun found on the 6th floor, Oswald’s prints are on it as well as the packaging and two boxes. The three cartridges/bullets match the gun to the exclusion of all others. This was the murder weapon and it was bought by Oswald. He’s seen at the window (not a perfect ID as Fiver has said, but pretty damn close considering the distance. How is this man innocent.

After the shooting he’s the only guy to leave the building, he walks past his bus stop, gets a bit which requires a sizeable walk to his rooming house, gets a change ticket and leaves the bus, takes a taxi and ignores the driver, jumps out of the taxi a distance from his rooming house, walks away then turns around and walks back, ignores Earlene Roberts, picks up his pistol, passes a spot where a police officer is shot. Multiple witnesses ID him and the gun that he’s eventually caught with is proven to have been the one that killed Tippit to the exclusion of all others. And he bought it!

Where is the possibility for innocence Cobalt? What has to happen is that every single point has to be nitpicked at to try and weaken or dismiss. Do you really think that our conspirators would have come up with a plan so convoluted that they had to fake every single one of the points that I’ve mentioned above? Who would do that? Who would avoid the simple, obvious, almost risk-free and effective plan that I suggested in favour of a massively complex one where they had to retrospectively ‘fit up’ Oswald by adding false prints, setting him up as Tippit’s killer etc. Nothing about conspiracy holds water.

If someone looks like a murderer, sounds like a murderer and acts like a murderer then the chances are that they are a murderer. LHO really couldn’t look more guilty and there’s no way on earth that conspirators would have gone along with this labyrinthine, luck-dependant, suicidally risky plan that they didn’t need in the first place.

It’s as simple as this - would these conspirators have used this man and this plan? Answer - no.

That should have been everyone’s conclusion 60 years ago and the USA would have been spared this endless self-torture.

[cobalt]

I think Oswald was certainly 'up to something.' But if you remove the political dimension to the killing of a President- and LHO was a political animal as you acknowledge- then you are left with a collection of evidence (much of it circumstantial) and no clear motive as the Warren Commission concluded.

The small sample of evidence you offered (I appreciate there is a great deal more) has been considered over the years- in many cases 'nit picked' is probably a fair description- and a fair number have found it unconvincing. The reasons for that have been well aired over the years and will be well known to us both. In general CTs consider that the witness evidence is weak (the Oswald ID parades are an example of this,) susceptible to coercion (the black employees of the TSBD, Marina) or implausible (Brewer, Paine.) As far as forensic evidence is concerned there are two main issues. The first is Oswald (the man who gets impersonated a bit) being 'sheep dipped' by the intelligence agencies ahead of the crime. Thereafter it is less a case of a massive conspiracy but seeing the break in the chain of evidence as offering opportunities to fine tune an acceptable narrative for the greater political good.

On both sides of the argument we are tempted into blurring assumptions, with claims, with facts. We wouldn't progress very far in debate if we didn't do this but we have to remember the distinctions between these things. For example you cannot know that LHO collected a revolver from his rooming house any more than I know that LHO was part of a Cold War fake defector scheme, no matter how adamant we are that common sense suggests exactly that.

The conspiracy theory cannot be discounted: that possibility died in a Dallas Police station when LHO was denied the right to answer the crimes laid against him, and then was subsequently gunned down in that very same building which prevented him standing trial. The fact that government archives remain secret after 60 years is hardly likely to encourage CTs to shift their opinion.

[Patrick Differ]

Oswald was innocent until proven guilty but since he never went to trial he is technically innocent. There was never a trial. Perhaps the release of documents will reveal the truth somehow, because there was a reason to withold documents.
Oswald and Ruby had connections to the Chicago Mob and Oswald wasnt going to be allowed to testify. Doesn't mean Oswald wasn't a shooter. It was a perfect kill zone and that can't just be discounted in my opinion.