JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Abby Normal]

The Walker point is a good one Abby. Oswald had form. And let’s not forget that Oswald was well known in the Dallas Russian emigre community and when those emigres were asked if Oswald was the kind of person that would do something like kill the President many of them said yes absolutely. At the time even Marina said that she was sure that he was guilty. It was only after hearing years of conspiracy talk that she saw a way of ‘wiping away the stain’ by saying that she believed he was innocent.

I totally understand caution on this subject Abby. For years I leaned heavily toward conspiracy. After all there is so much there. So many theories. So many ‘witnesses.’ So many claiming to be assassins.

Yes, but also the times were crazy, there was many tangled webs, our deep state was involved in many nefarious things, Kennedy had a lot of powerful enemies.
In other words it was a hot mess!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but also the times were crazy, there was many tangled webs, our deep state was involved in many nefarious things, Kennedy had a lot of powerful enemies.
In other words it was a hot mess!

It certainly was Abby. The Bay Of Pigs made him many enemies. Then there was the missile crisis and Bobby’s actions against the Mafia.

To be honest I’m surprised that someone hasn’t implicated Jackie in some way! She gets tired of his womanising...blah blah.

[Abby Normal]

It certainly was Abby. The Bay Of Pigs made him many enemies. Then there was the missile crisis and Bobby’s actions against the Mafia.

To be honest I’m surprised that someone hasn’t implicated Jackie in some way! She gets tired of his womanising...blah blah.

Speaking of womanizing , he was apparently having an affair with a mob bosses mistress!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Speaking of womanizing , he was apparently having an affair with a mob bosses mistress!

She was called Judith Exner. If I remember correctly she and JFK had an ‘affair’ that went on for quite a while. I think it started when JFK was still a senator.
I don’t know if you use this phrase in the USA Abby but old JFK certainly liked to ‘put it about.’

[jason_c]

The withheld documents from this latest batch will now be released minus names and addresses of those still living.

[Harry D]

And that’s the best you can come up with Harry?

Why would his sister lie? Unless she was a CIA stooge of course!

Why would he sacrifice his freedom for a Mafia contract then?

Why didn’t he mention any plot when he was in custody? I mean specifically?

Again I’ll point you to the events of this ‘mob hit.’ The Western Union, the distracted policeman, Oswald and his jacket. How can any sane person see this as an organised hit. It’s laughable drivel. There is ample evidence of Ruby being unbalanced from people who actually knew him. This is a guy who had a dog that he called ‘his wife!’ And this is the guy that the Mafia selected to eliminate Oswald? You couldn’t make this tripe up. Oh...someone did.

You dodged the question, and it's a perfectly valid one.

You want us to believe that Jack Ruby was a JFK fanboy who murdered Oswald out of vengeance for his fallen idol and sacrificed his freedom. And unbelievably Ruby didn't take one of the rare opportunities to see the President live in the flesh? You don't think those two statements are incongruous?

Who cares if Ruby was a dog lover? Is that a unique characteristic? Maybe his sister bent the truth or was mistaken? It's not like family members are the most reliable character witnesses in high-profile murder cases. You want to portray Ruby as just some loony acting on his own impulses. Just like the WC wanted to portray Oswald as some lone nut chasing fame (even though Oswald never admitted to it). The most powerful figurehead in the world is assassinated in broad daylight, a man who had made many enemies both inside and outside of the state, and yet the assassin, and the assassin's assassin were acting completely alone, all tied up in a neat little bow. Very convenient.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You dodged the question, and it's a perfectly valid one.

I didn’t ‘dodge’ the question Harry. There could have been any number of reasons why he didn’t go to see Kennedy. He had a business to run for a start.

You want us to believe that Jack Ruby was a JFK fanboy who murdered Oswald out of vengeance for his fallen idol and sacrificed his freedom. And unbelievably Ruby didn't take one of the rare opportunities to see the President live in the flesh? You don't think those two statements are incongruous?

I don’t want you to believe anything Harry. I just want to avoid obsessive conspiracy theorist thinking. What is so unbelievable in the fact the some unbalanced person killed the guy who killed someone that he admired? It’s happened before and it will happen again. There are verifiable people who actually knew Ruby who said how unbalanced a person he was. Then you can add the even greater weight of the testimony of his sister. But you would rather say ‘well they would say that wouldn’t they.’ Or ‘well they were part of the conspiracy too.’ In most cases the simplest answers, the ones that fit the known facts, are most likely to be true.

Who cares if Ruby was a dog lover? Is that a unique characteristic? Maybe his sister bent the truth or was mistaken? It's not like family members are the most reliable character witnesses in high-profile murder cases. You want to portray Ruby as just some loony acting on his own impulses. Just like the WC wanted to portray Oswald as some lone nut chasing fame (even though Oswald never admitted to it). The most powerful figurehead in the world is assassinated in broad daylight, a man who had made many enemies both inside and outside of the state, and yet the assassin, and the assassin's assassin were acting completely alone, all tied up in a neat little bow. Very convenient.

‘Very convenient.’ Conspiracy theorists should have that little phrase made into a badge. Only in ‘conspiracy world’ can the fact that evidence supports events be considered a bad thing. ‘It Can’t be true because all the facts fit.’
It’s pretty impossible to debate any subjects when one side takes the approach that a) if there’s no evidence for a conspiracy it’s because it’s been hidden so well and b) if there’s a mountain of evidence for something that doesn’t support the idea of a conspiracy then that’s ‘very convenient.’ With that approach anything can be true.

Harry I’m definately no expert on this subject. For a period I read quite a few books on the subject. I favoured some form of conspiracy/cover-up. Reading Posner made me think ‘maybe there was no conspiracy?’ Then I read Bugliosi. I don’t see how anyone who has read that book could fail to be impressed by the minutely detailed research that he carried out on all aspects of the case (including conspiracies.) It’s calm, logical and reasoned in its approach and execution. He concludes that JFK was killed by Oswald alone and Oswald, in turn, was killed by Ruby alone. I agree.
If someone comes up with evidence to prove any form of conspiracy I’ll simply say ‘ok so I was wrong.’ I won’t lose sleep over it. Until then I’ll stick with the evidence because that’s all that should count.

[Abby Normal]

She was called Judith Exner. If I remember correctly she and JFK had an ‘affair’ that went on for quite a while. I think it started when JFK was still a senator.
I don’t know if you use this phrase in the USA Abby but old JFK certainly liked to ‘put it about.’

yes he did.

if that alone isn't enough to get bumped off, many in the mafia were extremely pissed off at JFK for what they saw as betraying them. Because they felt they helped him win the election (securing crucial Chicago/Illinois) and now he and his brother were aggressively targeting them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

yes he did.

if that alone isn't enough to get bumped off, many in the mafia were extremely pissed off at JFK for what they saw as betraying them. Because they felt they helped him win the election (securing crucial Chicago/Illinois) and now he and his brother were aggressively targeting them.

I remember reading about the, shall we say, less-than-above-board way those votes were acquired. Wasn’t Daddy Joe involved in some way?

[Wickerman]

Sam Giancana & the Kennedy's were close. It was believed Giancana helped swing the vote for Kennedy by intimidating union officials to elect him President.
Joseph Kennedy had been a Bootlegger, that is when his relationship began with Sam Giancana.
I don't find it surprising in the least that any possible Mob involvement in the assassination has been well and truly covered up.

[Wickerman]

..... It’s calm, logical and reasoned in its approach and execution. He concludes that JFK was killed by Oswald alone and Oswald, in turn, was killed by Ruby alone. I agree.
....

I'd like to read the book by Bugliosi, it's just I have read so much about different Mob figures and their connections & grievances with Jack & Bobby that to brush them aside as if they played no role whatsoever in favor of this wannabee nobody seems too superficial, and unrealistic.

I have to keep reminding myself of the basic question, 'is the evidence we find all that exists, or is it what we are supposed to find?'

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd like to read the book by Bugliosi, it's just I have read so much about different Mob figures and their connections & grievances with Jack & Bobby that to brush them aside as if they played no role whatsoever in favor of this wannabee nobody seems too superficial, and unrealistic.

I have to keep reminding myself of the basic question, 'is the evidence we find all that exists, or is it what we are supposed to find?'

I can understand that Jon. I could be wrong, Bugliosi could be wrong, many think he is including this guy.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18154488-reclaiming-parkland

I’d like to read it but....to be honest I’m not quite as interested in the case as I used to be, and it’s such a minefield.

You should read the Bugliosi book but the issue is that you’d need to take 6 months out of your life to do it! I’m surprised to see that you can get it from AbeBooks (good supplier) for £18! I can get Reclaiming Parkland for £13. Maybe I’ll be tempted

All I can say is that it’s hard to believe that someone would spend over 20 years researching just to suppress evidence. I’ve read 40+ conspiracy books and 2 (maybe 3) that are pro-lone gunman and it’s the lone gunman ones that seem better researched and less reliant on the evidence of criminals, weirdo’s or proven liars. I’m certain that some who favour conspiracy feel that other (wackier) conspiracy theorists have harmed their cause. Garrison did much harm too.
Now I’m tempted to get that new book. But if I do where will it end? Will it end? If it was LBJ on the Grassy Knoll will it change my life?

[Wickerman]

...... Just like the WC wanted to portray Oswald as some lone nut chasing fame (even though Oswald never admitted to it). The most powerful figurehead in the world is assassinated in broad daylight, a man who had made many enemies both inside and outside of the state, and yet the assassin, and the assassin's assassin were acting completely alone, all tied up in a neat little bow. Very convenient.

I agree with this reasoning. If we take one example, like the mob they had any number of motives, but we see no opportunity. As opposed to Oswald, who had all the opportunity, but no motive.
Why did he do it?
If it was some grand gesture (hands off Cuba, etc?) then why wasn't he screaming his justification in front of the camera's?
Oswald didn't look pompous, or condescending, like he did it for the better good, no, he looked worried and confused if anything.

https://youtu.be/3n9VQ-dXrwQ

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Oswald was set up why didn’t he just say it. Why keep quiet?

If Oswald was part of an assassination team why was there no escape plan? Surely whoever organised such a thing would have said ‘don’t worry we’ll help you escape?’ And if they simply lied and Oswald was left to escape by buses and taxis then surely the conspirators would have known that it would have meant that Oswald’s ‘loyalty’ to them would have been over? He’d have talked.

How would they have convinced Oswald to take part?

They surely wouldn’t have left him free to talk on the off chance that he’d keep quiet until they could find an opportunity to bump him off?

Doesn’t add up for me.

[Harry D]

Oswald said he was a “patsy”.