JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

John Haigh is interesting. However, we are talking about the chain of evidence is broken. So evidence is not admissible.

But the chain of evidence was not broken. Didn't you read what you quoted?

"Dr Earl Rose confronted SS stating, " Texas state law requires the autopsy to be performed in Texas" In a 1992 interview published in thevJournal of the American Medical Association[, Rose said, "The law was broken" and that "[a] Texas autopsy would have assured a tight chain of custody on all the evidence."

Dr Rose said the law was broken by removing the body, not that the chain of custody was broken. Dr Rose said that Texas autopsy would have assured a tight chain of custody, not that there was no chain of custody because the body was removed.

When the Humes called the Dallas doctors they implored him to track the neck wound. Something Humes did not do.

Perhaps you should read Dr Hume's testimony. He consulted with the Parkland doctors about what the neck wound looked like before tracheotomy and examined the wound himself.

Mr. SPECTER - What did your examination of the Parkland Hospital records disclose with respect to this wound on the front side of the President's body?
Commander HUMES - The examination of this record from Parkland Hospital revealed that Doctor Perry had observed this wound as had other physicians in attendance upon the President, and actually before a tracheotomy, was performed surgically, an endotracheal tube was placed through the President's mouth and down his larynx and into his trachea which is the first step in giving satisfactory airway to a person injured in such fashion and unconscious.
The President was unconscious and it is most difficult to pass such a tube when the person is unconscious.
The person who performed that procedure, that is instilled the endotrachea tube noted that there was a wound of the trachea below the larynx, which corresponded in essence with the wound of the skin which they had observed from the exterior.
Mr. SPECTER - How is that wound described, while you are mentioning the wound?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - I think you will find that on the first page of the summary sheet, Dr. Humes.
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. Thank you. This report was written by doctor--or the activities of Dr. James Carrico, Doctor Carrico in inserting the endotracheal tube noted a ragged wound of trachea immediately below the larynx.
The report, as I recall it, and I have not studied it in minute detail, would indicate to me that Doctor Perry realizing from Doctor Carrico's observation that there was a wound of the trachea would quite logically use the wound which he had observed as a point to enter the trachea since the trachea was almost damaged, that would be a logical place in which to put his incision.
In speaking of that wound in the neck, Doctor Perry told me that before he enlarged it to make the tracheotomy wound it was a "few millimeters in diameter."
Of course by the time we saw it, as my associates and as you have heard, it was considerably larger and no longer at all obvious as a missile wound.
The report states, and Doctor Perry told me in telephone conversation that there was bubbling of air and blood in the vicinity of this wound when he made the tracheotomy. This caused him to believe that perhaps there had been a violation of one of the one or other of the pleural cavities by a missile. He, therefore, asked one of his associates, and the record is to me somewhat confused as to which of his associates, he asked one of his associates to put in a chest tube. This is a maneuver which is, was quite logical under the circumstances, and which would, if a tube that were placed through all layers of the wall of the chest, and the chest cavity had been violated one could remove air that had gotten in there and greatly assist respiration.
So when we examined the President in addition to the large wound which we found in conversation with Doctor Perry was the tracheotomy wound, there were two smaller wounds on the upper anterior chest.
Mr. DULLES - These are apparently exit wounds?
Commander HUMES - Sir, these were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on either side of the chest, and I will give them in somewhat greater detail.
These wounds were bilateral, they were situated on the anterior chest wall in the nipple line, and each were 2 cm. long in the transverse axis. The one on the right was situated 11 cm. above the nipple the one on the left was situated 11 cm. on the nipple, and the one on the right was 8 cm. above the nipple. Their intention was to incise through the President's chest to place tubes into his chest.
We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however, did not enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin. I presume that as they were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and they didn't pursue this.
To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest, I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior portion of the chest.
We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea.
At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy.
There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles.
The muscles in this area of the body run roughly, as you see as he depicted them here. We have removed some of them for a point I will make in a moment, but it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemmorhage or other massive injury in this portion of the neck.
In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact. no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest.
It was completely intact.

[Fiver]

Tippit was just doing his job when he shot a man dead a few years previously.

And Oswald murdered a cop. Don't you see the difference?

In 1956, man had the gun in Tippit's face and pulled the trigger before Tippit and his partner could draw. Oswald at least knew to have the safety off before he murdered a cop.

Points 1-3 are an attempt to denigrate Oswald but the supporting evidence is anecdotal.

Calling out a wife abuser for abusing his wife is not denigrating the abuser.

Marina Oswald said LHO abused her. Oswald's own mother saw a black eye that LHO gave Marina, but said she deserved it. Oswald's brother Robert saw Marina with a black eye that LHO gave her. So did Anna Meller. And George Bouhe. And Elena Hall. And Mahlon Tobias. Alex Kleinerer saw LHO slap his wife in the face.

And those are all separate incidents. Lee Harvey Oswald repeatedly smacked his wife around.

[Fiver]

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.

Perhaps you should look at actual Presidential assassination attempts. All of them would have had political consequences, but not all of them had political motivations.

* Lawrence thought killing Jackson would let him inherit two non-existent British estates.
* Guiteau did not disagree with any of Garfield's policies, he wanted patronage for actions that only existed in Guiteau's head.
* Schrank believed a ghost told him to kill Theodore Roosevelt.
* Bremer just wanted to kills somebody famous.
* Fromme doesn't appear to have had any reason.
* Hinkley was trying to impress an actress.
* Duran doesn't appear to have had any reason.
* Ortega-Hernandez thought Obama was the anti-Christ.
* Shannon Richardson was trying to frame her husband for murder.
* Crooks just wanted to kill someone famous.

And several of the politically motivated attempts were pretty divorced from reality. Collazo and Torresola somehow thought killing Truman would lead to Puerto Rican independence.

[Fiver]

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 law doesn't care about motive, they care about evidence. Evidence for Oswald's murder of Tippit is a slam dunk for conviction.

Evidence for Oswald's murder of JFK is not as strong, but well beyond a reasonable doubt.

* Printing on order coupon for the rifle matched Oswald.
* Printing on order envelope for the rifle matched Oswald.
* Printing on money order for the rifle matched Oswald.
* Handwriting for the application of the PO Box the rifle was shipped to matched Oswald.
* Handwriting for change of address form for that PO Box matched Oswald.
* On arrest, Oswald was carrying a forged Selective Service notice of classification with the name the rifle was ordered under.
* On arrest, Oswald was carrying a forged Marine certificate of service with the name the rifle was ordered under.
* Oswald's photos of himself with the rifle.
* Marina Oswald's testimony that she took the pictures.
* Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony about Oswald bringing the package to work that day.
* Linnie Mae Randle's testimony about Oswald bringing the package to work that day.
* Fibers found on the rifle matched Oswald's shirt.
* Right palm print on stock of the rifle.
* Right middle and ring finger prints on trigger guard.
* Left index finger and palm prints on paper bag.
* Right palm print on box in snipers nest.
* Right index finger print on another box in sniper's nest.
* Left palm print on corner of third box in sniper's nest.
* Howard L. Brennan's description of the shooter.
* Ronald Fischer's description of the shooter.
* Robert Edwards's description of the shooter.
* Oswald was the only person to leave the Book Depository immediately after the shooting.

[scottnapa]

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.

I am sure this is a well meant statement. There is a tendency on the posts here to react to WC criticism as meaning they were compliant with a larger conspiracy.
The agenda of the Commission was political, as you know the State of Texas was set to open a board of inquiry to look into the crime and Johnson did not want that.
Most would point to the Katzenbach Memo as a clear sense of focus for the politically charged DOJ. This memo send one day after the murder of Oswald on television.
With Oswald murdered, there is no evidentiary trial to convict Oswald. He therefore must be convicted in the court of public opinion.
The memo states "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large and evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." Katzenbach has advocated a political course. Oswald was a Communist sympathizer with Russian wife. Katzenbach is concerned about how ugly it looked in the press. "A vast communist conspiracy" was a common political statement. Communists and conspiracy were wedded together in the American political consciousness. Katzenbach has no proof of a conspiracy or and no proof conspiracy. No one does on the 25th. It is a political solution to a criminal act.
Extraordinary, this about face, when we remember the McCarthy outbursts claiming Communist conspirators were secretly seeded in the US government is very much a right wing talking point 1963, Oswald the Castro admirer, is transformed publicly to a "definitely not conspiring" lone nut Communist.
Some interpret the K Memo as evidence of a Government conspiracy to kill JFK. It is not. It is proof that politics touches every corner of the investigation. And it makes it fair game to judge for ourselves to what degree political decisions have influenced the WC.

The other quote is from the book Making of the President 1964. Manchester is on the airplane with Johnson. It Just after 3 pm on the day of Kennedy's assassination. The White House Command Center reaches the airplane and tells Johnson that Lee Oswald is arrested and there is no conspiracy. Tippet murder is at 1:15 pm. The Katzenbach Memo is often brought up in discussions, , but the quote from Manchester is not well known at all. i easily understand that a JFK reader would not be interested in Johnson. The more one looks the more one finds.

[scottnapa]

But the chain of evidence was not broken. Didn't you read what you quoted?

"Dr Earl Rose confronted SS stating, " Texas state law requires the autopsy to be performed in Texas" In a 1992 interview published in thevJournal of the American Medical Association[, Rose said, "The law was broken" and that "[a] Texas autopsy would have assured a tight chain of custody on all the evidence."

Dr Rose said the law was broken by removing the body, not that the chain of custody was broken. Dr Rose said that Texas autopsy would have assured a tight chain of custody, not that there was no chain of custody because the body was removed.

here is wikipedia . on Dr Rose as stated eariler
On November 22, 1963, Rose was in his office at Parkland Memorial Hospital across the corridor from Trauma Room 1 when he received word that Kennedy was pronounced dead.^[4] He walked across the corridor to the trauma room occupied by Jacqueline Kennedy and a priest who had been called in to administer last rites.^[4] There, Rose was met by Secret Service agent Roy Kellermanand Kennedy's personal physician George Burkley who told him that there was no time for an autopsy because Mrs. Kennedy would not leave Dallas without her husband's body which was to be delivered promptly to the airport.^[4]

At the time of the assassination, the murder of a United States President was not a federal crime.^[2] Rose objected, insisting that Texas law required him to perform a post-mortem examination prior to the removal of the body.^[2][4] A heated exchange ensued as he argued with Kennedy's aides.^[2][4] Kennedy's body was placed in a casket and, accompanied by Mrs. Kennedy, rolled down the corridor on a gurney.^[4] Rose was reported to have stood in a hospital doorway, backed by a policeman, in an attempt to prevent the removal of the coffin.<sup>[2][4]

Note the words: "prior to the removal of the body," The body is evidence. The evidence is removed from custody it is no longer evidence. Feel free to ask someone here with the law-enforcement experience maybe they can explain it to you if not, there is a Wikipedia quote</sup>
"When evidence can be used in court to convict people of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been "planted" fraudulently to make someone appear guilty."

[cobalt]

Politics lie at the heart of the JFK assassination and the WC supporters are in denial of this. Maybe the political arrangement that ensued was to their liking.

Writing lists is not evidence; it is merely bald assertion. Oswald avowed (whether genuinely or under instruction) a political motivation from 1959, therefore it is ostrich head in the sand logic to assume, if guilty, he did not have a political motivation. If some other person carried out the deed then we could argue about their motivation; but with Oswald it is a 'slam dunk.' He was a declared political animal.

My own view is that he was not guilty, and the attempts to denigrate his character are a back handed acknowledgement of this, in an ad hominem sort of way. His mother never believed he was guilty of the crime of shooting the president and believed he was working in some capacity for the CIA. His wife Marina's latest view, so far as I am aware, is that her husband Lee was not responsible for shooting JFK. These are two women who he allegedly abused, such actions supposedly earmarking him in some FBI profiler way as a presidential assassin. I don't know about the opinions of the other wider family/friends who piled in to blacken his character after his death.

Every time the apologists for the WC attack Oswald's character they reveal the weakness of the case against him. There would be no need to otherwise.

[scottnapa]

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.

Lock, the CIA gave the photo to the WC. Somebody knows his name. Someone knows why he was there.
You do not and I do not. I would take issue with your comment "he is entirely unconnected to the case."
It may be a false flag operation, It may be a person who is following Oswald. The CIA took the photograph.
Why wouldn't we assume that the CIA was interested in this person and what he was doing. Did the CIA make a mistakes? Sure. I think the CA is also very good at doing something that looks like a mistake that isn't a mistake. A leek is always leeked for a reason.
Regardless there should have been a picture of Oswald and there isn't one. This is Communist embassy -- A house of spies who are spied upon.

You may conclude that you know all you need to know about this person. However he is an x factor. You feel he is entirely unconnected to the case. but that is unproven.

[Fiver]

The use of the rifle implies a desire to escape, hence the distance from Kennedy. Oswald could have taken a handgun to the Trade Mart or Love Field and indeed that is why most assassins chose a concealed weapon, to get close to the target. Ruby was not going to miss.

Getting close to the target when there is crowd is usually a recipe for failure.

Ruby only got one shot off before he was grabbed. The shot killing Oswald was pure luck.

* Guiteau made two shots, put the pistol away, and started to walk off. Garfield died because the wound became infected.
* Czolgosz got off only two shots before a member of the crowd stopped him. McKinley died because the wound became infected.
* Schrank only got off one shot before Roosevelt's stenographer stopped him. Roosevelt was hit, but survived.
* Zangara got off five shots, but because a woman grabbed him they all missed FDR.
* Fromme was grabbed before she got a shot off.
* Moore got off two shots, neither hitting the target and she was grabbed by a member of the crowd.
* Hinckley got off six shots before a members of the crowd stopped him. He only hit Reagan because of a lucky ricochet.

So for US Presidents where the would be assassin was using a pistol to hide in the crowd:
* Three times the target wasn't hit.
* Once the target was by a ricochet, but survived.
* Once the target was hit directly, but survived.
* Twice the target was hit directly, but died of infection.

And 6 of 7 times someone in the crowd intervened to stop the assassin or at least keep them from getting off more shots.

[C. F. Leon]

Getting close to the target when there is crowd is usually a recipe for failure.

Ruby only got one shot off before he was grabbed. The shot killing Oswald was pure luck.

* Guiteau made two shots, put the pistol away, and started to walk off. Garfield died because the wound became infected.
* Czolgosz got off only two shots before a member of the crowd stopped him. McKinley died because the wound became infected.
* Schrank only got off one shot before Roosevelt's stenographer stopped him. Roosevelt was hit, but survived.
* Zangara got off five shots, but because a woman grabbed him they all missed FDR.
* Fromme was grabbed before she got a shot off.
* Moore got off two shots, neither hitting the target and she was grabbed by a member of the crowd.
* Hinckley got off six shots before a members of the crowd stopped him. He only hit Reagan because of a lucky ricochet.

So for US Presidents where the would be assassin was using a pistol to hide in the crowd:
* Three times the target wasn't hit.
* Once the target was by a ricochet, but survived.
* Once the target was hit directly, but survived.
* Twice the target was hit directly, but died of infection.

And 6 of 7 times someone in the crowd intervened to stop the assassin or at least keep them from getting off more shots.

A couple of points:
- Richard Lawrence had two pistols, BOTH of which misfired (powder got damp on a wet day). He was subdued by Jackson who clobbered him with his cane.
- The main reason for Zangara's (FDR) bad aim was that he was standing on a folding chair that wobbled. Even so, he was able to hit Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak & 4 other bystanders.
- The Puerto Ricans killed a security guard.
- Beck (Nixon) killed the co-pilot of the plane and also shot a cop/security guard.
- If I recall correctly, Fromme (Ford #1) got a shot off, but the gun misfired. She didn't shoot a second time, but just stood there looking at the gun, saying over and over "It didn't fire."
- Moore (Ford #2) was stopped by a Marine that was next to her that knew how to stick his hand to prevent the firing pin from making contact.
- Hinkley hit 3 people other than Reagan, including a cop and a Secret Service agent in addition to Reagan and James Brady, whose death years later was a consequence of the brain injury.
- IIRC, both Sirhan and Bremer incurred collateral victims.

- CFL

[Doctored Whatsit]

I am sure this is a well meant statement. There is a tendency on the posts here to react to WC criticism as meaning they were compliant with a larger conspiracy.
The agenda of the Commission was political, as you know the State of Texas was set to open a board of inquiry to look into the crime and Johnson did not want that.
Most would point to the Katzenbach Memo as a clear sense of focus for the politically charged DOJ. This memo send one day after the murder of Oswald on television.
With Oswald murdered, there is no evidentiary trial to convict Oswald. He therefore must be convicted in the court of public opinion.
The memo states "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large and evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." Katzenbach has advocated a political course. Oswald was a Communist sympathizer with Russian wife. Katzenbach is concerned about how ugly it looked in the press. "A vast communist conspiracy" was a common political statement. Communists and conspiracy were wedded together in the American political consciousness. Katzenbach has no proof of a conspiracy or and no proof conspiracy. No one does on the 25th. It is a political solution to a criminal act.
Extraordinary, this about face, when we remember the McCarthy outbursts claiming Communist conspirators were secretly seeded in the US government is very much a right wing talking point 1963, Oswald the Castro admirer, is transformed publicly to a "definitely not conspiring" lone nut Communist.
Some interpret the K Memo as evidence of a Government conspiracy to kill JFK. It is not. It is proof that politics touches every corner of the investigation. And it makes it fair game to judge for ourselves to what degree political decisions have influenced the WC.

The other quote is from the book Making of the President 1964. Manchester is on the airplane with Johnson. It Just after 3 pm on the day of Kennedy's assassination. The White House Command Center reaches the airplane and tells Johnson that Lee Oswald is arrested and there is no conspiracy. Tippet murder is at 1:15 pm. The Katzenbach Memo is often brought up in discussions, , but the quote from Manchester is not well known at all. i easily understand that a JFK reader would not be interested in Johnson. The more one looks the more one finds.

1). Yes, beyond doubt, officialdom wanted a verdict that Oswald was a lone gunman. That has never been disputed.

2). The commission team investigating were never steered in that direction. In fact, several of them admitted that at the start they believed that there must have been a conspiracy, but changed their minds as they investigated, as they found no evidence. The point I was making was that the team never at any time set out to reach the lone gunman conclusion. It was reached as the most likely conclusion after a genuine detailed investigation.

3). That there was a conspiracy, for which no evidence was discovered, or discovered but concealed by the CIA or FBI is certainly possible, but unproven.

[FISHY1118]

Connally’s testimony: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.135f. He was quoted in the Washington Post, 21 November 1966, saying that “there is my absolute knowledge that … one bullet caused the president’s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind.” It was Connally’s testimony that persuaded one of the Warren Commissioners, Senator Richard Russell, that the single–bullet theory was untenable; see Richard Russell and the Warren Report [ Connally must have surely lied again]


Johnson to Russell Phone Call Transcript

18 September, 1964

Russell : That danged Warren Commission business, it whupped me down so. We got through today. You know what I did? I … got on the plane and came home. I didn’t even have a toothbrush. I didn’t bring a shirt. … Didn’t even have my pills, antihistamine pills to take care of my emphysema.

Johnson : Why did you get in such a rush?

Russell : Well, I was just worn out, fighting over that damned report.

Johnson : Well, you ought to have taken another hour and gone to get your clothes.

Russell : No, no. They were trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, into his leg and everything else. Just a lot of stuff there. I hadn’t, couldn’t, didn’t hear all the evidence and cross–examine all of them. But I did read the record … I was the only fellow there that … suggested any change whatever in what the staff got up. This staff business always scares me. I like to put my own views down. But we got you a pretty good report.

Johnson : Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?

Russell : Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that … the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.

Johnson : I don’t either.

Russell : And so I couldn’t sign it. And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary, and I’m not going to approve of that. So I finally made them say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of them believed that that wasn’t so. And of course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one … and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head … and not even wound her … why, he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed the street! Well, a man that’s a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile. … But anyhow, that’s just a little thing, but we


Johnson What’s the net of the whole thing? What’s it say? That Oswald did it, and he did it for any reason?


Russell : Well, just that he was a general misanthropic fellow, that he had never been satisfied anywhere he was on earth … in Russia or here. And that he had a desire to get his name in history and all. I don’t think you’ll be displeased with the report. It’s too long, but it’s a … whole volume.

Johnson : Unanimous?

Russell : Yes, sir. I tried my best to get in a dissent, but they’d come round and trade me out of it by giving me a little old thread of it.

The Warren commission is the conspiracy.


A man, John Connally, being famous for one thing in his life, that which he took a bullet in the back on the day of the most famous assassination of our life time. Who went to his grave believing and knowing the truth of his above statement ,having his integrity and certainty questioned by a group of men who would rather believe a concocted bullshit story of the magic bullet, in order to make the lone gunman 3 shot balony story fit that narrative.

Even President Johnson didnt belive it, nor did Russell, a member of Conspiracy Commission .




1x Shot kennedy throat wound

1x Shot Connally wounds

1x Shot James Tague wound .

1x Shot kennedy head fatal wound .


4 shots = Second Shooter = Warren commission conspiracy and cover up.


Im suggesting the Tague shot and the Kennedy head shot were fired almost simultaniously, as per witnessed testimony [ thus creating the allusion sound of 3 shots]



22 November 1963 :
A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination . The best book ever written on the Assassination.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem was the political climate in 1963. We have a Presidential assassination so quite naturally people wondered if the Soviet Union was behind it in some way; especially when they find out about Oswald’s defection. At the time the game of ‘pick a bad guy’ was hardly one without choices. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the right-wingers (due to Kennedy’s stance on Civil Rights) and the Mafia (because of government attention) all, in theory, might have had a motive; motive doesn’t equate to guilt though. I believe that far too easily the question for some went from “was anyone else involved,” to the assumed position of “which of the above was behind the assassination.” The climate was ripe for a less trusting, more cynical (often with good reason) attitude. I think that this attitude has never really gone away. A viewpoint that ‘surely there must have been someone behind this? There must have been…mustn’t there?’ Then the search began…well intentioned at first no doubt but, as everyone should have expected, possible discrepancies because they always appear in criminal cases but what they had to deal with ended up as the most complex case ever. Every single minute point was questioned and doubted. Now, even if there was a conspiracy, not every detail could have been wrong, but this is what they were faced with. A group of people ‘conspiracy theorists’ who looked at every minor detail with the attitude ‘something is wrong here so we just have to find it.’ And find it they did. Everything was wrong. Everything led to a conclusion. Basically it’s a case of - you can look at any situation (believing that a conspiracy must have occurred) and you are certain to find ‘evidence’ of one. Or so it appears to some.

I prefer a simpler approach so again, apologies for the repetition, but I want to go through just the events before the assassination and discuss reasonable, and in some cases, inescapable conclusions.

Oswald goes to the Paine’s house a day earlier than normally (for the first time ever according to Marina and Ruth)

• This, in itself, proves nothing of course but it’s a significant fact. It’s possible of course that there was an innocent explanation but neither Marina or Ruth or anyone else since has been able to suggest one as far as I’m aware. So, at the very least, it point to something ‘different’ going on.

Oswald won’t engage in a discussion about Kennedy despite Marina’s attempts to begin one. They always discussed politics. It was his subject.

• Again, no one can suggest this as proof of guilt, but we have to see it for what it was. A situation that differed from the norm. For some reason Oswald didn’t want Kennedy in the conversation. If we add this to the first point about him arriving on the Thursday then the suggestion of something being different is accentuated.

Oswald leaves $175 for Marina and the kids.

• It’s a matter of record that Oswald was difficult to ‘squeeze’ for even small sums of cash for Marina and the children. The money that he left was a considerable sum at that time. It was pretty much all that he owned. Again, we have to add this clearly exceptional act to the above two points. Something was going on.

Oswald left his wedding ring.

• When a married man or woman takes off their wedding ring it’s either for reasons of repair/clean, that the wearer is trying to portray themselves as single, or a relationship ends. That Oswald left his wedding ring is highly significant. If there is one thing that we can safely deduce it’s that Oswald was expecting not to come back. Add this to the above and we can only say that it was a fact that something serious was going on in LHO’s life.

Oswald was seen by two people carrying a long parcel to work but no lunch pack.

• The lack of a lunch pack (for the first time) is proof that he was going to be ‘otherwise engaged’ at lunch time. The package is vital and obvious. We have to note that Oswald didn’t deny having this package. He could have said that Buell Fraser had been mistaken but he didn’t. He came up with the now famous lie about curtain rods. I don’t think that anyone believes this. They can’t believe this. So the fact that Oswald felt the need, on the spot, to come up with this lie proves one thing. That he was provably carrying a long package. No sensible person, following the evidence, could suggest that this wasn’t the rifle. So - on the day of the assassination LHO is clearly taking a rifle to work.

Oswald’s family told the police that he owned a rifle and that it was in the Paine’s garage. When the police looked, it was gone.

• So unless we conclude that it had been stolen then only one reasonable conclusion can be arrived at.

Ok…so we have followed a clear line which tells us confidently that LHO took a rifle into work on the morning of the assassination. Basically there are then 3 options, 1) Oswald killed the President alone, 2) Oswald and Grassy Knoll man killed the President or 3) Oswald didn’t fire a shot and Grassy Knoll man killed Kennedy. I only want to look at 3).

So…how is LHO persuaded to take his own rifle into the TSBD on the day of Kennedy’s visit and to leave it on the 6th floor? A gun that he could be certain had his own prints on it. Could any human be this gullible? Furthermore even if LHO was part of the plot to kill Kennedy, but he wasn’t a shooter, why did he have to put himself in the frame? Nothing about this makes sense. So what can we reasonably conclude?

1.That there was something different in Oswald that Thursday/Friday.
2. That Oswald either didn’t expect to see his wife again or not for a considerable period.
3. That Oswald carried his rifle into work.
4. That he wouldn’t have taken it in for someone else to have used.


Therefore the evidence tells us most strongly that LHO shot Kennedy.

[Fiver]

Lock, the CIA gave the photo to the WC. Somebody knows his name. Someone knows why he was there.

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.

The CIA was taking pictures of everyone going into and out of the Soviet Embassy. The picture is not Oswald.

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.

[Fiver]

Writing lists is not evidence; it is merely bald assertion....

Fingerprints are evidence. Witness testimony is evidence. Handwriting analysis is evidence. Medical examination is evidence. Every point in the lists given is evidence.

You ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.

My own view is that he was not guilty, and the attempts to denigrate his character are a back handed acknowledgement of this, in an ad hominem sort of way.

To hear you talk, you'd think that in his spare time Oswald healed the sick, raised the dead, and occasionally walked on water.

Stating facts is not denigrating Oswald. You are denigrating his mother, wife, both brothers, a sister-in-law, and at least six other people by claiming they are lying about Oswald's violent and abusive behavior.