JFK a new twist

[I'veBeenToMitreSquare]

Like I said, I'm not getting involved but I think if you re-read my earlier post you will find that I never suggested anything of the " ignorant Americans with the reality problem" kind.

I do, however, have a problem with the alleged word "snuck". It's sneaked, I think you'll find. ;-)

[I'veBeenToMitreSquare]

Look, I'm not getting into this. I have debated it ALL for years with various LNs and they simply CANNOT see the wood for the trees.

However I would like to point out that even if you're the most vehement of Lee did it sorts, he never stood trial. Therefore he is innocent in the eyes of the law.

DO YOU READ ME? INNOCENT.

Therefore I'd appreciate it if the words alleged assassin could be used more often.

[Ally]

Sorry but the idea that spreading paraffin on your cheek will extract gunk in your pores is ludicrous. By that same token you could say if he'd washed his face with a warm towel it would have "opened his pores" and pulled out all the GSR. As a woman I've tried probably every facial, pore-suck product on the planet and it is not as easy as slapping on some wax and voila all the gunk comes out. This is assuming any actually WENT into his pores in the first place, which is pure speculation and not at all proven would have occurred. Do I believe he got GSR on him when he killed Kennedy, yes. But considering he went back to his lodgings, it's not beyond the realm of possibility to conclude he'd have wiped his face.

When you consider you are basically talking about a powder 1/10 the consistency of flour and you consider how easy it is to transfer or dust off flour, the lack of GSR says nothing at all really. Then you add in the time from his killing Kennedy to his being captured and tested and his movements, the GSR test is irrelevant.

[Wickerman]

The gunpowder residue was most likely from him shooting Tippit, not from his assassination of the president.

Thats where I think he got it too. In fact this is what is claimed on the police report. That the evidence of nitrates on his right hand (exhibit #3) is consistent with that hand being used to fire a revolver.

GSR comes off fairly easily, it's not like it's embedded in the skin.

From what I've read they warm the paraffin so as to open up the pores of the skin because this is where residue can 'hide' even after being washed.

It must be admitted though, this paraffin test is not 100% reliable.

[Ally]

And, it was strongly believed at the time that this kind of weapon would have definitely expelled a great amount of gunshot residue when fired. It was fully expected that gunshot residue should be found on the cheek of the assassin. Oswalds cheek tested clean.

However, it must be pointed out that he went back to his lodging house after the assassination and could well have washed up there, even wiping his face with a dry towel would have succeeded in removing both the gunpowder from his cheek and hands from the assassination shot. The gunpowder residue was most likely from him shooting Tippit, not from his assassination of the president. GSR comes off fairly easily, it's not like it's embedded in the skin.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon-Just saw this. I have to disagree with you here. Jackie was not behind JFK's head at the head shot. At Z-312,313.ect..she was just not in the line of fire of a shot from the right front. I'm talking from the overpass all the way east down the picket fence area.

Hi Robert.
Although any shot from the Knoll would be from the right, the angle was lower than Zapruder, who was standing up high on a cement pedastle.
If not Jackie's right face, then her shoulder (depending on the frame) and then the side of the car at her back were, I think, in the line of fire.

The explosion of brain matter that appears to come from Kennedy's right front is, I think, quite consistent with a shot from behind. A shot from the Knoll should have exhausted brain matter from the left rear, not the right front.
It is unfortunate that the medical evidence is so contradictory.

[Wickerman]

My view is Lee didn't "act" at all. He shot neither JFK nor Tippit and was exactly what he said he was, a "patsy".

We cannot forget gunshot residue was identified on his hands. And, given the eyewitness evidence concerning the murder of Officer Tippit, the balance of probability is that he shot the officer.

He is definitely tied to the rifle, and apparently had assembled and supplied the rifle, but as his fingerprints were not found on the grip, trigger or stock, consistent with him firing the rifle, then it cannot be established that he did.

And, it was strongly believed at the time that this kind of weapon would have definitely expelled a great amount of gunshot residue when fired. It was fully expected that gunshot residue should be found on the cheek of the assassin. Oswalds cheek tested clean.

Its just not conclusive for him to be the assassin.

Jack Ruby's encounter with Oswald comes across as pure chance. Well yes, of course, it will always be pure chance, but that encounter in the underground garage was not his first attempt to get to Oswald.

Ruby previously tried to walk straight into the interview room while a guard was standing outside the door, and Oswald was alone. As it happens all Ruby managed to do was grasp the door handle, the officer stepped across his path, so Ruby turned away.
So it does seem apparent that Jack Ruby was intent on getting up close to Oswald for some reason.

[robert newell]

Wow. With witty replies like that, whyever would you need a logical rebuttal. Good thing too as the conspiracy set never seems to have one.

Hi Ally..I did not mean to be curt with my answer. I have no right to address you in that manner. Sorry. ...Robert

[robert newell]

I doubt any shots came from the Grassy Knoll. If you look at the Zapruder film Jackie's head is directly behind Kennedy's, any bullet shot from the Grassy Knoll that passed through Kennedy's head would also hit Jackie. As we know, that never happened.
I'm not talking about the direct line of sight from Zapruder, but a direct angle from the right & behind Zapruder.
Jackie would also have been hit.

Hi Jon ...one more from oppisite of head shot.

[robert newell]

I doubt any shots came from the Grassy Knoll. If you look at the Zapruder film Jackie's head is directly behind Kennedy's, any bullet shot from the Grassy Knoll that passed through Kennedy's head would also hit Jackie. As we know, that never happened.
I'm not talking about the direct line of sight from Zapruder, but a direct angle from the right & behind Zapruder.
Jackie would also have been hit.

Hi Jon-Just saw this. I have to disagree with you here. Jackie was not behind JFK's head at the head shot. At Z-312,313.ect..she was just not in the line of fire of a shot from the right front. I'm talking from the overpass all the way east down the picket fence area.
In a Discovery channel t.v. program 6'th floor museum curator, Gary Mack wrongly places Jackie in the limo. An error he knew quite well he commited. He was called out on it, as he knows better. I hope your not using this program as evidence......Thanks, Robert

[robert newell]

I for one would never attempt to convince anyone that Oswald was the shooter. While there are certain details which point to that conclusion, those same details may only point to his complicity in the assassination, but not to the act itself.

My long standing interest in the assassination was not necessarily what we have learned about Oswald, but the more obscure but highly volatile relationship between the Kennedy's, the Mafia & the CIA.

The CIA did collaborate with the Mafia to assassinate Castro. The Mafia did hold Kennedy responsible for the failure to regain Cuba from Castro. It had long been their base of operation until Castro booted them out.
Sam Giancana, Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello had untold number of reasons to take out their vengeance on Jack Kennedy.

There is nothing strange about Oswald being viewed as the lone assassin.
This is the interpretation we were intended to accept.
After the Warren Commission concluded its report it was uncovered that arms-length links did exist between Oswald, Ruby and the Mob. However, precise cause & effect has always eluded the investigators.

Hi Jon..Love your opening paragraph. That about sums it up. Maybe LHO complicity or LHO as patsy. I admit that sometimes it is easy for cter's to know Oswald too well and put him on a pedestal of complete innocence just through familiarity.
I am not a crazed 'everything in life is a govt. conspiracy' kinda fella. I've looked at the case many times over the years to prove to myself I wasn't having a post watergate,-the govt.- did it just because it's the govt. reaction.The evidence against Oswald just doesn't hold up. Chain of evidence should count for something, yet even that is missing in the most important of the physical evidence.
Your comment on the relationship between Kennedys,Mob,and CIA. is a good one. People seem to forget the times. The Cuban missile crisis was only a year earlier. Berlin was boiling. S.E. Asia was starting to get going. Big oil was losing millions on tax changes. W.W. two was only 18 years gone for goodness sake. (jtr wasn't even 75 years past!!).
The racist power base and lifestyle in a lot of the US was being defended and people were dying. The ANTI-CASTRO CUBANS, (purposely caps.) were a force. Looking ahead through the decade..assassination was a tool not afraid to be used.
Jon you're a beacon of light in this debate, for your open mindedness. You may not think Oswald innocent but you do not jump to any conclusion without real study. If only more people could just look at this murder with more thought towards the 'innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt' aspect of the law, and not the 'he did it because that what they tell us' view. I swear that if the obviously intelligent and hard working researchers in this group picked one area of the assassination and dedicated their study they would come to a different conclusion than the Warren comm. If not they will probably at least make a more detailed and convincing case than the official mainstream media and the tv shows that just give the official story as all fact.
You know, politics in 1963, both here in the US, and over the world, was very heavy. You needed your big boy or girl pants. JFK was no more to some than a piece to be discarded. Certain people and situations had the motives and means to play the game to their desired end. Which is what I've reached in this post!!!!

[Ally]

Yeah so all those random people on the street who point blank saw Oswald kill Tippit, clearly they were all CIA plants! It was all a set up and all, ALL of those people who witnessed Oswald killing Tippit were just part of a vast, vast conspiracy.

And Oswald pulled a gun and tried to shoot the cop in the movie theater... why now? So his only crime was that he'd snuck into a movie theater without a ticket, and he figures it's worth shooting a cop over?

Yes of course. Us ignorant Americans are the ones with the reality problem.

[Barnaby]

Wow. So many of you think there was a conspiracy, some even claiming that Oswald never fired a shot.

I would have guessed just the opposite from Casebook members who usually are skeptical and value facts over conspiracy.

No one is arguing the Royal conspiracy these days but the CIA, involved! the Commies, must-have-done-it!



Is there an inverse relationship between knowledge in a field and likelihood to believe in conspiracy theories?

[I'veBeenToMitreSquare]

Glad to hear it, that you would never try to convince anyone of Oswald's guilt I mean.

I am very depressed about Americans especially, saying either Lee did it or Lee didn't act alone. My view is Lee didn't "act" at all. He shot neither JFK nor Tippit and was exactly what he said he was, a "patsy". I say "I'm depressed about Americans especially" because they just can't seem to see any wrong in their country. "The land of the free" just can't be responsible.

Well, here is the news America, it was responsible, just as it has been for countless other coups across the world. America could and should be a wonderful country. It's people, on the whole, are lovely, polite, friendly people. The trouble is, they're patriotic to a fault. Until they stop being so blindly patriotic, they will (I should say a large minority of them) continue in their misguided belief, that Lee Oswald killed JFK and Tippit because the alternative is unthinkable.

Lee was involved in it all somehow. How? I just don't know. Probably as an undercover operative for the FBI and or CIA. He never knew that he was being set up to take a fall by the real guilty men.

It's such a shame for his two daughters. Today, as I type, is the 50th anniversary of his death. I hope before very many more anniversaries have passed, that he will have been exonerated.

That's just my opinion and no offence was meant towards any of our American friends - honestly.

[Wickerman]

Another Mob figure who is reputed to have played a prominent role is Johnny Rosselli, who was murdered in 1976.

Quote:
Jack Anderson, of the Washington Post, interviewed Roselli just before he was murdered. On 7th September, 1976, the newspaper reported Roselli as saying : "When Oswald was picked up, the underworld conspirators feared he would crack and disclose information that might lead to them. This almost certainly would have brought a massive US crackdown on the Mafia. So Jack Ruby was ordered to eliminate Oswald."