Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Kennedy Anniversary Thread


Reed

Recommended Posts

35) If there were no other evidence against Oswald, the fact that the murder weapon belonged to him and that there was no other evidence or even likelihood that anyone else had come into possession of the weapon would be devastating evidence of his guilt.

Again, the rifle was identified as a Mauser.


36) A large handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape of the appropriate size to contain Oswald's disassembled Carcano rifle was found inside the sniper's nest on the sixth floor close to the three cartridge cases ejected from Oswald's rifle

Note that the one witness who saw Oswald with something (Frazier) says it couldn't have been the rifle he was carrying and another witness said Oswald wasn't carrying anything.

37) Oswald's left palm print and right index fingerprint were found on top of a sniper's nest book carton

Fingerprints on boxes where Oswald works?  Incredible!

38) Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest at the Texas Theater, contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas

So?  How does this prove Oswald shot JFK?


39) Four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.  A firearms identification expert for the Warren Commission concluded that one of the four bullets were fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons and another expert acknowledged that all four bullets "could have been" fired from the revolver


40) Four expended cartridge cases were found near the site of the Tippit killing.  Firearms experts from the WC and the HSCA concluded that all four were fired in and ejected from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.  At the time of his arrest, then, Oswald owned and had in his possession the revolver used to kill Tippit.

The entire chain of custody regarding Tippit's death is a joke.  The officer who recovered the expended cartridges refused to identify them as the ones he found because they didn't have his initials on them as they should have.  

41) Dallas police performed a paraffin test on Oswald's hands at the time of his interrogation to determine if he had recently fired a revolver and the results were positive, indicating the presence of nitrates from gunpowder residue on his hands.

Paraffin gives both false positives and false negatives in testing all the time.  

Again, even if he did shoot Tippit, it doesn't prove he shot JFK.

42) When Oswald left the Book Depository Building within minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, he left his blue jacket behind.  While not conclusive, it shows conciousness of guilt, not innocence.

Or it shows nothing.

43) When Oswald left his room, he was zipping up his jacket.  When he was arrested around 45 minutes later, he did not have a jacket.

Jacket wasn't found, this doesn't show much of anything.

44) Oswald's clipboard was found on the sixth floor of the assassination

What a shock, given that he worked there.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45) Oswald lied when he denied purchasing the Carcano rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods Company in Chicago

I'm not sure this is evidence of anything, if it actually happened.

46) When Oswald was shown a backyard photograph of himself holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, he lied and said it was not he holding the rifle, that someone had superimposed his face on someone else's body

While I tend toward the "they are real" side on the backyard photos, an awful lot of credible people have shown that they are possibly fake.  There is unquestionably a lot of "reasonable doubt" when it comes to the photos.  And, even if real, they don't prove Oswald shot anybody.


47) He also lied when he said he had never seen the photograph before, even though handwriting experts concluded it was Oswald's handwriting on the back of a copy of the photograph


48) Oswald lied about living at Neely Street

Not sure what, if anything, this would prove.

49) Oswald denied telling Wesley Frazier that the reason he came to Irving on Thursday was to get curtain rods for his Dallas apartment

So what?  Whatever he was carrying - or not carrying - was too small for a rifle anyway.

50) He also denied putting any kind of long package or bag on the backseat of Frazier's car on the morning of the assassination, saying he only brought a cheese sandwich and some fruit to work with him

See #49.

51) Oswald told Fritz that the only thing he brought to work on the 22nd was his lunch but we know from Frazier that this was the only day he noticed that Oswald did not bring his lunch

No chance at all that he brought the lunch in the package he was carrying.  Or maybe he brought nothing.  None of this means anything anyway.

52) Oswald told Fritz that at the time the president was shot, he was having lunch with Junior Jarman but Jarman testified that he did not have lunch with Oswald, that he ate alone

He was seen 10 minutes before the assassination and 90 seconds after, not out of breath.  A woman on the stairs during the shooting didn't see him go past.  You think maybe Jarman, as a black man in the South, might have been a little bit worried about being associated with "the killer"?

53) Oswald told Fritz that he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles

So what?  JFK was shot with a rifle, remember?
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can him attempting to assassinate General Walker and killing Tippit have nothing to do with whether or not he killed Kennedy?

 

Attempting to kill Walker (which Mrs. Oswald testified to and still stands by) showed he wanted to get famous killing someone important. 

 

Killing Tippit: What, he just randomly decided to kill some cop. Oh, and at the same time he's rushing around and someone just happened to shoot the president from where he worked half an hour earlier?

 

As for stuff like him going to Marina's place a day earlier to get his gun/leaving right after the shooting and rushing home to get his gun/ the non stop lies to the cops. Yeah, on their own they aren't damning but put the pieces together. The guy is as guilty as sin. Innocent people don't act like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can him attempting to assassinate General Walker and killing Tippit have nothing to do with whether or not he killed Kennedy?

 

Attempting to kill Walker (which Mrs. Oswald testified to and still stands by) showed he wanted to get famous killing someone important. 

 

Killing Tippit: What, he just randomly decided to kill some cop. Oh, and at the same time he's rushing around and someone just happened to shoot the president from where he worked half an hour earlier?

 

As for stuff like him going to Marina's place a day earlier/leaving right after the shooting and rushing home to get his gun/ the non stop lies to the cops. Yeah, on their own they aren't damning but put the pieces together. The guy is as guilty as sin. Innocent people don't act like this.

There's more than a little evidence that suggests Oswald thought/knew he was being setup - hence the quick exit from the TSBD - and that he thought Tippit was there to kill him. 

 

However, given that you can't even prove he killed Tippit or tried to kill Walker, how are those at all evidence of anything?  If somebody commits crime A they had to have committed crime B?  That's not exactly how the law - or logic - works.

 

Remember what Oswald said while in custody?  "I am just a patsy".  If you look at it through that lens AND accept every odd detail of his movements as truth, they also start to make sense.

 

Again, though, you've got no explanation for how Oswald was seen by two people coming into the TSBD and both have him *NOT* carrying a rifle.

 

Regarding the non-stop lies to the cops, I would ask this: how do we know that Fritz is even telling the truth?  We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the police dept destroyed* and lost evidence in their possession, so are we really trusting them? 

 

How do you reconcile the wildly different descriptions of Kennedy's wounds by the Dallas doctors (hole in back of head, entrance wound in front right, entrance wound in throat) against the Bethesda autopsy (massive hole in side of head)?

 

How do you reconcile that the autopsy photos show JFK's forehead and eye socket to be essentially undamaged while the autopsy x-rays show multiple fractures and bone missing?

 

How do you reconcile the autopsy photos showing the back of JFK's head being completely intact while the Dallas doctors all say that wasn't the case?

 

At least one person has stated the autopsy was filmed.  Where is it?

 

How do you reconcile the autopsy saying that JFK's brain weighed 1500 grams, the same as an intact male brain?  How about the fact that the brain is missing entirely from evidence?

 

* - the most obvious, proveable example is a photo taken of the outside of General Walker's home.  In the version in evidence and widely circulated, the license plate of a car in the photo has been cut out.  A decade after the assassination, Jesse Curry published a book on the assassination.  In that book, he published a photo of his desk with evidence strewn all over it.  On the desk?  The completely undamaged version of the Walker photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: The autopsy discrepancy, that is interesting. But one possible explanation is that they "tidied" up the corpse for the family if they wanted to see him before he was buried (Clint Hill said Mrs Kennedy opened the coffin to get a lock of his hair, so that did happen) or so the official pictures, when they inevitably came out, wouldn't be so gruesome. I don't know about that.

 

As far as Oswald being framed...once you say the Dallas police were in on it, there's the question of, well, who paid them off? And how were they able to get away it, without anyone saying a peep for 50 years?

 

And isn't it convenient that Oswald helped them out by acting so guilty throughout this?

 

What would this vast conspiracy have done if he'd decided to actually go out in the crowd to see Kennedy when he rode by, thus ensuring his alibi? Or hung out on the ground floor? Or been actually having lunch with two or three verifiable witness throughout the entire thing? (and yeah, I don't buy that Jarman denied they had lunch together because he was scared of being associated with a criminal)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: The autopsy discrepancy, that is interesting. But one possible explanation is that they "tidied" up the corpse for the family if they wanted to see him before he was buried (Clint Hill said Mrs Kennedy opened the coffin to get a lock of his hair, so that did happen) or so the official pictures, when they inevitably came out, wouldn't be so gruesome. I don't know about that.

 

As far as Oswald being framed...once you say the Dallas police were in on it, there's the question of, well, who paid them off? And how were they able to get away it, without anyone saying a peep for 50 years?

 

And isn't it convenient that Oswald helped them out by acting so guilty throughout this?

 

What would this vast conspiracy have done if he'd decided to actually go out in the crowd to see Kennedy when he rode by, thus ensuring his alibi? Or hung out on the ground floor? Or been actually having lunch with two or three verifiable witness throughout the entire thing? (and yeah, I don't buy that Jarman denied they had lunch together because he was scared of being associated with a criminal)?

Keep in mind as we go back a few pages, I never said Oswald didn't participate - just that it was more than one shooter.  I can still be persuaded Oswald fired a gun that day.  What I'm saying is that the evidence isn't anywhere near as airtight as you or Vince Bugliosi thinks.  Especially when you're relying on palm prints found after Oswald was already dead but not when first tested, an "eyewitness" who can't pick Oswald out of a lineup, an autopsy that doesn't match the body, and so on.  An honest, open-minded, impartial jury simply wouldn't convict based on this "evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the "back and to the left" was where the shot came from, the shot of jfk's forehead exploding was an exit wound it came from behind.  entrance gunshot wounds < exit gunshot wounds.

Every doctor in Dallas said the big wound was in the back of the head and identified the front as the direction from which the fatal shot came.

And here's where we arrive at a problem - the autopsy photos show an intact back of the head - something no doctor in Dallas saw.

 

 

One nurse said that part of JFK's brain was coming out on the stretcher as they brought him into Parkland and that parts of his skull were holding on by mere skinflaps.  Also, large portions of his hair from the back had been blown off when the bullet exited his head.  In short, the entire right side of his head should have been nearly gone or severely compromised.

 

Could JFK have been 'cleaned up' for the government autopsy and family viewing?  Sure, it's possible.

 

Perhaps we'll learn more in 2017, because many of the documents surrounding the case are supposed to be released.  But that raises two questions--1) Why wait so long to release them and 2) Who's to say that they haven't been altered over the past 50 years?  And there's no guarantee the docs will be released--someone in high standing would easily protest that.

 

Even if they do finally let the public see these papers, that's not everything from that day.  Jacqueline Kennedy's pink and navy suit--splattered with her husband's brain matter--won't be revealed until 2013, and only then if some Kennedy heir agrees to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we'll learn more in 2017, because many of the documents surrounding the case are supposed to be released.  But that raises two questions--1) Why wait so long to release them and 2) Who's to say that they haven't been altered over the past 50 years?  And there's no guarantee the docs will be released--someone in high standing would easily protest that.

Maybe Cuba and/or the Soviet Union was behind it and LBJ decided to sit on the information because the alternative was being obligated to engage in nuclear war. And they thought, "Hey, it's not like Castro could possibly still be around in 2017."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Cuba and/or the Soviet Union was behind it and LBJ decided to sit on the information because the alternative was being obligated to engage in nuclear war. And they thought, "Hey, it's not like Castro could possibly still be around in 2017."

Ya know, LBJ's attorney says LBJ did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides becoming President (which just 4 years later wasn't a driving point for him as he didn't even bother to run for re-election), what is LBJs motivation for offing Kennedy?

Sometimes you find that what you wanted isn't what you want.  That was the case with LBJ and the presidency.  Vietnam and all that went with it destroyed him.  His health was a mess by the end of his term in 1969.  But that stuff wouldn't have been in place in 1963 and would not have been a factor.

 

So what would his motivation have been?  Power.  Hatred of the Kennedys.  And he was something of a sociopath.  Let's not forget that there's strong evidence that he ordered a murder on his behalf several years prior.  LBJ was a dirty, crooked character.

 

Now, that's not to say he did it.  Just saying that his own attorney says he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Castro:  they tried to kill him and outlasted them all by decades.  There's something amazing about that.

 

As for LBJ, it was clear that he and JFK didn't get along. RFK hated him even more. LBJ only became VP because Papa Joe insisted on it--because he knew LBJ could get them Texas in the election, and they would need it.  Also, it seems that LBJ had some inkling about JFK's own health issues and wasn't above using it against the Kennedys.

 

It's believed that JFK was going to drop LBJ from his presidential ticket in 1964 and that JFK was just flat-out screaming at LBJ in front of others by 1963.  LBJ was a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them. If he got pushed off the national ticket, his political over was over and no White House for him.  And it wasn't going to end like that for him, not if he could help it.  Especially at the hands of the scrawny Kennedy brothers.

 

Considering that LBJ basically killed himself with excessive smoking, drinking, and bad eating after leaving office, it does cause one to ask if power is worth it.

 

All the answers are probably in J. Edgar Hoover's personal files--but I assume they were all destroyed after his death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all remember where we were when she first showed up on MTV.

 

We are talking about that right?

 

I remember when she was still "The Virgin Kennedy" on KROQ in L.A. Now she's back doing mornings in L.A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he desires the Presidency enough to have a man killed, but is so distraught over the loss of life in Vietnam that he doesn't bother at attempting another turn? Sorry but I don't buy it for a second.

Of course, I also think LBJ is 10x the President JFK could ever have hoped to be, so maybe there's a slight bias here. But most likely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he desires the Presidency enough to have a man killed, but is so distraught over the loss of life in Vietnam that he doesn't bother at attempting another turn? Sorry but I don't buy it for a second.

Of course, I also think LBJ is 10x the President JFK could ever have hoped to be, so maybe there's a slight bias here. But most likely not.

 

Hes 10x the President cause about 2/3s of the stuff he got done was on the back of JFK's memory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he desires the Presidency enough to have a man killed, but is so distraught over the loss of life in Vietnam that he doesn't bother at attempting another turn?

 

Johnson's reputation was in shambles by 1968.  Running for another term would have been tough sledding.  And that's not factoring in his failing health.

 

The loss of life in Vietnam had nothing to do with it, but rather how badly things turned out for him regarding the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So he desires the Presidency enough to have a man killed, but is so distraught over the loss of life in Vietnam that he doesn't bother at attempting another turn? Sorry but I don't buy it for a second.

Of course, I also think LBJ is 10x the President JFK could ever have hoped to be, so maybe there's a slight bias here. But most likely not.

 

Hes 10x the President cause about 2/3s of the stuff he got done was on the back of JFK's memory

 

 

No, it wasn't.  JFK and RFK only started to look into passing Civil Rights legislation in the Summer of '63, because prior to that they were openly admitting such a move could cost him re-election. Johnson said to hell with the electoral consequences and went through with it regardless. Huge difference.

 

 

 

So he desires the Presidency enough to have a man killed, but is so distraught over the loss of life in Vietnam that he doesn't bother at attempting another turn?

 

Johnson's reputation was in shambles by 1968.  Running for another term would have been tough sledding.  And that's not factoring in his failing health.

 

The loss of life in Vietnam had nothing to do with it, but rather how badly things turned out for him regarding the situation.

 

 

As tough a sledding as successfully orchestrating the assassination of the previous President? He was willing to expel effort for the biggest conspiracy to ever happen in the country, but wasn't up for seizing the office legally 4 years later? Come on.

 

That last sentence makes zero sense, so I have no idea how to respond to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...