O. H. LEE

[John Iacoletti]

That's right. FACT.

C2766 was Saint Patsy's rifle.

All the LOLs in the world can't change that.

Calling something a "fact" over and over again doesn't actually make it one.

[John Iacoletti]

Exactly who was he trying to fool with the aliases? The KGB? DGI? FBI? Who?

He signed the visa, Lee Harvey Oswald. And yet went around using "O.H. Lee".

Then he used the Hiddell alias and carries around a ID card, with his photo on it, and the Hiddell name.

Who is this fooling?

The Warren Commission.

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, he just left Marina some money. And he just left the building. And he just took a bus. And he just took a cab. And he just went to a movie.

This is how he characterizes Oswald's actions. He strips it of any context and describes the actions in the most innocent of ways.

You're assuming that every random action must be meaningful, because...you know...he murdered the president.

If I was defending Oswald before a court, I'd try that too. But we're not in a courtroom and we're not supposed to be trying to get him off. We're trying to find out - as best as we can - what he was doing and what happened that day.

I agree, so why attribute malice to every single action?  This is something that the LNs seem to understand for example when talking about the DPD's many incompetencies with evidence handling.

This latter approach is bad for Oswald and it's why he rejects it.

The guy argued with his wife the night before and she refused to move back to Dallas with him.  Why do you have to make any more of it than that?  Just to try to bolster a weak case?

[John Iacoletti]

JUDGE: Mr. Iacoletti, the prosecution has rested, your closing argument, please.

JI: Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have nothing to say except LOL, I have no idea, and you must acquit because this whole trial is based on my client looking funny. The defense rests.

Two hours later....

FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Can we execute him twice ? Just to be sure.

Prosecutor HG:  Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, You must find the defendant guilty because that guy over there is bald and I'm too ashamed to show my face.  The prosecution rests.

FOREMAN OF THE JURY: LOL

[John Iacoletti]

Some Intelligence experts see evidence of Spycraft in many of the things Oswald did. Why is is so far-fetched for you to believe he had some training in espionage? The most logicial explanation is he was taught Russian by the Marines and was sent to Russia on some sort of mission.

Mr. FRITZ. You know I didn't have trouble with him. If we would just talk to him quietly like we are talking right now, we talked all right until I asked him a question that meant something, every time I asked him a question that meant something, that would produce evidence he immediately told me he wouldn't tell me about it and he seemed to anticipate what I was going to ask. In fact, he got so good at it one time, I asked him if he had had any training, if he hadn't been questioned before.

[Steve Howsley]

Trust me, I believe it.

It's my curiousity that has lead me to examine the case as thoroughly as possible.

Over the years I've read and watched everything I could regarding the assassination.

I started out believing there was a conspiracy.

Eventually, I came to my senses.

It's been a long journey.

I was 7 yrs old when the assassination happened.

I can remember getting dismissed from school and crying to my mother that I didn't want the president to be dead. I remember sitting with my friend and discussing what should be done to the assassin. My 7 year old answer was he should be put under a rocket ship and incinerated.

I remember watching my dad's reaction to Saint Patsy getting shot on national TV.

The newspapers of 11/22/63 were saved.

The saying 'everyone remembers where they were when JFK was killed' is definitely true in my case, and I've always been fascinated by the case.

At first, authors like Mark Lane and Rush to Judegement seemed pretty convincing to me.

Hidden assassins on the grassy knoll, dead witnesses, and a massive cover-up seemed reasonable; The SBT and a lone shooter didn't.

I couldn't wait to see the Groden's Zap film on Geraldo's show.

Over the years I've come to realize Mark Lane was a snakeoil salesman and Groden is a nut. Try reading High Treason if you doubt that.

Lifton is the biggest crackpot there is. Try reading Best Evidence and not laughing your ass off. 

About the only conspiracy author I've read and have any respect for is Anthony Summers. At least he doesn't ridiculously advocate that Saint Patsy was innocent and he does lay out a compelling case Saint Patsy might have been a 'spook' asset.

The HSCA acoustical findings seemed pretty solid, but that's been proven to be garbage too. Thank you forum member Steve Barber.

Frontal entry throat shot ? Easily dispelled by the use of common sense.

The more you think about it, based on the Z film and forensics, the SBT is the only way it could have happened and should be called the Single Bullet Fact.

Give me the work of Dale Myers and especially Vince Bugliosi over all the conspiracy theorists, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Forum member David Von Pein is darned good too.

Are there unknowns about the assassination despite it being the most exhaustively studied and investigated murder in history ? Yes.

But I'm quite comfortable telling you that Saint Patsy was JFK's and Tippit's murderer beyond any reasonable doubt and that there's no credible evidence of a conspiracy, either foreign or domestic.

I SAID IT  I MEANT IT  I'M HERE TO REPRESENT IT

 

Yours is a similar background to my own. I too waded through the conspiracy muck thinking it smelt sweet not realising the dishonesty of many of the most prominent of the CT authors including those you have mentioned. I agree with you regarding Summers. I see him as a honest researcher although I wouldn't use "compelling" to describe his 'spook' asset theory but I do find it interesting and worthy of consideration. Josiah Thompson's 'Six Seconds In Dallas' is another excellent effort in unbiased research.  I think Armstrong's 'Harvey and Lee' might rival Lifton's 'Best Evidence' in the crackpot awards.

Good post Howard.

[Bill Chapman]

People who know far more about National Security than you and I have opinionated that Oswald didn?t act alone. Those include:

- Father of the Warren Commission, Lyndon Johnson
- Robert Kennedy
- Sen. John Kerry

Plus a few former CIA agents like Brian Latell and Bob Baer

Those are just a few names that come to mind without researching

As far as spycraft, maybe he learned it in the Marines where he learned Russian. That?s the most likely place.

Or maybe he learned a few things living in the USSR.

Who knows a man better than his wife? Marina certainly was entertained by the killer of fascists' demonstrated delusions of grandeur.

And none of these guys were ballistics experts.. possibly not knowing that FMJ ammo is designed to pass-through-and-through flesh and remain intact.

[Jon Banks]

Who knows a man better than his wife? Marina certainly was entertained by the killer of fascists' demonstrated delusions of grandeur.

I?m sure there?s plenty she didn?t want to know about Lee and she couldn?t possibly know every person he interacted with when he wasn?t home. And Lee doesn?t strike me as the type of husband who shared everything on his mind with his wife.

She also wasn?t a useful witness on Oswald?s ownership of a rifle.

And none of these guys were ballistics experts.. possibly not knowing that FMJ ammo is designed to pass-through-and-through flesh and remain intact.

None of the people I mentioned believed there were any Shooters other than Oswald.

Johnson, RFK and others implied that Oswald was working with either the Soviets or the Cubans.

It seems notable that none of those folks with Insider knowledge of National Security looked at Oswald?s background and thought, ?there?s no way that guy could be part of a conspiracy?